Commonwealth v. Anthony Luckey

Summary

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed the Commonwealth’s interlocutory appeal from an order requiring disclosure of a complainant’s new residential address to defense counsel and permitting an in-person interview at her home. The court held that the order was appealable under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 311(d) because it had the practical effect of terminating the prosecution. It vacated the discovery order and remanded, concluding that disclosure of the address was neither shown to be material to the defense nor reasonable under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 573, particularly where a neutral interview location was available.

Holdings

1. The interlocutory appeal was reviewable because the discovery order had the practical effect of excluding evidence necessary to the Commonwealth's prosecution and substantially impairing or terminating the prosecution.
2. The trial court abused its discretion by ordering disclosure of the complainant's new residential address and requiring a home interview because the defense and the trial court failed to show that disclosure was both material to preparation of the defense and reasonable under the circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commonwealth's certification under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 311(d) made the pretrial discovery order appealable as of right.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 573(B)(2)(a)(i) by ordering disclosure of the complainant's new residential address and requiring an interview at her home without a showing that the disclosure was material to the defense and reasonable.
3. Whether a secure, neutral-location interview offered by the Commonwealth provided an adequate and less intrusive means of facilitating defense discovery.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded