Commonwealth v. DeJohn, 486 Pa. 32

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed Jill V. DeJohn's convictions for third-degree murder and attempted theft by extortion. The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the murder conviction, but that the appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and could challenge records obtained through invalid subpoenas. It reversed the murder judgment of sentence while affirming the judgment of sentence for attempted theft by extortion.

Holdings

1. The circumstantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and together with reasonable inferences, was sufficient to establish DeJohn's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Article I, Section 8, of the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a bank customer's legitimate expectation of privacy in records pertaining to the customer's affairs kept by the bank.
3. Because the bank records were obtained through invalid subpoenas issued without judicial process while no proceeding was pending, DeJohn had standing to challenge their admission and the records should have been suppressed.
4. Admission of the unlawfully obtained bank evidence was not harmless as to the murder conviction because the evidence was introduced to establish motive.
5. The attempted theft by extortion conviction was affirmed because the illegally seized check was not introduced at that trial, DeJohn did not object to the reference to the check, and she did not advance a fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree argument on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain DeJohn's third-degree murder conviction.
2. Whether DeJohn had a reasonable expectation of privacy under Article I, Section 8, of the Pennsylvania Constitution in bank records pertaining to her affairs.
3. Whether bank records obtained through invalid subpoenas issued without judicial process should have been suppressed.
4. Whether admission of the unlawfully obtained bank records was harmless as to the murder conviction.
5. Whether the attempted theft by extortion conviction should be disturbed when the seized check was not introduced at that nonjury trial and no fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree claim was pursued on appeal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded