Summary
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Commonwealth may not take an interlocutory appeal as of right under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 311(d) from a pretrial order admitting defense evidence. The court distinguished appeals involving suppression or exclusion of Commonwealth evidence and explained that the Commonwealth may instead seek permission for an interlocutory appeal under Rule 1311 and 42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b). The order of the Superior Court was reversed and the matter remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) permits the Commonwealth to take an interlocutory appeal as of right from a pretrial order denying its motion in limine to exclude defense evidence.
- Whether the Superior Court properly relied on Commonwealth v. Pitts and Commonwealth v. Allburn in concluding that such an appeal was authorized.
Holdings
- The Commonwealth's right to take an interlocutory appeal as of right under Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) does not extend to a pretrial ruling admitting or allowing defense evidence.
- The Superior Court erred in relying on Pitts and Allburn because neither case decided whether Rule 311(d) permits an appeal from a ruling admitting defense evidence.
Key quotations
“For the reasons that follow, we hold that it may not.” (at 872)
“For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Commonwealth's right to interlocutory appeals does not extend to appealing the admission of defense evidence.” (at 876)
“Both interests are protected when we limit the application of Rule 311(d) to those "circumstances provided by law" in which a pretrial ruling results in the suppression, preclusion or exclusion of Commonwealth evidence.” (at 877)
Factual background
On July 5, 1997, Richard Cosnek was involved in a high-speed car chase in Erie that ended when he failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with Joseph Trigilio's vehicle, killing Trigilio. Cosnek was charged with several offenses, including involuntary manslaughter and vehicular homicide. Before trial, the Commonwealth sought to exclude defense accident-reconstruction testimony that the chase, rather than Cosnek's failure to stop, caused the accident; after a Frye hearing, the trial court denied the motion.
Procedural history
Cosnek was charged after a fatal automobile accident. The trial court denied the Commonwealth's motion to exclude defense accident-reconstruction testimony and accepted the Commonwealth's certification that admission of the evidence would terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution. The Superior Court reversed, relying on Commonwealth v. Pitts and Commonwealth v. Allburn. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded.
Remand instructions
The Superior Court's order was reversed, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.