Commonwealth v. Brown

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that a petitioner invoking the PCRA’s newly discovered facts exception must support the exception with evidence that would be admissible at a PCRA hearing. The Court further held that a third-party confession to another person may be admissible and may constitute a newly discovered fact under the PCRA. It reversed the Superior Court’s contrary order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing concerning the exception.

Holdings

1. A third-party confession to another person may serve as the predicate fact for the newly discovered facts exception to the PCRA's one-year time bar.
2. A confession made by the same third party to a different person at a different time is a distinct fact for purposes of Section 9545(b)(1)(ii), not merely a newly discovered source for a previously known fact.
3. Brown was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because his petition alleged genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Tusweet Smith confessed to Dorsett and supported those allegations with witness certifications and other documentary evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a third-party confession to another person may constitute a newly discovered fact under the PCRA's timeliness exception in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii).
2. Whether a PCRA petitioner alleging a newly discovered fact is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to prove the predicate fact with admissible evidence when the petition alleges genuine issues of material fact.
3. Whether a separate confession made by the same third party to a different person at a different time is a new fact rather than merely a new source for a previously known fact.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded