(J-114-2007)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, EASTERN DISTRICT, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JAMES W. VANDIVNER,
Appellant

1 Disposition of this appeal was delayed by the Commonwealth's initial decision not to file a brief, notwithstanding, that this is a capital direct appeal in a matter that the District Attorney thought warranted the death penalty. Such a practice is unacceptable. By order dated October 19, 2007, this Court directed the Commonwealth to file a responsive brief, and the Commonwealth has complied.

  For the full case click here

J. 547009/08
2009 PA Super 30
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JOHN ARTHUR STUTLER,
Appellant

5  We note that that we do not have the benefit of a position in opposition to Stutler's argument on appeal from the Commonwealth as the Fayette County District Attorney's Office [Fayette County DA'']declined to file a brief in this case. This Court directed our Prothonotary to contact the lower court concerning the lack of a brief for the Commonwealth. The Fayette County DA informed this Court that the Commonwealth elected not to provide the Court with the benefit of its analysis and views of the legal issues presented by Stutler, and is relying on the Opinion of the lower court. The Fayette County DA has shown a pattern of declining to file a brief on behalf of the Commonwealth. The choice to not file a brief on behalf of the Commonwealth significantly increases the difficulty of our role on appeal.

¶26 For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the error committed by the lower court in this case was not harmless error. First, the admission of Stutler's inculpatory statement prejudiced him, and the prejudice was not de minimis. See Miles, 846 A.2d at 137. Second, Stutler's statement was not ''merely cumulative of other, untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence.” Id. at 138. Finally, we cannot conclude that ''the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence” of Stutler's guilt ''was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error (in admitting Stutler's statement) was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict. '' Id.

¶ 27 Because Stutler’s statement made in connection with a plea bargain was improperly admitted pursuant to Rule 410(a)(4) and was prejudicial to him, he is entitled to a new trial. Thus, we need not decide his sufficiency challenge in this appeal.

¶ 28 Judgment of sentence vacated; case remanded for new trial in accordance with this Opinion; Superior Court jurisdiction relinquished.

  For the full case click here

J. 540026/01
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
JOSEPH MICHAEL MUCKO
Appellee

On January 18, 2001, this Court directed, by Per Curiam Order, that the Commonwealth file its brief by February 27, 2001. The

Commonwealth however, did not file its brief until March 13, 2001.

The Commonwealth’s failure to file a proper notice of appeal and to comply with this Court's Order provides sufficient ground for dismissing the appeal. Moreover, the Commonwealth has demonstrated well its disregard for the Orders of both the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County and the Pennsylvania Superior Court. We, nevertheless, address the merits of the Commonwealth's appeal.

J. 540026/01 Based upon the foregoing, we find the trial court's finding that the Commonwealth failed to act with due diligence and that appellee did not waive his Rule 1100 rights to be supported by the record.

Order affirmed. Todd, J., concurs in the result. Judgment Entered: Signed Eleanor R. Valecko Deputy Prothonotary Date: July 25, 2001

  For the full case click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA,
Appelle
v.
RICHARD PAES,
Appellant

¶ 14 Order reversed. Judgment of sentence vacated. Jurisdiction is relinquished.4

4 The Commonwealth chose not to submit an appellate brief to support its position. We cannot strongly enough express our dismay as to this decision. The district attorney, as an advocate for the people of this Commonwealth, has an obligation to zealously argue its position. It cannot do so when it chooses not to submit an advocate's brief.

  For the full case click here