No. 1351 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 78 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/23/2008
Appeal from the order entered July 2, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Criminal at No. CP-40-MD-0000717-2007.
Before: GANTMAN, ALLEN and HUDOCK, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the order of the trial court directing it to prosecute a private criminal complaint that the district attorney’s office had previously disapproved. We reverse.
“Additionally, there was a collective belief that [***] was attempting to use the Office of the District Attorney in an effort to redress grievances for which there are adequate civil remedies.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 7. It was further concluded that the case lacked prosecutorial merit due to the potential difficulty in sustaining a conviction. Assistant District Attorney Doherty concurred with this assessment, and, therefore, ordered that the charges against [***] be withdrawn.....
......the court includes the following exchange:
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, we
have to object. The standard [of] review in this matter is
abuse of discretion.
THE COURT: I think you abused your discretion.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Well, they have to
show there’s been bad faith [or] [un]constitutionality.
THE COURT: I think it’s there.
Thank you.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: The Superior Court
case, Your Honor, basically says that when a determination
has been made by the District Attorney’s Office that the
victim has adequate remedies available to them, that’s
more than a sufficient policy reason to refuse to prosecute a
private criminal complaint.
THE COURT: I understand. The Commonwealth will
proceed with the prosecution. It’s ridiculous what happened
in this case. Every time [Romanoski] did something wrong,
you prosecuted him, he moved sideways, you prosecuted him.
He got defrauded, this lady actually defrauded
him. It was improper what she did. She actually sent false
information back to the insurance company to get this check
in her name when it shouldn’t have been done.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, they
had a contract, and that means she breached the contract.
THE COURT: She violated the law.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: We’d have to show...
No comments:
Post a Comment