![]() ♦ We begin by noting that the Commonwealth has raised questions of law in this appeal and, therefore, our standard of review is de novo, and the scope of our review is plenary. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT HELD THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION CONTINUED TO RUN DURING THE TIME WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS CONTINUOUSLY ABSENT FROM THE COMMONWEALTH?1 (Commonwealth s Brief at 3). § 5552 WHERE THE COMMONWEALTH COMMENCED PROSECUTON WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM -3- J.S14032/04 COMMISSION OF MAJOR OFFENSES BY FILING A JOHN DOE COMPLAINT WITH THE BEST AVAILABLE DESCRIPTION OF THE DEFENDANT AND THE WARRANT WAS EXECUTED WITHOUT UNREASONABLE DELAY AFTER THE FULL NAME AND LOCATION OF THE DEFENDANT WAS ASCERTAINED BY THE COMMONWEALTH? 2. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DISMISSING THE CASE UNDER 42 PA.C.S. ![]() ♥ The Commonwealth raises the following issues for our review: 1. The trial court dismissed the criminal complaint against Appellee as a consequence, and the instant appeal followed. The parties argued this motion on July 7, 2003, after which the trial court granted Appellee s motion on the basis that the statute of limitations had expired prior to the amendment of the criminal complaint and warrant. Subsequently, Appellee filed a Motion to Quash Criminal Complaint for Failure to Timely File Under 42 PA.C.S.A. ♤ On October 23, 2002, Appellee arrived in Pennsylvania from Florida pursuant to a detainer which the Commonwealth filed under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. In addition, the complaint and warrant contained Appellee s location, as the Commonwealth had learned that Appellee was then an inmate in a Florida correctional institution. Within mere days thereafter, and just as soon as the information became known as a result of their rapidly-developing investigation, the complaint and warrant were amended to reflect Appellee s full name, Stephen Laventure. The Commonwealth set forth all the information it had concerning Steve, including his approximate age and race. 2- J.S14032/04 ♣ Subsequently, on July 29, 2002, the Commonwealth issued a criminal complaint and warrant for Christopher J. Further, Kluge witnessed Shope place five hundred dollars in the business cash register as advance payment for Steve to set the fire. Shope, had directed him to take this action so that they could collect insurance. Kluge also revealed that his former business partner, Russell D. Kluge confessed that he had poured a flammable substance within the structure and had then left the rear door open so that a white male in his thirties, known only to him as Steve, could torch the structure. In spite of an intense investigation including interviews with insurance agents, arson experts and individuals familiar with the particular business in question, the Commonwealth s investigation only began to bear fruit in early May 2002, when one Christopher J. On August 2, 1997, a fire was intentionally set at a structure formerly operated as a business known as Instant Amish, located at 3452 Old Philadelphia Pike, Intercourse, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. ♢ The salient facts and procedural history are as follows. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court s order and reinstate the criminal complaint against Appellee. We hold that the criminal complaint and warrant filed were sufficiently specific, under the facts and circumstances in this case, to toll the applicable statutes of limitation. We believe this case presents an opportunity for this Court to adopt a clear standard, one which will utilize a practical approach which considers both what the Commonwealth knew or should have known at J.S14032/04 the time of the issuance of a John Doe criminal complaint and warrant, as well as whether the complaint and warrant were subsequently amended in a timely fashion, due to a rapidly-developing investigation. Pennsylvania case law has not yet adequately addressed the issue of how to assess the constitutional sufficiency of John Doe warrants. Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County which dismissed a criminal complaint against Appellee, Stephen Laventure, because the trial court deemed the complaint and warrant at issue untimely. ***Petition for Reargument Filed August 10, 2004*** OPINION BY McCAFFERY, J.: Filed: J***Petition for Reargument Denied October 8, 2004*** ¶ 1 In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether a John Doe criminal complaint and warrant are sufficient to toll a statute of limitations when the complaint and warrant were amended within approximately one week of issuance to reflect the actual identity of the alleged perpetrator. 0027 CR 2003 BEFORE: STEVENS, McCAFFERY, and OLSZEWSKI, JJ. 12 Appeal from the Order Entered JIn the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County CRIMINAL at No. STEPHEN LAVENTURE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. J.S14032/04 2004 PA Super 296 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |