Commonwealth v. Orie, 31 WM 2011 (Pa. 2011)

Per Curiam Opinion:

Defendant, a Pennsylvania Senator, was tried for theft of services, conflicts of interest, criminal conspiracy, and evidence tampering.  After the trial had closed and while the jury was deliberating, the Commonwealth discovered that several of the documents entered into evidence by the defense had been forged.  The trial court took held a hearing to determine whether the documents had, in fact, been forged, and concluded that they had.  Rather than exclude the documents after-the-fact and inform the jury of the defendant's deceit, the trial court declared - at the defendant's request - a mistrial.

The Commonwealth re-charged the defendant.  She moved for a dismissal under a theory of double jeopardy.  Her pre-trial motion was denied, and she appealed.  The Superior Court denied relief, and defendant petitioned for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.


First, the Supreme Court noted that defendant's appeal of a pre-trial decision regarding double jeopardy presented a procedural issue of first impression.  It concluded that:

a defendant, who has had a pre-trial double jeopardy challenge dismissed as frivolous, may seek preliminary appellate review of that conclusion as of right.  We also direct that the stay must first be sought in the court where the Bolden appeal would lie if there had been no finding of frivolousness -- the Superior Court in most noncapital cases.

The Court ultimately located the proper vehicle for appellate review as a "petition for review” under Pa.R.A.P. 1501.

Because the Superior Court had previously - incorrectly - denied the defendant's request for review, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to that court for further proceedings consistent with their per curiam order.

Read the Opinion.