Commonwealth v. George (2012 PA Super 32)

Link to the full text of the Opinion.

SUMMARY: The Commonwealth appeals the trial court's order dismissing two counts of criminal organization and one count of conspiracy to deliver cocaine, which came after George had pleaded guilty to a charge arising from related conduct.  The Superior Court found that the trial court had not erred in disposing of the case pursuant to the compulsory joinder statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 110.


George was arrested in 2007 and charged with three counts of delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine).  In exchange for leniency and the promise that no new charges would be filed, George cooperated with investigators in identifying his suppliers.  George ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to deliver.  George provided information to investigators as part of his cooperation, but invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to avoid testifying before a state-wide investigating grand jury that was looking into the drug ring.

The grand jury eventually recommended charges against twenty-two defendants, including George, and George was subsequently charged in 2010 with criminal organization and conspiracy to deliver for his contact prior to his 2007 arrest.  George filed a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the charges violated the compulsory joinder statute.  The trial court granted relief.  In its appeal to the Superior Court, the Commonwealth argued that the compulsory joinder requirement had not been triggered, focusing on 18 Pa.C.S. § 110(1)(ii).  The Court held this statute contains four elements that must be met to bar prosecution:

• (1) the former prosecution must have resulted in an acquittal or conviction;
• (2) the current prosecution is based upon the same criminal conduct or arose from the same criminal episode as the former prosecution;
• (3) the prosecutor was aware of the instant charges before the commencement of the trial on the former charges; and
• (4) the current offense occurred within the same judicial district as the former prosecution.

The Court found that only prongs (2) and (3) were at issue.  In reviewing the merits, the Court found that there was a sufficient logical and temporal link between the two sets of charges--including that the information provided to the grand jury that formed the basis for George's indictment was drawn directly from George's statement while cooperating--and that the Commonwealth was aware of the facts underlying the charges when George plead guilty in 2007.  Unsurprisingly, the Superior Court rejected the Commonwealth's appeal.

RESULT: Order Affirmed (Commonwealth's appeal fails), 3-0.
JUDGES:  Bowes, Colville, and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Read the opinion by Bowes, J.