HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1907-2006 (2)
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
DAVID DECK : CP-21-CR-1907-2006
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
TRACI M. GEORGIADIS : CP-21-CR-1908-2006
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
JON GEORGIADIS : CP-21-CR-1913-2006
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
OLER, J., June 19, 2007.
In this criminal case, the Commonwealth has filed an appeal to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court from an order suppressing evidence in the form of an
audio tape recording of a telephone conversation made by one party without the
1
consent of the other party. The facts underlying, and rationale for, the ruling
were contained in an opinion which accompanied the ruling, dated April 23, 2007.
The grounds for the Commonwealth’s appeal from the suppression ruling
have been stated as follows:
I. Did the suppression court err in its legal conclusion that
the tape recording is required to be suppressed under the
Pennsylvania Wiretap Act?
1
Commonwealth’s Notice of Appeal, filed May 21, 2007.
II. In the alternative, should an exception under the
Pennsylvania Wiretap Act to be extended to a teenage assault
victim where that victim is trying to convince the authorities
2
she is telling the truth about her mother’s boyfriend?
To the extent that the court’s earlier opinion did not address the second
ground for appeal set forth by the Commonwealth—premised apparently upon a
contention that the judiciary should construe the statute in question to contain an
exception not expressed in its language—this supplementary opinion in support of
the suppression ruling is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
Procedure 1925(a).
DISCUSSION
“When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the
letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” Act of
Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, §3, 1 Pa. C.S. §1921(b). Courts generally do not have the
power to “ignore clear statutory language in pursuit of a statute’s alleged
purpose.” Department of Transportation v. Taylor, 576 Pa. 622, 628, 841 A.2d
108, 111 (2004). Courts have “no power to insert words into [a statute] if the
legislature has failed to supply them.” In re: Upper Chichester Township, 52 Pa.
Commw. Ct. 121, 125, 415 A.2d 1250, 1252 (1980).
Thus, the judiciary is not free to find an exception in a statute which the
legislature did not provide. See, e.g., Taterka v. Bureau of Professional and
Occupational Affairs, 882 A.2d 1040 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005).
BY THE COURT,
_________________
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
2
Commonwealth’s Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed may 29, 2007.
2
Jamie M. Keating, Esquire
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for the Commonwealth
Mathew R. Gover, Esquire
NEALON, GOVER & PERRY
2411 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorney for Defendant David Deck
George Mantangos, Esquire
831 Market Street
P.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorney for Defendants Traci M. Georgiadis and Jon Georgiadis
3