Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-2243 criminalCOMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · vs. : 99-2243 CRIMINAL JOHN E. STONE, JR. : IN RF.: MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATIO.N. BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this ~_~d day of May, 2000, the motion of the defendant to dismiss/quash the information is DENIED. B Y THE COURT, KTA. Hess, J. Jaime Keating, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney Karl Rominger, Esquire For the Defendant :rim COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : 99-2243 CRIMINAL : JOHN E. STONE, JR. : IN RE: MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER In this case, the defendant seeks to quash the information filed against him alleging that the information is defective in that it fails to contain a "to wit" clause or statement of any facts upon which the charge is based. The Commonwealth has, in fact, filed an information which merely recites the statutory language that comprises each charged offense. There is no factual 1 statement. The requirements for a sufficient information are set out in Pa.R. Crim. P. 225. An information must be signed by an attorney for the Commonwealth and "shall be valid and sufficient in law if it contains'" (1) a caption showing that the prosecution is carried on in the name of and by the authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (2) the name of the defendant, or if the defendant is unknown, a description of the defendant as nearly as may be; (3) the date when the offense is alleged to have been committed if the precise date is known, and the day of the week if it is an essential element of the offense charged, provided that if the precise This appears to be the practice in all criminal cases in this county. 99-2243 CRIMINAL date is not known or if the offense is a continuing one, an allegation that it was committed on or about any date within the period fixed by the statute of limitations shall be sufficient; (4) the county where the offense is alleged to have been committed; (5) a plain and concise statement of the essential elements of the offense substantially the same as or cognate to the offense alleged in the complaint;2 and (6) a concluding statement that "all of which is against the Act of Assembly and the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth." Pa.R. Crim. P. 225 (b). The rules provide, elsewhere, that a complaint, the initial charging document in a criminal case, must contain, among other things: (6)(a) in a court case, a summary of the facts sufficient to advise the defendant of the nature of the offense charged, but neither the evidence nor the statute allegedly violated need be cited in the complaint .... As can be seen from the rules, one requirement of a complaint is a summary of the facts whereas an information requires a statement of the essential elements of the offense. There is, in our mind, a clear distinction in these concepts. We have no quarrel with the defendant's due process 2 The brief, filed on behalf of the defendant, quotes Rule 225(b)(5) as requiring a "plain and concise statement of the essential elements of the facts." We are satisfied that the misstatement is not intentional but rather, perhaps, a manifestation of wishful thinking. 99-2243 CRIMINAL arguments that an accused has the right to know the nature of the charges against him. It would appear to be the case in Pennsylvania, however, that it is the complaint and not the information which sets the factual stage for the prosecution. As noted in Com. v. Taylor, 324 Pa. Super. 420, 471 A.2d 1228 (1984): A crime formally charged in an information, although it need not be precisely the same as the offense stated in the complaint, must nevertheless be "substantially the same as or cognate to the offense charged in the complaint." Pa.R. Crim. P. 225(b)(5). A defendant cannot be required to answer a charge different from or unrelated to the one for which he was arrested and held to bail. Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, 278 Pa. Super. 490, 497, 420 A.2d 647, 650-652 (2980), quoting Commonwealth v. Musto, 348 Pa. 300, 302-303, 35 A.2d 307, 309 (1944). See and compare: Commonwealth v. El, 273 Pa. Super. 1, 8, 416 A.2d 1058, 1062 (1979); Commonwealth v. Epps, 260 Pa. Super. 57, 60, 393 A.2d 1010, 1011 (1978);, 260 Pa. Super. 57, 60, 393 A.2d 1010, 1011 (1978); Commonwealth v. Bruno, 203 Pa. Super. 541,548, 201 A.2d 434, 437 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 965, 85 S.Ct. 656, 13 L.Ed.2d 558 (1965); Commonwealth v. Gross, 161Pa. Super. 613, 621, 56 A.2d 303,307 (1948). The information must contain a plain and concise statement of the essential elements of the offense. See generally' Commonwealth v. Mcllwain School Bus Lines, Inc., 283 Pa. Super. 1,423 A.2d 413 (1980); Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, supra; Commonwealth v. Davenport, 255 Pa. Super. 131, 386 A.2d 543 (1978); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 248 Pa. Super. 420, 375 A.2d 168 (1977); Commonwealth [324 Pa. Super. 430] v. Wolfe, 220 Pa. Super. 415,289 A.2d 153 (1972); Harger v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Transportation, 17 Pa. Cmwlth. 142, 330 A.2d 883 (1975). 99-2243 CRIMINAL In Commonwealth v. Taylor, supra, as in this case, the information alleged no facts. It used the language of a statute to set out the elements of the crime of endangering the welfare of children. At trial, the Commonwealth proceeded "in faithful consistency with the charges contained in the complaint." Id. at 1232. The error, in Taylor, was committed after the jury began deliberations. Despite the fact that the complaint had alleged conduct which occurred in a hotel room, the jury asked whether it could consider endangerment of the welfare of the children at other locations mentioned in the course of the trial. Over a defense objection, the court instructed the jury that it was entitled to consider "all the evidence of any conduct which occurred in this jurisdiction." The Superior Court, consistent with the role that the Commonwealth is limited to the allegations in the complaint, concluded that this instruction was erroneous. It permitted the jury to convict appellant on the basis of conduct which had not previously been included in the accusation against him. The information, to be sure, had charged appellant generally with endangering the welfare of children. The complaint, however, had been specific. The conduct complained of had occurred in the motel room and that is what the Commonwealth attempted to prove. To permit the jury during its deliberations to change its focus and base a possible conviction on the manner in which appellant had driven his car before arriving at the motel was erroneous and unfair. Id. at 1233. Counsel for the defendant notes that, in surrounding counties, it is commonplace for .informations to contain a "to wit" clause. A careful review of the facts of the case by the district attorney at the time the information is filed has much to commend it. It permits, for example, the earliest opportunity to amend the charges in accordance with information learned since the 99-2243 CRIMINAL preliminary hearing. Such matters, however, have no bearing on the issue which we are asked to address today. Here, the defendant asks us to quash the informations in the case because they fail to summarize the facts upon which the allegations are based. This is relief to which he is not entitled. ORDER AND NOW, this $~ day of May, 2000, the motion of the defendant to dismiss/quash the information is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin .¢2'. hess, J. Jaime Keating, Esquire / Chief Deputy District Attorney Karl Rominger, Esquire For the Defendant :rim