For the Defense - Vol. 3, Issue 2 - 2018 - 25

appeal, leaving in place a Superior Court
ruling dismissing serious homicide and related
charges. In short, Justice Dougherty observed
that the Court granted review on one of the
two issues raised by the Commonwealth. The
Commonwealth's brief, however, included "four
sub-issues, two of which were not implicated
in the question accepted for review." With
respect to the remaining two sub-issues, Justice
Dougherty noted that although they "were
explicitly implicated in the question accepted for
review," the issues "were not preserved in the
lower courts and are therefore waived." Justice
Dougherty subsequently discussed how the
Commonwealth waived those issues.
Anyone who practices before the Supreme
Court, whether occasionally or routinely, should
take the time to review Justice Dougherty's
Concurring Statement, and any other such
statement that a Justice may issue in connection
with a per curiam order dismissing an appeal as
improvidently granted. Such statements provide
significant insight into the thought process of
at least the Justice issuing the statement and
provide guidance on appellate advocacy in the
Supreme Court.

New Cases in which PACDL
Submitted an Amicus Since February
2018

a subsequent burglary that was allegedly
committed in 2016 (three years after the alleged
burglary for which the defendant was charged)
involved factual allegations substantially
similar to the factual allegations involving the
defendant's alleged burglary. Defense counsel
argued that the circumstances surrounding the
2016 burglary "were admissible since it tended
to prove that another individual committed the
crime for which [defendant] was charged." The
trial court agreed and concluded that it would
permit the evidence with regard to the 2016
burglary of the victim's home to be admitted.
The trial court also directed the prosecution
to provide the defendant "with all reports,
statements, and investigatory files related to
the 2016 burglary." The prosecution filed an
interlocutory appeal to the Superior Court,
which reversed. The Supreme Court granted the
defendant's Petition for Allowance of Appeal.

CS
MJ

Cramer
Swetz
McManus
&Jordan P.C.

THE RIGHT LAWYER CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Commw. v. Gill: Amicus Filed: February 28,
2018
Nature of case: The facts of Gill are convoluted
and nuanced. For a detailed discussion of the
facts, a review of the Superior Court's opinion is
recommended. In short, Gill was charged with
Burglary, Criminal Trespass, Theft by Receipt of
Stolen Property, and other related offenses. Prior
to trial, defense counsel filed a motion in limine
through which counsel argued that evidence of
similar crimes, behaviors and/or acts should be
admitted in order to demonstrate that someone
else, and not the defendant, committed the
burglary for which the defendant was charged,
which purportedly occurred in 2013. Specifically,

A law firm's reputation is earned by years of
quality representation and recognition by judges,
other lawyers and the community.
At Cramer, Swetz, McManus & Jordan, P.C.,
you hire more than a lawyer. You hire a history.
711 Sarah Street * Stroudsburg, PA 18360
Phone: (570) 421-5568
www.csmjlawyer.com

Vol. 3, Issue 2

l

For The Defense

25
http://www.csmjlawyer.com
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 3, Issue 2 - 2018
