From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Thompson

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jun 19, 2015
J-S23026-15 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 19, 2015)

Opinion

J-S23026-15 No. 1426 EDA 2014

06-19-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. GARY THOMPSON, Appellee


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered April 7, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012336-2011 BEFORE: DONOHUE, SHOGAN, and STRASSBURGER, JJ. CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. --------

I agree with the analysis and conclusion set forth in the Majority memorandum. I write separately with respect to the judicial estoppel argument. Even if language with respect to Pa.R.Crim.P. 582 in the Commonwealth's motion to consolidate was intentional, Appellee's judicial estoppel argument is without merit. The Commonwealth is permitted, under Rule 582, to move for joinder for two separate reasons. One such reason is that the cases comprise one criminal episode. Pa.R.Crim.P. 582(a)(2). The Rule also provides that joinder is permissible where "the evidence of each of the offenses would be admissible in a separate trial for the other and is capable of separation by the jury so that there is no danger of confusion[.]" Id. at (a)(1). Accordingly, the Commonwealth could have moved for a joint trial on either basis; therefore, a position that the two cases did not involve one criminal episode does not implicate judicial estoppel.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Thompson

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jun 19, 2015
J-S23026-15 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 19, 2015)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. GARY THOMPSON, Appellee

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jun 19, 2015

Citations

J-S23026-15 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 19, 2015)