In re Wilson

879 A.2d 199

In re Private Criminal Complaint of John D. WILSON II

Appeal of John D. Wilson II.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued September 9, 2004.

Filed June 6, 2005.

James L. Moran, Erie, for appellant.

John P. Garhart, Asst. Dist. Atty., Erie, for Com., appellee.

Before: FORD ELLIOTT, STEVENS, MUSMANNO, LALLY-GREEN, TODD, KLEIN, BENDER, BOWES, and GANTMAN, JJ.

GANTMAN, J.:

¶ 1 This Court granted en banc review of the order entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which denied Appellant, John D. Wilson II's petition for approval of his private criminal complaint. Appellant asks whether the trial court erred when it deferred to the decision of the District Attorney's office to disapprove the complaint, although Appellant had presented evidence of a prima facie case. Appellant also asks whether the District Attorney's office abused its discretion in disapproving his private criminal complaint for the policy reasons given. As prefatory matters, we must also determine whether Appellant has standing to appeal the trial court's order and, if so, what is the applicable standard and scope of appellate review in this context. We hold Appellant has standing to appeal the trial court's order sustaining the District Attorney's disapproval of Appellant's private criminal complaint. Applying the proper standard and scope of review as enunciated in this case, we affirm the trial court's order, which deferred to the District Attorney's decision to disapprove Appellant's private criminal complaint.

¶ 2 In its opinion, the trial court comprehensively summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:

In the early morning hours of August 10, 2002, [Appellant] was a passenger in the front seat of a Dodge Dynasty traveling north on State Street in Erie, Pennsylvania. As the vehicle passed the Hallman Chevrolet Dealership, [Appellant] used a Super Soaker squirt gun to squirt an individual who was walking in front of the dealership. The gun in question measures roughly 30 inches by 12 inches, has multiple nozzle settings, holds approximately 86 ounces of water, and has a pumping mechanism with which to increase the pressure of the water stream. The stream of water struck the pedestrian in the eye causing him to temporarily lose vision in his left eye.

The pedestrian [Appellant] squirted was Charles Bowers, the Chief of the Erie Bureau Police, who was off duty at the time of the incident. Chief Bowers immediately got into his unmarked vehicle and followed the Dynasty north on State Street. Chief Bowers activated the lights on his vehicle, but did not activate the siren. After turning east on 14th Street, the driver of the vehicle pulled the car to the side of the road. Chief Bowers approached the passenger side of the vehicle. In addition to the driver and Petitioner, there were two other passengers in the backseat of the vehicle.

According to Chief Bowers, he observed [Appellant] turn toward the center of the vehicle. Fearing [Appellant] might be moving for some kind of weapon, Chief Bowers reached through the open passenger window and struck [Appellant] in the face. Chief Bowers told investigators that he merely cuffed¹ [Appellant] in an effort to distract him until the Chief could ascertain whether [Appellant] had a weapon. Witnesses in the vehicle alleged that Chief Bowers punched [Appellant] in the nose with a closed fist. Thereafter, Chief Bowers began yelling obscenities and pulled [Appellant] from the vehicle.

Here, again, the evidence is conflicting. According to witnesses, Chief Bowers grabbed a chain around [Appellant's] neck and [his] belt, lifted [Appellant] off the ground and either forced or slammed him against the roof of the vehicle. Chief Bowers claimed that he did force [Appellant] against the car, but he denied that [Appellant's] feet ever left the ground or that he grabbed [Appellant's] chain.

By this time, other City of Erie Police officers had arrived on the scene. [Appellant] was handcuffed, placed in a marked police vehicle, and driven to the police station for booking and arrest. The vehicle's other occupants were transported to the police station as well. Pursuant to normal booking procedures, a booking sheet was created for [Appellant]. On the booking sheet, there is a space for the arrestee to indicate if he is hurt. [Appellant's] booking sheet indicates that no, he was not hurt. [Appellant] was charged with disorderly conduct in response to this incident and released at approximately 2:45 A.M.

Later that day, [Appellant] presented to a local hospital complaining that his face was sore, his nose was tender, and there was some blurriness in his left eye. [Appellant] was diagnosed with a questionable nasal fracture and superficial abrasions of the neck and hips. X-rays confirmed there was a questionable linear hairline fracture at the base of the nasal bridge. [Appellant] was seen by a physician again on August 13, 2002. At that time he complained of nose bleeds and nasal congestion since the date of the incident. The physician diagnosed [Appellant] with a nasal contusion, possibly a nondisplaced nasal fracture and nasal congestion. The physician's notes indicate that a thin-section CT might be helpful in providing a more definitive diagnosis.

On or about September 26, 2002, [Appellant] filed a Private Criminal Complaint against Chief Charles Bowers accusing him of assault, recklessly endangering another person, and official oppression. District Justice Paul G. Urbaniak forwarded the private complaint to the District Attorney's office for possible approval. Upon receipt of the private complaint, Detective Joseph Spusta was assigned to conduct an investigation into the matter. As part of his investigation, Detective Spusta interviewed Chief Bowers, the three other teenagers with [Appellant] that evening, and the other officers who responded to the scene. Additionally, the District Attorney's office reviewed the following materials: any and all medical reports including Saint Vincent's Health Center, private practioners' reports and x-rays; written statement of the supervisor of the police communications center; booking records for [Appellant]; radio transmissions relevant to the incident; press release prepared by the Erie Bureau of Police; report of Detective Joseph Spusta; report prepared by Lt. D.J. Fuhrman; applicable law relating to criminal offenses of simple assault, official oppression, and recklessly endangering; the Super Soaker guns in question; and the supporting affidavit of [Appellant].

On October 17, 2002, District Attorney Bradley Foulk disapproved the private complaint for the following reasons:

Based upon an exhaustive review of the available evidence, the Commonwealth exercises its discretion and disapproves the filing of the attached Private Criminal Complaint for the following reasons:

a. Commonwealth is not inclined to commit the prosecution [sic] resources of this office inasmuch as the likelihood of a conviction is minimal, if nonexistent, and/or there is an extreme likelihood of acquittal if continued further;

b. The victim in this case, if so inclined, has a more than adequate civil remedy available to him for any personal injury or pecuniary loss incurred by him. It should be noted that the Commonwealth fails to see even a prima facie showing of a nasal fracture in this case.

[Appellant] appealed the disapproval of his private complaint to the [C]ourt of [C]ommon [P]leas as provided by [Pa. R.Crim.P.] 506(b)(2).

(Trial Court Opinion, filed December 19, 2002, at 1-4). "After reviewing the District Attorney's investigatory file, the statements of the parties and witnesses, the medical records of [Appellant], and considering the arguments and briefs of counsel," the trial court denied Appellant's petition. (Id. at 1). Appellant timely filed this appeal.

¶ 3 Appellant raises two issues:

WHETHER THE [COURT OF COMMON PLEAS] COMMITTED ERROR IN REFUSING TO APPROVE THE PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT BY DEFERRING TO THE DECISION MADE BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHEN THERE WAS EVIDENCE

OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?

WHETHER THE [COURT OF COMMON PLEAS] ERRED IN REFUSING TO APPROVE THE PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WHEN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE GROSSLY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION?

(Appellant's Brief at v). This Court also directed the parties to address the proper standard/scope of review in cases involving the District Attorney's approval/disapproval of a private criminal complaint.

¶ 4 As a prefatory matter, we address the Commonwealth's claim that Appellant lacks standing to appeal the order under review. Specifically, the Commonwealth insists that once the District Attorney disapproves a private criminal complaint on policy grounds (described as "policy-declination" cases), and the Court of Common Pleas refuses to disturb the District Attorney's decision, Appellant exhausted his rights under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506. The Commonwealth concedes there is Pennsylvania law contrary to its position on standing, but urges a change in the law. The Commonwealth reasons a private criminal complainant has "an adequate measure of due process commensurate with the minimal role of [private] individuals in the modern criminal justice system," when he obtains judicial review in the Court of Common Pleas. (Commonwealth's Brief at 6). Citing the dissenting opinion of Judge Cirillo in Commonwealth v. Muroski, 352 Pa.Super. 15, 506 A.2d 1312 (1986) (en banc) and the dissenting opinion of now President Judge Del Sole set forth in In re Wood, 333 Pa.Super. 597, 482 A.2d 1033 (1984), the Commonwealth reasons Appellant, as a private criminal complainant, has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another person, when the individual private criminal complainant is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution. Because criminal "prosecutions are sought to rectify injuries to society, the only aggrieved party, if one exists, is the...