Commonwealth v. Miller, G. , 199 A.3d 857 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    MIDDLE DISTRICT
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,      : No. 359 MAL 2018
    :
    Respondent         : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
    : the Order of the Superior Court
    :
    v.                       :
    :
    :
    GARY WILLIAM MILLER,               :
    :
    Petitioner         :
    :
    :
    :
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,      : No. 365 MAL 2018
    :
    Respondent         : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
    : the Order of the Superior Court
    :
    v.                       :
    :
    :
    EDWIN CLAIR KNECHT,                :
    :
    Petitioner         :
    :
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,      :
    :
    Respondent         :
    :
    :
    v.                       :
    :
    :
    CHARLES BLAIR WEAVER,              :
    :
    Petitioner         :
    DISSENTING STATEMENT
    JUSTICE WECHT                                               FILED: December 20, 2018
    The instant Petition for Allowance of Appeal raises legal issues that implicate the
    decision that the Supreme Court of the United States issued in Birchfield v. North Dakota,
    __ U.S. __, 
    136 S.Ct. 2160
     (2016). Because this Court has not yet addressed the impact
    of Birchfield upon the law of this Commonwealth, we have no binding precedent against
    which to test the merits of these issues, or by which to evaluate lower courts’ analyses of
    the legal questions that arise in the wake of Birchfield.
    Currently pending before this Court are several cases that necessitate our
    consideration of Birchfield. The legal landscape following Birchfield remains substantively
    unsettled, nearly any claim that implicates that decision consequently remains at least
    potentially viable, and this Court has elected to consider several legal issues emanating
    from the Birchfield decision. Under these circumstances, I would not deny allocatur in
    this case or any other that depends in whole or in part upon an analysis of Birchfield. We
    are ill-advised conclusively to foreclose the possibility of further review until such time as
    this Court can provide a clear, definitive, and precedential articulation of what Birchfield
    means for Pennsylvania law.
    I respectfully dissent from the Court’s denial of allocatur, as I would hold this
    petition in abeyance pending further developments.
    Justice Donohue joins this dissenting statement.
    [359 MAL 2018; 365 MAL 2018] - 2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 359 MAL 2018

Citation Numbers: 199 A.3d 857

Judges: , Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/20/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024