# Commonwealth v. Brown, J., Aplt.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 28, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11247501

## Case

- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 28, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Brobson, P. Kevin
- **Judges:** Wecht, David N.; Dougherty, Kevin M.; Brobson, P. Kevin; Mundy, Sallie
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11247501

## Opinion text

[J-56-2025] [MO:Wecht, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 3 WAP 2025
:
Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the
: Superior Court entered June 28,
: 2024, at No. 17 WDA 2022, Affirmed
v. : in Part and Vacating In Part the
: Order of the Court of Common
: Pleas of Beaver County entered
JAMIE M. BROWN, : December 15, 2021, at No. CP-04-
: CR-000913-2001 and remanding.
Appellant :
: SUBMITTED: May 20, 2025

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

JUSTICE BROBSON DECIDED: JANUARY 28, 2026

I join the Majority Opinion1 with the exception of Section V. I am persuaded by

Justice Dougherty’s view that the Majority unnecessarily resolves possible evidentiary

issues surrounding the Dorsett/Tusweet Smith statement that may or may not arise on

remand. (Concurring and Dissenting Op. at 7-8.) At this juncture, the parties have only

asked us to consider whether a third-party confession can serve as a newly discovered

fact under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).2 I agree with the Majority that it can,

and, here, under Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the PCRA, 42 Pa. C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(i), Brown

has alleged the fact upon which his Brady3 claim is predicated—i.e., the Dorsett/Tusweet

Smith statement. Notwithstanding, the PCRA court denied Brown the opportunity to prove

1 While Section V of the lead opinion has not garnered a majority vote, I, nevertheless,

refer to that lead opinion as the “Majority” or the “Majority Opinion” for ease of discussion.
2 42 Pa. C.S. §§ 9541-9546.

3 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
that predicate fact, which resulted in the instant appeal. In my view, whether Brown can

prove the predicate fact at an evidentiary hearing with admissible evidence and,

ultimately, overcome the PCRA’s time bar is an issue entirely separate from the one on

which we granted review. Accordingly, I do not join this aspect of the Majority Opinion.

(Majority Op. at 35-40.)

[J-56-2025] [MO: Wecht, J.] - 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11247501. Public record. Not legal advice.