finding a formal non-prosecution agreement enforceable where the defendant performed in reliance on agreement
How later courts described this case
- finding a formal non-prosecution agreement enforceable where the defendant performed in reliance on agreement
- proper response to detrimental reliance procured through inaccurate police representations of nonprosecution is suppression of evidence, not dismissal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FORD ELLIOTT, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority but cannot join in its rationale. Rather, I rely on my concurring statement in the companion case of Commonwealth v. Scuilli, 423 Pa.Super. 453 , 621 A.2d 620 , and decide that before relief may be granted based on a nonprosecution agreement, there must *439 be some showing of detrimental reliance rising to the level of prejudice or manifest injustice to the party seeking enforcement. Based on the record before this court, I can find that such prejudice was suffered by the Stipetiches in their foregoing Constitutional guarantees against self-incrimination. Therefore, I cannot reverse the trial court’s decision to dismiss the charges. However, in all candor, from my reading of the trial court’s opinion, I would not characterize this choice of remedy as an exercise of the trial court’s discretion. Judge Dauer specifically found that the police officer in question had the authority to negotiate the nonprosecution agreement and that this mandated the dismissal of charges.