"The authorities are virtually unanimous that the historical power to `nol pros' belonged at common law solely to the Attorney General and remains an exclusive prosecutorial power in the absence of a state constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary."
How later courts described this case
- "The authorities are virtually unanimous that the historical power to `nol pros' belonged at common law solely to the Attorney General and remains an exclusive prosecutorial power in the absence of a state constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary."
- describing termination of criminal charge under ARD program as a court- supervised compromise
- rejecting equal protection challenges to denial of ARD
- requirement that prosecutor authorize ARD placement does not violate separation of powers doctrine
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOFFMAN, Judge,
concurring:
I agree with Judge CERCONE’S cogent analysis of the constitutional issues relating to the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (“A.R.D.”) program. I believe, however, that appellant’s contention that the A.R.D. program constitutes an improper delegation of a judicial function is not properly before us because appellant did not raise this claim before the lower court. Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255 , 322 A.2d 114 (1974). Moreover, counsel for both parties expressly stipulated in the Agreed Statement of Facts that appellant does not challenge the constitutionality of the A.R.D. program itself. Accordingly, I do not believe that we can properly address this issue. Weigand v. Weigand, 461 Pa. 482 , 337 A.2d 256 (1975).