The opinion
J-E02002-23
2023 PA Super 274
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
ROBERT REDANAUER : No. 1631 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered July 15, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): MC-51-CR-0007444-2021,
MC-51-CR-0007445-2021
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
ROBERT REDANAUER : No. 1632 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered July 15, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): MC-51-CR-0007444-2021,
MC-51-CR-0007445-2021
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BOWES, J., OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN,
J., MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., KING, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 28, 2023
The Commonwealth appeals from the orders finding Robert Redanauer
not guilty. We quash.
The Commonwealth charged Redanauer with four misdemeanors:
simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, possessing
J-E02002-23
instruments of crime, and terroristic threats.1 It alleged that Redanauer had
committed each of these offenses against two individuals, Daniel Taylor and
his brother, A.T. The criminal complaint alleged that, on or about December
27, 2020, Redanauer “attempted to put Daniel Taylor and [A.T.] in fear of
imminent bodily injury by pointing a firearm in their faces and saying, ‘I’m
going to shoot you fucker’ as he walked towards them.” Criminal Complaint,
DC # 20-08-039365. The charges were docketed at two separate dockets,
7444-2021 (“Docket 7444”) for the minor victim, and 7445-2021 (“Docket
7445”) for Daniel Taylor. See PARS Report, Docket 7444; PARS Report,
Docket 7445. Both cases were scheduled for trial in Philadelphia Municipal
Court.
The Commonwealth filed a certification in Municipal Court, on June 9,
2021, exercising its right a to a jury trial for the case involving a minor victim,
Docket 7444. The Commonwealth noted in the certification that the case was
listed for trial in Municipal Court and requested that it be relisted for a
preliminary hearing in the Court of Common Pleas. See Certification, filed
6/9/21; Pa.R.Crim.P. 1001(D). The Commonwealth did not file a certification
for the other case, Docket 7445. The court accordingly listed only Docket 7444
for a preliminary hearing. See Order, filed 6/14/21, Docket 7444 (“This
matter, currently listed for a trial on July 15, 2021, . . . shall be scheduled for
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a)(3), 2705, 907, and 2706, respectively.
-2-
J-E02002-23
a preliminary hearing . . . on July 15, 2021”). Docket 7445 remained
scheduled for trial.
Both matters proceeded on July 15, 2021, before a single Common Pleas
judge.2 The Commonwealth’s only witness was Daniel Taylor. The prosecution
asked Taylor on direct examination what he was wearing on the day of the
incident, and the court cut off the line of questioning as irrelevant at a
preliminary hearing. See N.T., Preliminary Hearing, 7/15/21, at 9-10.
Following cross-examination and re-direct, the Commonwealth rested. See
id. at 23.
The court then heard argument from both parties. Defense counsel
argued that the court “should discharge each of these matters for lack of
evidence.” Id. at 26. He also argued that since the Commonwealth had only
filed a certification for Docket 7444, only the proceeding in that case had been
a preliminary hearing. Id. He argued that since the Commonwealth had not
filed a certification for Docket 7445, that case remained listed for trial and the
Commonwealth had not carried its burden of proving guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. at 27. He then argued that if the court found Redanauer
not guilty at Docket 7445, then “jeopardy is attached and prosecution is
barred on [7]444.” Id.
The Commonwealth argued that joinder of the two cases was automatic
and its certification at Docket 7444 included Docket 7445. Id. at 29. It also
____________________________________________
2 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 912 (“Every judge of a court of common pleas shall have
all the powers of a judge or magisterial district judge of the minor judiciary”).
-3-
J-E02002-23
argued that a trial never commenced because “the defense did not waive
arraignment and enter a plea of not guilty[.]” Id.
The court entered not guilty verdicts at both dockets. At Docket 7444,
the court entered an order on July 15, 2021, stating, “Jury Demand – TRIAL
– due to the trial on other matter ending in 7445-2021 – double jeopardy NOT
GUILTY on all charges.” Trial Disposition and Dismissal Form, Docket 7444. At
Docket 7445, it entered an order that same day stating, “Jury Demand – ready
TRIAL – NOT GUILTY on all charges.” Trial Disposition and Dismissal Form,
Docket 7445. The court stated on the record that at Docket 7445, a trial had
occurred and the court found Redanauer not guilty. N.T. at 31, 32. As to
Docket 7444, it stated that “a prima facie case was never established” and
found Redanauer not guilty “because [of] double jeopardy, which attached
when the trial was held [at Docket 7445].” Id. at 32.
The Commonwealth timely appealed, and a three-judge panel of this
Court affirmed. We granted reargument en banc, and the Commonwealth
raises the following issue:
Did the [trial] court err in purporting to enter final and case-
dispositive judgments (not guilty No. MC-51-CR-0007445-
2021 and insufficient evidence and “[a]dditionally . . . not
guilty” in No. MC-51-CR-0007444-2021), following a
proceeding that was listed and acknowledged by the parties
and the court to have been a preliminary hearing?
Commonwealth’s Br. at 4.
The Commonwealth maintains that the trial court erred by treating the
preliminary hearing at Docket 7444 as a trial, failing to deem the two matters
-4-
J-E02002-23
as automatically consolidated, and entering verdicts of not guilty. We do not
reach the Commonwealth’s arguments because the acquittals bar its appeal.
“The Commonwealth may not appeal from a verdict of ‘not guilty’
entered by the trial court in a criminal prosecution[.]” Commonwealth v.
Ray, 292 A.2d 410, 413 (Pa. 1972). An acquittal is “accorded absolute finality”
and is “completely insulated from appellate review.” Commonwealth Dep't
of Transp. v. Springbrook Transp., Inc., 568 A.2d 667, 669 (Pa.Super.
1990). This is so because a not guilty verdict cannot be reviewed “‘without
putting [the defendant] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating’” the Double
Jeopardy Clause. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564,
572 (1977) (quoting United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671 (1896)),
quoted in Commonwealth v. Jung, 531 A.2d 498, 500 (Pa.Super. 1987). In
Commonwealth v. Tillman, 461 A.2d 795 (Pa. 1983), the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court stressed that the Commonwealth has no right of appeal from
a not guilty verdict, “even where that verdict is based upon an egregiously
erroneous foundation.” 461 A.2d at 797 (cleaned up); see also Jung, 531
A.2d at 500.
The not guilty verdicts therefore bar the Commonwealth’s appeal,
notwithstanding the Commonwealth’s claims of error. An acquittal enjoys
complete finality, “no matter how erroneous [the] decision may be.” Jung,
531 A.2d at 500 (citing Tillman, 461 A.2d at 796-97). This rule is the basis
of our disagreement with the dissent. The dissent concludes that the lower
court lacked authority to “transform the preliminary hearing into a trial[.]”
-5-
J-E02002-23
Dissenting Opinion at 7. This is nothing more than a claim of error. Under
longstanding precedent, notwithstanding any alleged error, the
Commonwealth may not appeal from a not guilty verdict. We quash these
appeals. See Springbrook, 568 A.2d at 671-72 (quashing Commonwealth
appeal from not guilty verdict due to double jeopardy); Tillman, 461 A.2d at
797 (quashing Commonwealth appeal from not guilty verdict and stating “no
prosecution appeal lies from a not guilty verdict, even where that verdict is
based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation”) (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
Appeals quashed.3
President Judge Panella, Judge Dubow, Judge Kunselman, Judge Murray and
Judge McCaffery join the Opinion.
____________________________________________
3 The Commonwealth appended to its briefing an article about this case from
the Philadelphia Inquirer. See Commonwealth’s Br., Appendix. The article is
nowhere in the certified record, and the Commonwealth’s inclusion of it in its
briefs was improper. The Commonwealth maintains that it provided the article
“simply to note that the handling of these proceedings became the subject of
public attention and news coverage, not to establish any disputed or
disputable facts.” Id. at 11 n.6. It cites in support Robar v. Village of
Potsdam Board of Trustees, 490 F.Supp.3d 546, 564 n.7 (N.D.N.Y. 2020).
Robar is not controlling on this Court and in any event, it is inapposite. The
Robar court relied on news articles to show the existence of viewers of Robar’s
installation and that it was “a form of political protest.” Id. at 564. That is not
the Commonwealth’s stated reason for including the article. Moreover, under
Pennsylvania law, materials not in the certified record may not simply be
appended to a party’s brief, least of all because the litigant believes this Court
ought to be aware that the case under review was the subject of news
reporting.
-6-
J-E02002-23
Judge Bowes files a Dissenting Opinion in which Judge Olson and Judge King
join.
Date: 12/28/2023
-7-