The Selfie Coup: How to Tell If Your Government Is Plotting to Overthrow Itself

DEAN FALVY

Dean Falvy, a lecturer at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, describes how to tell whether a government is plotting to overthrow itself—a phenomenon he calles a “Selfie Coup.” Falvy explains the difference between a Selfie Coup and creeping authoritarianism by providing examples of both and argues that the more aware civil society is of the possibility of a Selfie Coup, the more likely it can prepare its defenses in time to prevent it.

Read More

Estate of M&J Benyo v. Breidenbach

Docket: 90 MAP 2019

Opinion Date: July 21, 2020

Judge: Wecht

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law, Trusts & Estates

In a matter of first impression, a Pennsylvania superior court held that anti-alienation provisions governing municipal pensions found in various statutes protected assets from attachment and other legal process (including a contract claim) only while those assets remained in the possession of the pension fund administrator. Specifically, the court determined that a spouse’s promise to waive her right to her husband’s pension benefits, including agreeing to transfer such benefits after receiving them from the administrator, was legally enforceable. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that because the superior court’s interpretation was consistent with the plain language of the statutes, the context in which the provisions appear, and Pennsylvania precedent interpreting similar statutory language, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the superior court.

Maas v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr.

Docket: 7 WAP 2019

Opinion Date: July 21, 2020

Judge: Dougherty

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Health Law, Personal Injury

A mental health patient lived in a forty-unit apartment building and repeatedly told his doctors and therapists he would kill an unnamed “neighbor.” He ultimately carried out his threat, killing an individual who lived in his building, a few doors away from his own apartment. In subsequent wrongful death litigation filed by the victim’s mother, the providers argued they had no duty to warn anyone about their patient’s threats because he never expressly identified a specific victim. The trial court rejected this argument and denied the providers’ motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial. On appeal, the Superior Court agreed, and finding no reversible error, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.

Temple v. Providence Care Center

Docket: 21 WAP 2019

Opinion Date: July 21, 2020

Judge: Wecht

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury

In 2008, Elma Betty Temple (“Elma”), who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, became a resident of Providence Care Center, a nursing home located in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. Providence Care Center, LLC (“Providence”) owned and operated the facility, while Grane Healthcare Company (“Grane”) provided management services. In November 2011, Elma, then aged 81, fell while walking on a ramp. She suffered a fracture in her right humerus, a fracture in her right pelvis, and a laceration to her right elbow. Providence apparently was not supervising Elma at the time; the only witness to the incident, a hospice chaplain, was not a designated caregiver. In 2012, Emla's son, James Temple (“Temple”), filed a complaint on Elma’s behalf against Providence and Grane, alleging negligence and corporate negligence, and sought punitive damages. Temple alleged that Providence should have known that Elma required supervision, because of two previous falls in 2011. Temple further claimed that the facility was understaffed, and that Providence failed to provide needed safety measures. In this case, a panel of the superior court concluded that, even though Providence had waived its opportunity to ask for a mistrial, the trial court nonetheless possessed and invoked its inherent authority to grant a new trial sua sponte for the same reasons that Providence raised in its post-trial motions. In so ruling, the superior court affirmed the trial court’s grant of a new trial. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that a trial court possesses "the very limited and restrained authority to halt proceedings and compel them to begin anew based upon that unpreserved error. But in such a circumstance, a trial court may only use its sua sponte authority to grant a new trial where 'exceedingly clear error' results in 'manifest injustice,' of a constitutional or structural nature." Because Providence did not preserve its request for a mistrial and because the trial court did not grant, and could not have granted, a new trial sua sponte based upon the unpreserved request for a mistrial, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s order and remanded for further proceedings.

Crown Castle NG East LLC, et al v. Pennsylvania Utilities Commission

Docket: 2 MAP 2019

Opinion Date: July 21, 2020

Judge: Mundy

Areas of Law: Communications Law, Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

In an appeal by allowance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered the level of deference courts had to afford an administrative agency’s interpretation of its enabling statute. Additionally, the Court considered whether the Commonwealth Court erred in concluding that Distributed Antenna System (DAS) networks were public utilities under the Pennsylvania Public Utility Code (Code), thereby reversing the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) interpretation of the definition of “public utility." This case involved the status of DAS networks as public utilities in Pennsylvania. Appellees, Crown Castle NG East LLC (Crown Castle NG) and Pennsylvania-CLEC LLC (Pennsylvania-CLEC) (collectively Crown Castle), operated DAS networks. Crown Castle’s DAS networks provided telecommunications transport services to Wireless Service Providers (WSP), such as AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and others. The WSPs offered "commercial mobile radio service" (CMRS) to retail end-users. The Supreme Court agreed with the Commonwealth Court that DAS network operators did not provide CMRS because DAS network operators “own no spectrum, need no phone numbers, and their contractual relationship is solely with the WSPs, not with the retail cell phone user. . . . [T]he DAS network operator has no control over the generation of that signal [that it transports for the WSPs].” Accordingly, the Court concluded that DAS network operators did not furnish CMRS and were not excluded from the definition of public utility by Section 102(2)(iv). Further, the Court concluded the Commonwealth Court did not err in holding that the PUC’s interpretation of a clear and unambiguous statutory provision was not entitled to deference. Further, the Commonwealth Court properly concluded that DAS network service met the definition of “public utility” and is not excluded from that definition as it did not furnish CMRS service.

Pennsylvania v. Hamlett

Docket: 8 WAP 2019

Opinion Date: July 21, 2020

Judge: Thomas G. Saylor

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 2016, Appellant James Hamlett, Jr. was convicted of numerous crimes deriving from a sexual assault upon a minor, and lengthy concurrent terms of incarceration were imposed at sentencing. On appeal, the superior court found that the trial court had erred in admitting a video of a forensic interview of the victim into evidence. Nevertheless, the intermediate court invoked the harmless-error doctrine to deny Appellant’s request for a new trial, reasoning that the video was merely cumulative of properly-admitted evidence in the form of the victim's testimony. The Commonwealth hadn't argued harmlessness. Nonetheless, the superior court invoked the precept that an appellate court could affirm a valid verdict based on any reason appearing in the record, regardless of whether the rationale was raised by the appellee. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine whether it should prohibit Pennsylvania appellate courts from exercising their discretion to apply the harmless-error doctrine when deemed warranted, in criminal cases where advocacy from the Commonwealth on the subject was lacking. Appellant's core position on appeal was that the practice of appellate courts exercising their discretion like this should have been disapproved and discarded: that application of the right-for-any-reason doctrine to support sua sponte harmless-error review inappropriately relieved the government from meeting its burden of proof of harmlessness, upon an appellate court's discernment of trial error. To this, the Supreme Court disagreed, affirming the superior court judgment.

Pennsylvania v. King

Docket: 3 EAP 2019

Opinion Date: July 21, 2020

Judge: Donohue

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review centered on the legality of Jimel King’s enhanced sentence for attempted murder resulting in serious bodily injury under 18 Pa.C.S. section 1102(c) when the Commonwealth failed to provide formal notice of its intent to seek the enhancement in the charging documents. Also for the Court's consideration was whether King’s consecutive sentences for the two inchoate crimes of attempted murder and conspiracy, arising out of the same incident, were precluded by 18 Pa.C.S. sections 903 and 906. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the sentence as to the enhanced murder sentence, but vacated the judgment of sentence at the conspiracy count. "The traditional merger test has no application here because the ... merger statute would never apply to the inchoate crimes of conspiracy and criminal attempt. The plain language of the specific statute governing this scenario precludes multiple sentences because there is no possibility that the conspiracy to commit aggravated assault existed independently of any conspiracy to kill, nor does the Commonwealth allege any kind of temporal separation or other circumstances to suggest that two conspiratorial agreements could have existed. By enacting Section 906, the General Assembly declared that where a defendant tries to achieve a result – in this case, murder – but fails to do so, he may only be punished once in the absence of distinct criminal objectives." The matter was remanded for resentencing.

Pennsylvania v. McClelland

Docket: 2 WAP 2018

Opinion Date: July 21, 2020

Judge: Dougherty

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In Pennsylvania ex rel. Buchanan v. Verbonitz, 581 A.2d 172 (Pa. 1990), a five-Justice majority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held hearsay evidence alone was insufficient to establish a prima facie case at a preliminary hearing. In this case, a divided superior court recognized the Verbonitz holding, but did not follow it, despite acknowledging “the facts of Verbonitz are virtually indistinguishable from the case sub judice.” The Superior Court articulated five reasons for its departure from Verbonitz: (1) the Verbonitz Court did not agree on a single rationale to support its holding; (2) the Superior Court, in Pennsylvania v. Ricker, 120 A.3d 349 (Pa. Super. 2015) (“Ricker I”), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 170 A.3d 494 (Pa. 2017) (per curiam) (“Ricker II”), rejected the position of the three-Justice Verbonitz plurality, opining hearsay violated confrontation rights; (3) the Verbonitz minority relied on a substantive due process analysis contradicted by Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994); (4) Verbonitz was decided before the 2013 amendments to Pa.R.Crim.P. 542(E); and (5) there was no procedural due process violation here. Upon careful review, the Supreme Court held the superior court erred to the extent it concluded hearsay evidence alone was sufficient to establish a prima facie case at a preliminary hearing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s decision in this matter and disapproved that court's prior decision in Ricker I, which similarly concluded hearsay evidence alone was sufficient to establish a prima facie case at a preliminary hearing.

Pennsylvania v. Smith

Docket: 2 EAP 2019

Opinion Date: July 21, 2020

Judge: Dougherty

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The issue presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review in this case was whether a person subject to a bench warrant was a “fugitive from justice” such that he was a “person not to possess, use, control, sell, transfer or manufacture” a firearm pursuant to Section 6105 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Court concluded the active bench warrant for appellant Brahim Smith rendered him a fugitive from justice prohibited from possessing a firearm, and he was properly convicted under that statute.

Pennsylvania v. Wolfel

Docket: 23 WAP 2019

Opinion Date: July 21, 2020

Judge: Thomas G. Saylor

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

While driving a vehicle in December 2014, Appellant Kaitlyn Wolfel struck two pedestrians, killing one and injuring the other. She was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, and police transported her to a local health center for blood testing. Prior to the blood draw, police advised Appellant that, if she refused to submit to the test, she would be subject to enhanced criminal penalties pursuant to the Implied Consent Law. Appellant consented to the procedure, and the test yielded a blood alcohol content of .178 percent. Appellant was charged with numerous criminal offenses, including homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence. In 2016, while the case remained at the pretrial stage, the federal Supreme Court issued its decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016). Birchfield held, among other things, that consent to a warrantless blood draw was vitiated when such assent follows the administration by police of a warning of enhanced criminal penalties upon refusal of the testing. Appellant then lodged a motion contending, in very general terms, that Birchfield required suppression of the blood evidence. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined the Commonwealth waived its challenge to Appellant’s failure to raise a claim under Pa. Const. Article I, Section 8, by failing to challenge the suppression court’s explicit invocation of that provision before the superior court. The superior court order was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

In Re: Estate of Small

Docket: 26 EAP 2019

Opinion Date: July 21, 2020

Judge: Thomas G. Saylor

Areas of Law: Trusts & Estates

The issue this matter presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review involved the alleged forfeiture of a parent’s share in his child’s estate where his child died without a will. Specifically, the question was whether an adult decedent, who became disabled after reaching the age of majority, was a dependent child for purposes of the forfeiture statute. Generally, where an intestate decedent dies without a spouse or issue but with living parents, his or her parents were entitled to inherit the individual’s estate as tenants by the entirety. Notably, the Code did not define the phrase “dependent child.” Decedent was 18 years old when he sustained gunshot wounds, rendering him a paraplegic. At age 37, he died intestate without a spouse or issue, and Appellant (“Mother”) was granted letters of administration. Decedent’s estate subsequently recovered a $90,000 wrongful-death award, which became the estate’s sole asset. Mother filed a petition for forfeiture of estate, asserting that Appellee (“Father”) forfeited his share of the estate by allegedly failing to perform his duty of support. After Father’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, the orphans' court held a hearing. The Supreme Court held that the concepts of a dependent child and the parental duty of care, as they were referenced in Section 2106(b) of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, contemplated a legally-imposed parental duty stemming from a state of dependency arising under the established law of the Commonwealth. The Court also agreed with the orphans’ court that in this matter, Mother failed to demonstrate Decedent was a dependent child – and concomitantly, that Father had a duty of care – as required to obtain relief under that provision.