#Bills of particulars trial

#Bills of particulars trial

The Court also noted that the trial court had broad discretion to rule on a motion for a bill of particulars. The Court explained that the defense could differ significantly if the Commonwealth alleged a specific method of poisoning the children versus contending that she poisoned the children in a manner that could not be definitively determined. It was therefore not an improper request, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the Commonwealth to provide more information. The Superior Court agreed with the trial court that the defendant’s request was an attempt to clarify the pleadings and prepare an adequate defense. It concluded that the trial court would potentially bar the Commonwealth from seeking the death penalty, and that remedy would have a substantial effect on the prosecution of the case.Īlthough the Superior Court allowed the appeal, it did rule that the trial court properly ordered the Commonwealth to respond.

Here, it was a little bit of a stretch that the order would really hurt the Commonwealth’s case, but the Superior Court allowed the appeal. The Commonwealth must certify in good faith that the order would have that effect. The Commonwealth, however, may file an interlocutory or pre-trial appeal where a trial court’s order would terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution. In general, appeals may not be filed until a case is over. First, the Superior Court ruled that the appeal was properly filed even though it was an interlocutory appeal. The Pennsylvania Superior court affirmed the trial court’s order. The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Decision The Commonwealth argued on appeal that it should not have to provide the requested information to the defense in advance. The Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal and certified that the order terminated or substantially handicapped its prosecution of the defendant pursuant to Rule 311(d) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. It also ruled that should the Commonwealth fail to respond, the trial court could preclude the Commonwealth from seeking the death penalty at trial. The trial court granted the defense motion and ordered the Commonwealth to respond. The defense filed a motion asking the trial court to direct the Commonwealth to respond. The Commonwealth argued that the request was an improper attempt to obtain the Commonwealth’s evidence and theory of the case in advance. The Commonwealth filed a response in which it refused to provide a bill of particulars. The defense argued that without knowing what the Commonwealth actually alleged the defendant did, they would be unable to effectively prepare for trial and to defend against the specific allegations. The defense responded with a motion for a bill of particulars asking the Commonwealth to identify how the drugs in question were allegedly administered to the children. The Commonwealth also filed notice of its intent to seek the death penalty. The Commonwealth also alleged that the defendant attempted to murder a 16-month-old toddler with fentanyl.

The Commonwealth alleged that the defendant caused the death of a three-month-old infant by poisoning the infant with fentanyl. The Commonwealth filed a Bill of Information charging the defendant with first-degree murder and attempted murder. This is an interesting case because requests for bills of particulars are fairly rare in modern litigation, and here, the trial court ordered the Commonwealth to essentially specify its theory of criminal liability for the defendant in advance of trial. McKnight, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars identifying the mechanism by which the Commonwealth alleged the defendant killed the decedent in a homicide/poisoning case. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v.