author: Justice BAER. Chief Justice SAYLOR, Justice EAKIN,

text:
    127 A.3d 769
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Jose Luis OLIVO, Appellee.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued May 5, 2015.
    Decided Nov. 18, 2015.

      John T. Adams, Esq., Reading, Jonathan H. Kurland, Esq., for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

      Brie Rebecca Halfond, Esq., Leonard Sosnov, Esq., Glenn D. Welsh Esq., Berks Country Public Defender’s Office, for Jose Luis Olivo.
    Kevin Francis McCarthy, Esq., Allegheny Counter District Attorney’s Office, for Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association, Amicus Curiae.
    Diane Elizabeth Moyer, Esq., PA Coalition Against Rape, for PA Coalition Against Rape, Amicus Curiae.
    SAYLOR, C.J., EAKIN, BAER, TODD, STEVENS, JJ.
   OPINION

Justice BAER.

In this case, the trial court suspended as unconstitutional a recently enacted statute allowing expert testimony regarding victims’ responses to sexual violence, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5920, The trial court concluded that Section 5920 violated this Court’s exclusive control over judicial procedures pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 722(7) (providing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with exclusive jurisdiction over “[mjatters where the court of common pleas has held [a statute] invalid as repugnant to the Constitution....”). After review, we conclude that Section 5920 does not infringe on our constitutional authority to govern the procedures of the courts. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

The facts in this case are limited as it comes to us on preliminary motions. Appellee-Defendant Jose Luis Olivo was arrested on September 17, 2012, and charged with two counts of rape and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and one count each of indecent assault, indecent exposure, endangering the welfare of children, and corruption of minors. The charges arose from allegations that he sexually abused his paramour’s daughter, starting in January 2009 when the victim was four and continuing until February 2012, when she was seven.

On July 26, 2013, four days prior to the scheduled start of trial, Olivo presented a motion in limine to prevent the Commonwealth from presenting expert testimony pursuant to Section 5920 regarding child victim responses to sexual violence. Section 5920 applied to Olivo’s September 2012 criminal complaint in the case at bar because the Legislature made it effective for prosecutions filed on or after August 28, 2012. The court continued the trial to allow the presentation of argument regarding the motion in limine.

As will be discussed in detail in the summary of his arguments to this Court, Olivo contended that the statute unconstitutionally infringed this Court’s authority over procedural rules pursuant to Article V, Section 10(c). Assuming arguen-do that the Legislature could enact evidentiary rules generally, Olivo asserted that Section 5920 was improper because it conflicted with this Court’s prior decision in Commonwealth v. Dunkle, 529 Pa. 168, 602 A.2d 830 (1992).

A detailed review of our decision in Dunkle is necessary to understand the arguments presented by Olivo. In Dunkle, this Court held inadmissible “expert testimony concerning typical behavior patterns exhibited by sexually abused children,” where that testimony did not relate to the specific child at issue. Id. at 831. Our holding was supported by our consideration of the “Child Sexual Abuse Syndrome,” which the Court judged not to be a generally accepted diagnostic tool for purposes of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.1923). We additionally concluded, based on the then-current research in the field, that the evidence regarding the syndrome was inadmissible as it was not specifically probative of childhood sexual assault as opposed to other types of trauma and merely invited speculation. Next, we deemed inadmissible expert testimony concerning delays and omissions in reporting by child victims of sexual assault because we concluded that the delays and omissions were “easily understood by lay people and did not require expert analysis.” Dunkle, 602 A.2d at 836.

While the bulk of our analysis focused upon basic evidentia-ry determinations, we further opined:

[W]e do not think it befits this Court to simply disregard longstanding principles concerning the presumption of innocence and the proper admission of evidence in order to gain a great number of convictions. A conviction must be obtained through the proper and lawful admission of evidence in order to maintain the integrity and fairness that is the bedrock of our jurisprudence.

Id. at 838.

While arguably dicta, Olivo relied upon this Court’s brief reference to the presumption of innocence quoted above to argue that Dunkle constituted an exercise of our constitutional authority over judicial procedure, despite any reference to Article V, Section 10(c) in the text of the opinion.

The Commonwealth opposed Olivo’s motion in limine. As detailed below, the Commonwealth asserted that Section 5920 is consistent rather than in conflict with our rulemaking authority under Article V, Section 10(c) and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, especially Rule 101(b), which recognizes that rules of evidence may be “governed by statute.” Pa.R.E. 101 cmt. The Commonwealth additionally refuted Olivo’s argument that this Court’s decision in Dunkle was based on constitutional concerns, instead arguing that the case primarily addressed the admissibility of specific evidence under our evidentiary rules.

The trial court granted Olivo’s motion in limine to bar the expert testimony regarding child victim responses and behaviors offered by the Commonwealth pursuant to Section 5920. Before coming to its conclusion, the court recognized that “[t]he expert would carefully avoid testifying regarding the credibility of this particular victim/witness and only testify as to the general attributes of child sexual assault victims as to delay in reporting, piecemeal reporting and the dynamics of victim’s abuse at the hands of older trusted family members.” Tr. Ct. Op. at 3.

The trial court interpreted Dunkle as holding that the admission of expert testimony on child victim response and behaviors “would violate the presumption of innocence offered a defendant in every jury trial and notions of fundamental fairness inherent in due process.” Id. at 4. The trial court opined that the “proper admission of evidence” was “solely in the province of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court under Article V, [Section] 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.” Id. The trial court recognized that this Court has suspended statutes that impinge upon our rulemaking authority, citing Commonwealth v. McMullen, 599 Pa. 435, 961 A.2d 842, 848 (2008) (striking as unconstitutional a statute granting the right to a jury trial in indirect criminal contempt cases), and Payne v. Commonwealth Department of Corrections, 582 Pa. 375, 871 A.2d 795 (2005) (finding unconstitutional aspects of the Prison Litigation Reform Act as violative of Supreme Court’s rule-making authority).

While the court believed that the introduction of the expert witness testimony would be helpful to juries, it felt constrained to suspend Section 5920 because “the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has spoken in this specific area in Dunkle and has indicated their ruling implicated Constitutional precepts.” Tr. Ct. Op. at 5. The trial court, nonetheless, signaled that it found the dissenting arguments in Dunkle persuasive in light of the research since Dunkle.

The Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal in September 2013. As stated above, this Court has direct review of a trial court’s decision to suspend a statute as unconstitutional pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 722(7).

The Commonwealth asserts that the trial court erred in suspending Section 5920 as unconstitutional. First, the Commonwealth addresses this Court’s authority under Article V, Section 10(c). It then proceeds to refute the trial court’s interpretation of Dunkle. The Commonwealth recognizes this Court’s exclusive constitutional authority over rules of procedure. It observes that, while the legislature is tasked with defining substantive crimes, this Court has authority to determine the procedure underlying the adjudication of criminal actions. Commonwealth Brief (Com. Brief) at 12 (quoting McMullen, 961 A.2d at 847 (concluding that “substantive law creates, defines, and regulates rights; procedural law addresses the method by which those rights are enforced”))- The Commonwealth further concedes that “the enactment of a procedural statute is unconstitutional.” Id. at 13 (citing McMullen, 961 A.2d at 848).

The Commonwealth maintains, however, that evidentiary rules are exceptions, which this Court has recognized in the comments to the Rules of Evidence and in Commonwealth v. Newman, 534 Pa. 424, 633 A.2d 1069, 1071 (1993). The Commonwealth observes that the comment to Pa.R.E. 101, quoted above, demonstrates this Court’s acknowledgement that some rules of evidence are governed by statute. It further highlights our statement in Newman, discussed further herein, that “[sjubject only to constitutional limitations, the legislature is free to change the rules governing competency of witnesses and admissibility of evidence.” Com. Brief at 10 (quoting Newman, 633 A.2d at 1071). The Commonwealth asserts that the legislature may enact rules of evidence so long as they are not inconsistent with constitutional limitations. Moreover, it emphasizes that Section 5920 tracks Pa.R.E. 702, addressing the requirements for expert testimony, which further supports the conclusion that the evidence does not offend constitutional principles. Accordingly, it maintains that Section 5920 is a constitutional legislative enactment.

The Commonwealth also asserts that the question presented in this case, regarding the constitutionality of the legislative enactment of Section 5920, is distinguishable from the eviden-tiary decision set forth by this Court in Dunkle. Initially, it emphasizes that the testimony in this case did not involve the “Child Sexual Abuse Syndrome” criticized in Dunkle as unreliable under Frye. Likewise, the Commonwealth contends that, in Dunkle, the Court concluded that expert testimony regarding delayed responses of child victims was inadmissible because the information was within the knowledge of lay jurors, based upon the research available at that time.

The Commonwealth emphasizes that our decision in Dunkle does not speak to constitutional concerns regarding this Court’s Article V, Section 10(c) authority over procedural rules. It rejects the trial court’s interpretation of Dunkle as implicating our constitutional jurisprudence, noting that the phrase “long-standing principles concerning the presumption of innocence” to be the decision’s sole reference to constitutional principles. Com. Brief at 17 (quoting Dunkle, 602 A.2d at 838). Absent from our analysis in Dunkle, the Commonwealth observes, is any particularized discussion of why this genre of evidence would have offended the presumption of innocence so pervasively as to doom Section 5920. Indeed, the Commonwealth maintains that expert testimony under Section 5920 does not offend the presumption of innocence because the expert is not permitted to opine upon the credibility of the specific victim in the case.

The Commonwealth is supported by amicus curiae briefs filed by the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association and the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (PCAR). In addition to the arguments discussed above, the District Attorneys Association further asserts that Section 5920 “creates a substantive right to introduce a particular type of expert witness” and does not address a procedure for a court to follow. District Attorneys Association Brief at 29-30 (citing as support Commonwealth v. Carter, 111 A.3d 1221 (Pa.Super.2015) (holding, as discussed below, that Section 5920 does not infringe on this Court’s exclusive constitutional authority over procedural rulemaking)).

PCAR additionally observes that court-made rules of evidence have long coexisted with legislative actions addressing evidence, such that to prohibit the legislature from enacting laws implicating evidence would “upend centuries of jurisprudence.” PCAR Brief at 30. The District Attorneys Association and PCAR provide a list of Pennsylvania statutes addressing evidentiary matters including the competency of witnesses and the admissibility of testimony.

Olivo responds in support of the trial court’s conclusion that Section 5920 violates the separation of powers by infringing upon this Court’s constitutional authority over courtroom practice and procedure. Olivo reiterates that Article V, Section 10(c) entrusts to this Court authority over judicial procedure except where the Constitution provides otherwise. He observes that we have stated that “the judiciary alone” has “power over rulemaking.” Olivo Brief at 7 (quoting, indirectly, In re 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, 482 Pa. 522, 394 A.2d 444, 451 (1978)). Olivo further relies upon In re 12 Pa.C.S. § 1703, discussed below, where this Court, based upon our Article V, Section 10(c) authority, refused to comply with provisions of the Public Agency Open Meeting Law, which made the law applicable to the rule-making functions of the Supreme Court. Olivo additionally observes that an amendment to Article V, Section 10, was necessary to provide the legislature with specific authority to enact a procedural statute allowing child victims to testify via close-circuit television. He argues that a similar constitutional amendment would be required to provide authority for the legislature to address the admissibility of expert testimony pertaining to victim responses to sexual violence. As no constitutional provision addresses this subject, he contends that Section 5920 “clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution as an unlawful exercise of judicial power.” Olivo Brief at 8.

He rejects the suggestion that Section 5920 is not a procedural rule. Olivo observes that in Payne we addressed both proper substantive statutes and unconstitutional procedural sections. As noted below, we found provisions governing the dismissal of prison reform petitions to be substantive, but a provision addressing automatic dissolution of a temporary restraining order procedural. Olivo additionally observes that in Commonwealth v. Sorrell, 500 Pa. 355, 456 A.2d 1326 (1982), and McMullen, 961 A.2d 842, we held that the right to a jury trial is a procedural right. In contrast, Olivo notes that the authority to issue a stay of execution was deemed substantive in Commonwealth v. Morris, 565 Pa. 1, 771 A.2d 721 (2001). He argues that Section 5920 is not substantive because it does not define the relief to which a litigant is entitled nor does it define, enlarge, or restrict any elements of an offense.

He contends instead that Section 5920 is a procedural rule intended to supplant this Court’s holding in Dunkle, which has been reaffirmed by this Court. Olivo Response Brief at 5-6 (citing Commonwealth v. Alicia, 625 Pa. 429, 92 A.3d 753, 761-63 (2014) (citing Dunkle); Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 519 Pa. 291, 547 A.2d 355 (1988) (finding expert testimony regarding “rape trauma syndrome” inadmissible); and Commonwealth v. Seese, 512 Pa. 439, 517 A.2d 920 (1986) (holding inadmissible expert testimony regarding child sexual assault victims)). He argues that only this Court has the authority to overrule Dunkle and to promulgate procedural rules of evidence. Olivo emphasizes that we held in McMullen that if “the legislature enacts a procedural statute, that statute is unconstitutional,” regardless of whether the statute conflicts with court-made rules. McMullen, 961 A.2d at 848. Olivo faults the Superior Court’s reasoning in Carter, relied upon by amici and discussed below, because that court did not address the separation of powers issue but merely cited a prior Superior Court decision stating that the legislature can enact evidentiary rules without fully considering the distinctions between substantive and procedural rules. He further argues that citation to the quotation in Newman suggesting that “the legislature is always free to change the rules governing competency of witnesses and admissibility of evidence” is flawed because the parties in that case did not raise a separation of powers issue. Olivo Response Brief at 17 (quoting Newman, 633 A.2d at 1071). Instead, Olivo points to a distinction between what he views as substantive provisions regarding “privileges provided to spouses” in Newman and procedural provisions relating to “the method [of] introducing evidence to prove a criminal offense” in the case at bar. Olivo Response Brief at 18.

Additionally, Olivo claims that Section 5920 conflicts with this Court’s decision in Dunkle, holding inadmissible expert testimony regarding victim responses to sexual assaults. He argues that the evidence the Commonwealth sought to introduce under Section 5920 is indistinguishable from the expert testimony deemed inadmissible in Dunkle, where the Court found error in permitting “an expert to explain why sexually abused children may not recall certain details of an assault, why they may not give complete details, and why they may delay reporting the incident.” Olivo Brief at 9 (quoting Dunkle, 602 A.2d at 831). He observes that the Court continued, “[W]e hold that the expert should not have been permitted to testify about behavior patterns generally exhibited by abused children and that the error requires reversal.” Olivo Brief at 10 (quoting Dunkle, 602 A.2d at 836). He contends that the legislature cannot overrule Dunkle through the enactment of Section 5920.

Moreover, Olivo argues that allowing the expert’s testimony would devolve into a battle of the experts that would interfere with the jury’s interpretation of the victim’s nonverbal conduct and any inconsistencies in the testimony. Olivo Brief at 10. He reiterates the trial court’s conclusion that testimony admissible under Section 5920 “would violate the presumption of innocence offered a defendant in every jury trial and notions of fundamental fairness inherent in due process.” Id. (quoting Tr. Ct. Op. at 4). Accordingly, he seeks our affirmance of the trial court’s conclusion that Section 5920 is an unconstitutional encroachment of this Court’s authority over judicial procedure, that it violates our holding in Dunkle, and that it violates the presumption of innocence.

The Commonwealth presents a pure issue of law, which we review de novo. Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 583 Pa. 6, 874 A.2d 623, 628 n. 5 (2005). As we have repeatedly observed, “a legislative enactment enjoys the presumption of constitutionality.” Payne, 871 A.2d at 800. A party challenging a legislative action bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that the statute “clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the constitution.” Id.

As noted, this ease requires our consideration of whether Section 5920⅛ provision allowing for expert testimony regarding victim responses to sexual assaults violates our exclusive constitutional “power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts” under Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See, e.g., Payne, 871 A.2d at 801 (recognizing this Court’s exclusive power over judicial procedure). For the following reasons, we conclude that Section 5920 does not constitute an impermissible procedural rule but rather is a proper exercise of legislative authority to enact a rule of evidence.

During the early years of our Commonwealth, our authority over procedural rulemaking initially was “inherent in the constitutional scheme,” but later became explicit through a legislative grant of authority in 1937, as codified at 17 P.S. § 61, which provided that any inconsistent statute would be suspended. In re 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, 394 A.2d at 447. In 1968, however, this Court’s authority gained constitutional imprimatur through the adoption of Article V of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article V “vests in the Supreme Court ‘general supervisory and administrative authority over all the courts,’ Pa. Const, art. V, § 10(a).” Payne, 871 A.2d at 800. The section further provides that “[a]ll laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions.” Pa. Const, art. V, § 10(c); see also In re 42 Pa.C.S. § 1703, 394 A.2d at 447.

In considering similar challenges to legislative acts, we have opined that “the threshold inquiry in determining whether a particular statute violates Article V, Section 10(c), is whether the statute is procedural or substantive in nature.” Payne, 871 A.2d at 801. We have often recognized that the distinction between procedural and substantive actions engenders little consensus. Id. Nonetheless, we have opined that, “[a]s a general rule, substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights, while procedural laws are those that address methods by which rights are enforced.” Id. (citations omitted); see also McMullen, 961 A.2d at 847.

Our relatively recent decision in Payne v. Commonwealth Department of Corrections, 582 Pa. 375, 871 A.2d 795 (2005), provides an excellent starting point as that case presented several provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which arguably straddled the line between substantive and procedural. We deliberated on the constitutionality of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(e), providing for a court to dismiss prison condition litigation if an allegation of indigency was untrue or if the litigation was frivolous or malicious. We held that the statute did not violate our Article V, Section 10 authority because the statute was substantive rather than procedural in nature:

A cursory review of this section may lead one to believe that the Legislature is creating a procedure by which the court shall dismiss prison conditions litigation. Upon closer scrutiny, however, we conclude that Section 6602(e) defines the rights of prisoners by setting forth the circumstances under which the right to file prison condition litigation shall be summarily denied. Rather than establishing a method or procedure to enforce a substantive right, Section 6602(e) regulates the substantive right to file prison conditions litigation due to the Legislature’s belief that such claims are particularly prone to being frivolous and therefore subject to summary dismissal.

Payne, 871 A.2d at 802 (citing Morris, 771 A.2d at 738 (holding that a statute regarding a stay of execution was a substantive act because it “define[d] the appropriate circumstances for securing the substantive right” to a stay rather than setting forth a process for enforcing the stay)) (emphasis omitted).

This Court next grappled in Payne with the constitutionality of the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6602(f), under which a court may dismiss prison condition litigation “[i]f the prisoner has previously filed prison conditions litigation and ... three or more of these prior civil actions have been dismissed” as frivolous or an action was determined to have been filed in bad faith, absent a credible allegation of imminent danger of serious bodily injury. Payne, 871 A.2d at 803-04. The prisoner in Payne claimed that the statute was procedural and thus violative of our constitutional authority over judicial procedure under Article V, Section 10. Again, the Court concluded that while the statute appeared to be a procedural mechanism for the dismissal of prison litigation, at heart it was a “substantive provision because it defines the parameters under which the right to relief will be denied in a prison conditions action.” Id. at 804.

Next, the Court considered Section 6605(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, authorizing a court to enter a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction and for such injunction to expire automatically after ninety days. Unlike the sections addressed above, we concluded that this section did not “create, define or regulate prisoner’s rights” but instead “sets forth a procedure which the court must follow when preliminary injunctions are entered in a prison conditions case.” Id. at 804. As the section only spoke to procedure, we deemed this section unconstitutional as violative of our exclusive authority under Article V, Section 10(c). Id. We observed that the section also was inconsistent with Pa.R.C.P. 1531, which did not provide for automatic dissolution of a preliminary injunction. We additionally “emphasize[d] that it is not the significance of the procedure contained in the statutory provision that is constitutionally problematic, but rather the fact the statute contains a court procedure.” Id. at 805.

Finally, we considered Section 6602(a)-(c) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which addressed the payment of filing fees and the method to seek in forma pauperis status. We held the statute unconstitutional as an attempt to enact a procedural statute in violation of our exclusive authority where the section “sets forth the method by which inmates enforce their rights to file prison conditions litigation, ie., by the payment of a filing fee.” Id. at 806. We further noted that the section conflicted with this Court’s in forma pauperis procedure.

We again considered the procedural-substantive dichotomy in Commonwealth v. McMullen, 599 Pa. 435, 961 A.2d 842 (2008), where we held unconstitutional a statute that provided a right to a jury trial in indirect criminal contempt proceedings involving a restraining order or injunction and limiting the relevant sentence to fifteen days. We recognized that we had previously held that the right to a jury trial was “not a ‘substantive right,’ but a right of procedure through which rights conferred by substantive law are enforced.” Id. at 847-48 (quoting Sorrell, 456 A.2d at 1329). We notably altered our prior analysis applied in Payne, where we weighed whether a procedural statute conflicted with any Court promulgated rules. Instead, in McMullen, we opined that if a statute is procedural it is unconstitutional per se as “[o]therwise, a clearly unconstitutional procedural statute would be constitutional unless this Court promulgated a rule inconsistent with it.” Id. at 848.

In the cases set forth above, this Court determined whether various statutes encroached upon our constitutional authority over judicial procedure. However, these provisions did not address evidentiary statutes, as in the case at bar. In contrast, in Commonwealth v. Newman, 534 Pa. 424, 633 A.2d 1069 (1993), we considered an evidentiary statute involving the privilege not to testify against one’s spouse. While Newman addressed constitutional challenges based on the ex post facto clause, we broadly opined, “Subject only to constitutional limitations, the legislature is always free to change the rules governing competency of witnesses and admissibility of evidence.” Id. at 1071.

The Superior Court recently addressed a similar separation of powers challenge to Section 5920 in Commonwealth v. Carter, 111 A.3d 1221 (Pa.Super.2015). The court identified its own precedent holding evidentiary statutes constitutional based upon this Court’s decision in Rich Hill Coal Co. v. Bashore, 334 Pa. 449, 7 A.2d 302 (1939), where “[wje recognize[d] the right of the legislature to create or alter rules of evidence.” Carter, 111 A.3d at 1223 (quoting Rich Hill Coal Co., 7 A.2d at 319). The Superior Court opined that this Court reaffirmed Rich Hill Coal Co. in Newman, where, as noted above, we held that that “the legislature is always free to change the rules governing the competency of witnesses and the admissibility of evidence.” Carter, 111 A.3d at 1223-24 (quoting Newman, 633 A.2d at 1071).

Applying this precedent, the Superior Court concluded that “Section 5920 is really a rule regarding the admissibility of evidence, not a procedural rule.” Id. at 1224, Furthermore, the Superior Court rejected the defendant’s claim that Section 5920 conflicted with Dunkle, which it distinguished by observing that “Dunkle predates Section 5920 and was not based on constitutional grounds but on existing case law and rules of evidence.” Id. Accordingly, the Superior Court rejected the defendant’s claim that Section 5920 violated our constitutional authority over procedural rules.

We agree with the analysis of the Commonwealth and the Superior Court in Carter. Section 5920 is clearly a rule of evidence, which we have acknowledged can be “governed by statute.” Pa.R.E. 101 cmt.; see also Newman, 633 A.2d at 1071. Moreover, we conclude that Section 5920 is substantive rather than procedural as it permits both parties to present experts to “testify to facts and opinions regarding specific types of victim responses and victim behaviors.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5920. It does not dictate how the evidence is presented, and thus it is distinguishable from the provision amended to Article V, Section 10(c) in 2003 providing the General Assembly with the authority to enact statutes to address purely procedural issues involved in “the manner of testimony of child victims” and specifically allowing for statutes providing for testimony by videotaped deposition or close-circuit television. Pa. Const, art. V, § 10(c). Section 5920 by contrast does not provide for the manner of the presentation of expert testimony but merely provides the substantive authorization to present that testimony. Accordingly, we find Section 5920 to be a substantive rule of evidence that does not violate our Article V, Section 10(c) authority over procedural rules.

Finally, we reject the trial court and Olivo’s reliance on our prior decision in Dwnkle. As stated above, Dunkle provided a thorough review of arguments regarding the admissibility of expert testimony concerning victim responses to sexual violence. Our conclusion hinged on the Court’s consideration of the research supporting the admission of the evidence. The decision was rooted in a factual assessment of the evidence as a part of a Frye analysis, as well as other admissibility considerations such as our conclusion that the expert testimony would invite speculation by the jury and that the information was within the knowledge of a lay juror, based upon the then-current research. We were not faced with questions regarding the constitutional authority of the General Assembly to pass a statute providing for the admissibility of this type of expert testimony. While it is accurate that we mentioned the defendant’s presumption of innocence in a brief phrase supporting our holding of inadmissibility, the statement is dicta and was never intended to control our assessment of the constitutionality of legislative enactments such as Section 5920.

We conclude that Section 5920 does not violate our authority under Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution nor our decision in Dunkle. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court suspending 42 Pa.C.S. § 5920 and remand for further proceedings.

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Justice TODD and Justice STEVENS join the opinion.

Chief Justice SAYLOR files a concurring opinion.

Justice EAKIN files a dissenting opinion.

Chief Justice SAYLOR,

concurring.

The majority appears to reaffirm the broadly-stated proposition that the Legislature is free to change the rules of evidence. See Majority Opinion, at 635-37, 127 A.3d at 779-81 (quoting, indirectly, Commonwealth v. Newman, 534 Pa. 424, 429, 633 A.2d 1069, 1071 (1993)). As such, it is unclear whether the majority’s ensuing conclusion that Section 5920 is substantive in nature is material to its disposition of the case. See id. at 636-37, 127 A.3d at 780-81. In any event, I am not persuaded by this latter proposition, since, as I read the statute, Section 5920 merely authorizes the admission of a form of evidence in a manner very similar to other varieties of evidential rules. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5920.

This Court promulgated the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence under what it has deemed to be its “exclusive” rulemak-ing authority under Article V, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, but, to my knowledge, it has never provided a satisfying reconciliation of such exclusivity with the acknowl-edgement that the General Assembly retains the ability to create evidential rules. For my own part, I maintain that the Court simply should recognize the appropriateness of some reasonable power sharing in the rulemaking arena. Accord Freed v. Geisinger Med. Center, 607 Pa. 225, 251, 5 A.3d 212, 228 (2010) (Saylor, J., dissenting) (“[A]s I have previously expressed, both in gray areas between substance and procedure, and in matters that have not yet been occupied by this Court via its own procedural rules, I would allow some latitude to the Legislature to make rules touching on procedure, so long as such rules are reasonable and do not unduly impinge on this Court’s constitutionally prescribed powers and prerogatives.” (quoting Commonwealth v. McMullen, 599 Pa. 435, 458, 961 A.2d 842, 856 (2008) (Saylor, J., concurring and dissenting))); cf. Watkins, 818 N.W.2d at 309 (applying the Michigan Supreme Court’s approach that a rule of evidence violates the Michigan analogue to Article V, Section 10(c) only when “no clear legislative policy reflecting considerations other than judicial dispatch of litigation can be identified” (quoting, indirectly, Kirby v. Larson, 400 Mich. 585, 256 N.W.2d 400, 406 (1977))).

Primarily in light of the above differences, I respectfully concur in the result.

Justice EAKIN,

dissenting.

I agree with the majority’s analysis finding 42 Pa.C.S. § 5920 constitutionally sound. However, application of this statute permits expert witnesses to influence a jury’s determination of a victim’s credibility under the guise of educating jurors on the varying reactions to sexual violence; because I do not believe this is an appropriate methodology, I respectfully dissent.

The presentation of an expert’s opinion on credibility invites a jury to abandon its role as the arbiter of veracity, instead demanding de facto deference to the expert’s “unwarranted appearance of authority in the subject of credibility.” Commonwealth v. Alicia, 625 Pa. 429, 92 A.3d 753, 760 (2014); Commonwealth v. Davis, 518 Pa. 77, 541 A.2d 315, 317 (1988). Here, § 5920 facially precludes specific comments on credibility by the expert, limiting testimony to “opinions regarding specific types of victim responses and ... behaviors[,]” and expressly prohibiting direct observations about a victim’s credibility. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5920(b)(2), (3). Nevertheless, when offered at trial, such expert testimony will in fact weigh directly on a victim’s credibility, fundamentally altering the exclusive function of the jury. See Alicia, at 761 (“[T]he question of a witness’s credibility is reserved exclusively for the jury.”). Indeed, if the opinion is about “normal” responsive behavior, expert testimony is unnecessary and irrelevant. It is only in the “abnormal” response situation that it is arguably relevant, and there the expert can clearly be talking about one thing only—factors pertinent to the people in this specific case. Thus, the witness must be opining on those precise facts, despite the statute’s prohibition; a jury needs no expert to see through the fiction that the opinion testimony is not about the credibility of witnesses before it.

Specifically, an expert may opine there are no “typical” reactions to sexual violence and testify to the range of reactions a victim may experience after an assault. See Commonwealth’s Brief, at 15, 19. While this testimony is certainly helpful to a jury’s understanding of a victim’s atypical reaction, it has no bearing on the underlying facts of an assault, nor does it establish whether an accused actually committed a crime. Rather, it is only relevant because a victim’s response or reaction bears directly on his or her credibility. Thus, by purporting to explain the reaction, an expert directly, and in my judgment, improperly, either bolsters or attacks a victim’s credibility. There simply is no other purpose for such evidence.

The Commonwealth contends expert opinion pursuant to § 5920 is necessary because victim reactions to sexual violence are not within a jury’s ken, and without such testimony, stereotypes concerning sexual assault victims may cloud a jury’s judgment. Id., at 16. While I understand these concerns, the Commonwealth should be careful what it wishes for—what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if expert opinions are admissible and helpful to the prosecution here, there will be experts with admissible opinions to the contrary, in rebuttal and in each ensuing case.

As almost by definition, expert opinion on how a witness might or might not react influences a jury’s credibility determination. I do not believe this is an appropriate method for edifying jurors. A better process for addressing this issue would be to enhance jury instructions on credibility determinations in cases involving sexual assault or other distinctive crimes. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Walker, 625 Pa. 450, 92 A.3d 766, 806-07 (2014) (Eakin, J., dissenting). By implementing modified jury instructions stressing the individuality of victim reactions, jurors can make an informed credibility assessment without the risk of relinquishing their independent decision-making to battling experts. This approach avoids the inevitable “war of hired doyens attacking each other’s opinion” that accompanies § 5920. Id., at 806; 42 Pa.C.S. § 5920(b)(4) (permitting either party to present expert testimony on victim responses to sexual violence). Indeed, modified jury instructions would avoid the pitfalls of § 5920 while addressing the notable and legitimate concerns of the Commonwealth and the General Assembly. As I believe § 5920 is an overly broad approach to addressing these concerns, I must dissent.

      . In full, Section 5920 provides:
      § 5920. Expert testimony in certain criminal proceedings
      (a) Scope.—This section applies to all of the following:
      (1) A criminal proceeding for an offense for which registration is required under Subchapter H of Chapter 97 (relating to registration of sexual offenders).
      (2) A criminal proceeding for an offense under 18 Pa.C.S. Ch. 31 (relating to sexual offenses).
      (b) Qualifications and use of experts.—
      (1) In a criminal proceeding subject to this section, a witness may be qualified by the court as an expert if the witness has specialized knowledge beyond that possessed by the average layperson based on the witness’s experience with, or specialized training or education in, criminal justice, behavioral sciences or victim services issues, related to sexual violence, that will assist the trier of fact in understanding the dynamics of sexual violence, victim responses to sexual violence and the impact of sexual violence on victims during and after being assaulted.
      (2) If qualified as an expert, the witness may testify to facts and opinions regarding specific types of victim responses and victim behaviors.
      (3) The witness’s opinion regarding the credibility of any other witness, including the victim, shall not be admissible.
      (4) A witness qualified by the court as an expert under this section may be called by the attorney for the Commonwealth or the defendant to provide the expert testimony.
      42 Pa.C.S. § 5920 (footnote omitted).

      . Article V, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides as follows:
      (c) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts, justices of the peace and all officers serving process or enforcing orders, judgments or decrees of any court or justice of the peace, including the power to provide for assignment and reassignment of classes of actions or classes of appeals among the several courts as the needs of justice shall require, and for admission to the bar and to practice law, and the administration of all courts and supervision of all officers of the Judicial Branch, if such rules are consistent with this Constitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant, nor affect the right of the General Assembly to determine the jurisdiction of any court or justice of the peace, nor suspend nor alter any statute of limitation or repose. All laws shall be suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with rules prescribed under these provisions. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the General Assembly may by statute provide for the manner of testimony of child victims or child material witnesses in criminal proceedings, including the use of videotaped depositions or testimony by closed-circuit television.
      Pa. Const, art. V, § 10(c).

      . 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3121, 3123, 3126, 3127, 4304, and 6301, respectively.

      . Three justices in Dunkle dissented, arguing in favor of the admissibility of the expert testimony.

      . Olivo additionally presented a challenge pursuant to Frye, which was rejected by the tried court and has not been pursued on appeal to this Court.

      . Rule 101 entitled "Scope; Adoption and Citation” provides in full as follows, with emphasis added to highlight the language relied upon by the Commonwealth:
      (a) Scope. These rules of evidence govern proceedings in all courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s unified judicial system, except as otherwise provided by law.
      (b) Adoption and Citation. These rules of evidence are adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania under the authority of Article V § 10(c) of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, adopted April 23, 1968. They shall be known as the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence and shall be cited as "Pa.R,E.”

        Comment: A principal goal of these rules is to construct a comprehensive code of evidence governing court proceedings in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. However, these rules cannot be all-inclusive. Some of our law of evidence is governed by the Constitutions of the United States and of Pennsylvania. Some is governed by statute. Some evidentiary rules are contained in the Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure and the rules governing proceedings before courts of limited jurisdiction. Traditionally, our courts have not applied the law of evidence in its full rigor in proceedings such as preliminary hearings, bail hearings, grand jury proceedings, sentencing hearings, parole and probation hearings, extradition or rendition hearings, and others. Traditional rules of evidence have also been relaxed to some extent in custody matters, see, e.g., Pa.R.C.P. No. 1915.11(b) (court interrogation of a child), and other domestic relations matters, see, e.g., Pa.R.C.P. No. 1930.3 (testimony by electronic means).
      Decisional law is applicable to some evidentiary issues not covered by these rules. This would include for example, the corpus delicti rule, see Commonwealth v. Fears, 575 Pa. 281, 836 A.2d 52 (2003); the collateral source rule, see Boudwin v. Yellow Cab Co., 410 Pa. 31, 188 A.2d 259 (1963); and the parol evidence rule, see Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 578 Pa. 479, 854 A.2d 425 (2004). The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence are not intended to supersede these other provisions of law unless they do so expressly or by necessary implication. ...
      Pa.R.E. 101.

      . See infra at 631-32 and 633-34, 127 A.3d at 777-78 and 778-79 for discussion of Payne and McMullen, respectively.

      . The Commonwealth initially filed its appeal in the Superior Court. The notice of appeal, inter alia, certified that the trial court’s "ruling substantially handicaps the prosecution of this case," Notice of Appeal of Sept, 26, 2013, and, thus, asserted an interlocutory appeal as of right under Pa.R.A.P. 311(d). The case was eventually transferred to this Court based upon our exclusive jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 722(7).

      . Pa.R.E. 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
      A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
      (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge is beyond that possessed by the average layperson;
      (b) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; and
      (c) the expert’s methodology is generally accepted in the relevant field.

      . Moreover, it contends that the Court's evidentiary determination in Dunkle is outdated given the developed research regarding sexual assault victims over the last two decades. Com. Brief at 16 (citing State v. Obeta, 796 N.W.2d 282, 292-93 (Minn.2011) (observing that all jurisdictions other than Pennsylvania, which have addressed this issue, "have allowed some form of expert” testimony regarding victim responses to sexual assault)).

      . Specifically, the District Attorneys Association cites the following statutory provisions: 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 308 (Intoxication or drugged condition); 3104 (Evidence of a victim’s sexual conduct); 6104 (Evidence of intent); 40 P.S. § 1303.512 (Expert qualifications); and 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5911 (Competency of witnesses generally); 5912 (Effects of prior convictions); 5913 (Spouses as witnesses against each other (criminal)); 5917 (Notes of testimony at former trial); 5924 (Spouses as witnesses against each other (civil)); 5933 (Competency of surviving party). District Attorneys Association Brief at 8-10.

        Amicus PCAR adds the following statutes addressing evidentiary issues: 23 Pa.C.S. § 5104 (Blood test to determine paternity); 35 Pa.C.S. § 450.810 (Records: Evidentiary sufficiency); 42 Pa.C.S, §§ 5328 (Proof of official records); 5916 (Confidential communications to attorney); 5918 (Examination of defendant as to other offenses); 5921 (Interest not to disqualify); 5922 (Disqualification by perjury); 5929 (Physicians not to disclose information); 5930 (Surviving party as witness, in case of death, mental incapacity, etc.); 5942 (Confidential communications to news reporters); 5943 (Confidential communications to clergymen); 5944 (Confidential communications to psychiatrists or licensed psychologists); 5945 (Confidential communications to school personnel); 5945.1 (Confidential communications with sexual assault counselors); 5945.2 (Confidential communications to crime stopper or similar anticrime program); 5945.3 (Confidential communications with human trafficking caseworkers); 5948 (Confidential communications to qualified professionals); 5985.1 (Admissibility of certain statements); 6103 (Proof of official records); 6106 (Certified exemplifications of records); 6108 (Business records); 6111 (Handwriting); and 75 Pa.C.S, §§ 1547 (Chemical testing to determine amount of alcohol or controlled substance); 3368 (Speed timing device). PCAR Brief at 28-29.

      . Specifically, the 2003 amendment provided for the following language to be added to Section 10(c): "Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the General Assembly may by statute provide for the manner of testimony of child victims or child material witnesses in criminal proceedings, including the use of videotaped depositions or testimony by closed-circuit television.” See also Bergdoll v. Kane, 557 Pa. 72, 731 A.2d 1261, 1270 (1999) (striking a prior attempt to add similar language to the constitution as violative of the single subject rule).

      . In McMullen, we additionally rejected as unconstitutional the legislative attempt to set the limit of punishment for indirect contempt, which we concluded was within the power of the courts. We explained that, "[wjhile the legislature generally may determine the appropriate punishment for criminal conduct, indirect criminal contempt is an offense against the court's inherent authority, not necessarily against the public.” Id. at 850. Accordingly, we struck the statute as an unconstitutional invasion of our exclusive authority to punish for indirect criminal contempt. Id.

      . It should be noted that while this Court approved generally of the legislative ability to enact rules of evidence, we nonetheless found various sections of the Workers' Compensation Act invalid. We further opined that the legislative power to enact evidentiary statutes was limited as follows:
      (1) It is at least doubtful if the legislature can, under the guise of creating a ‘rule of evidence,' make something evidence which is in fact not evidence, (2) If in fact the legislature is attempting to regulate a rule of evidence, ‘its regulation must be impartial and uniform’.

        Rich Hill Coal Co., 7 A.2d at 319 (quoting Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed., Vol. 2, p. 768.) (emphasis in original).

      . We acknowledge that the Superior Court in Carter relied in part on its observation that Section 5920 did not conflict with any rule of procedure. Id. at 1224. We reject and deem unnecessary this aspect of the Carter rationale based upon our contrary holding in McMullen, As discussed supra at 633-34, 127 A.3d at 778-79, we opined in McMullen that a procedural statute is unconstitutional per se because ‘‘[ojtherwise, a clearly unconstitutional procedural statute would be constitutional unless this Court promulgated a rule inconsistent with it." McMullen, 961 A.2d at 848.

      . Upon my reading, the statute merely authorizes the presentation of expert testimony but apparently does not supplant other salient considerations, such as the application of the requirement of Rule of Evidence 702(c) that the expert’s methodology must be generally accepted in the relevant field. Accord Commonwealth v. George, No. 504 WDA 2014, slip op. at 6, 2015 WL 5970739 (Pa.Super. Sept. 25, 2015); cf. People v. Watkins, 491 Mich. 450, 818 N.W.2d 296, 313-15 (2012) (determining that a statute indicating that certain evidence "is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant” did not supplant the application of the Michigan analogue to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 403). Rather, the intention seems to be merely to remove the appearance of a per se prohibition erected by some of the language used in Commonwealth v. Dunkle, 529 Pa. 168, 602 A.2d 830 (1992). Indeed, had the General Assembly manifested an intention to nullify the application of other evidentiaiy rules designed to maintain fundamental fairness in the courtroom, I would have much greater difficulty with the majority disposition of the present case.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Chief Justice SAYLOR.

license: Public Domain

text:
    127 A.3d 783
    Rebecca SERNOVITZ and Lawrence Sernovitz, Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Samuel Sernovitz v. Stuart Z. DERSHAW, M.D., John Stack, M.D., Laura Borthwick-Scelzi, M.D., Margaret M. Fillinger, CRNP, Women’s Care of Montgomery County, Holy Redeemer Hospital and Medical Center and Holy Redeemer Health System, Inc. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Intervenor. Appeal of Stuart Z. Dershaw, M.D., John Stack, M.D., Laura Borthwick-Scelzi, M.D., Margaret M. Fillinger, CRNP, Women’s Care of Montgomery County, Holy Redeemer Hospital and Medical Center and Holy Redeemer Health System, Inc. Rebecca Sernovitz and Lawrence Sernovitz, Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Samuel Sernovitz v. Stuart Z. Dershaw, M.D., John Stack, M.D., Laura Borthwick-Scelzi, M.D., Margaret M. Fillinger, CRNP, Women’s Care of Montgomery County, Holy Redeemer Hospital and Medical Center and Holy Redeemer Health System, Inc. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Intervenor. Cross Appeal of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Intervenor.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued May 6, 2015.
    Decided Nov. 18, 2015.

      Jonathan F. Bloom, Esq., Ian Michael Long, Esq., Karl Stewart Myers, Esq., Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, L.L.P., Philadelphia, David E. Somers III, Esq., for General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
    Richard P. Abraham, Esq., Theodore J. Caldwell Jr., Esq., Young Ricchiuti Caldwell & Heller, L.L.C., Philadelphia, for Rebecca & Lawrence Sernovitz.
    Donald N. Camhi, Esq., Sheila Ann Harén, Esq., Barbara S. Magen, Esq., Post <& Schell, P.C., Philadelphia, for Stuart Z. Dershaw, M.D., Holy Redeemer Health System, Inc., et al.

      SAYLOR, C.J., EAKIN, BAER, TODD, STEVENS, JJ.
   OPINION

Chief Justice SAYLOR.

In this discretionary appeal, we address a legislative-process challenge to a 1988 enactment raised in the context of a professional negligence lawsuit filed in 2010 and asserting causes of action for wrongful birth.

By way of background, the legislation in issue—Act 47 of 1988 (“Act 47”)—began as a bill which contained a single provision relating to the appointment of substitute bail commissioners in Philadelphia. During its passage through the General Assembly, it was amended several times. In its final form, the bill contained multiple substantive sections, all amending Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, that is, the Judicial Code. In addition to its original provision, the bill encompassed sections which: repealed the Post Conviction Hearing Act (“PCHA”) and enacted the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) in its place; conferred on this Court exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals in capital cases; mandated minimum sentences for offenses committed while impersonating a law enforcement officer; precluded the dismissal of felony charges at a preliminary hearing solely due to the prosecutor’s or victim’s failure to appear; limited defenses against claims for injuries sustained while in útero; and precluded causes of action for wrongful birth and wrongful life. The bill was approved by both Houses and signed into law by Governor Casey on April 13,1988. The section barring wrongful birth claims, which is at the center of this litigation, was codified at Section 8305 of the Judicial Code.

Section 8305 has been consistently upheld against substantive constitutional challenges. See, e.g., Dansby v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp., 424 Pa.Super. 549, 623 A.2d 816 (1993), appeal denied, 539 Pa. 650, 651 A.2d 538 (1994) (per curiam). The attack on its validity here arises as part of a broader argument that Act 47 is constitutionally infirm in its entirety due to a failure to comply with legislative-process requirements contained in Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The context for this challenge, as noted, is a professional negligence action, as set forth below.

Rebecca Semovitz sought medical care after becoming pregnant. Because she and her husband are both of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, their child was at increased risk of suffering from a genetic disorder known as familial dysautonomia (“F.D”). Therefore, as part of her prenatal care Mrs. Serno-vitz underwent genetic testing, which showed she was a carrier of the gene mutation for F.D. Her treating physicians, however, negligently misinformed her about the test results, telling her she was not a carrier. Thereafter, Mrs. Sernovitz gave birth to a son, Samuel, who suffers from F.D. and will suffer from the disorder for the rest of his life. Mrs. Semovitz later learned that both she and her husband are carriers of the mutation. If she had been correctly informed of the results of her test in a timely manner, further testing would have ensued, which would eventually have revealed Samuel’s condition while he was still in útero. Had that occurred, Mrs. Sernovitz would have obtained an abortion.

In October 2010, Mr. and Mrs. Sernovitz (“Plaintiffs”) filed an amended complaint against the health-care providers and their employers and corporate parents (“Defendants”), asserting claims for wrongful birth and seeking damages for medical expenses and emotional distress. Although Section 8305(a) of the Judicial Code bars such claims, see supra note 1, Plaintiffs alleged that Act 47 was unconstitutional in its entirety on several grounds. In particular, they averred that: the act’s original purpose was changed during its passage through the General Assembly, contrary to Article III, Section 1; it contained more than one subject, in violation of Article III, Section 3; and, in its final form, it was not considered on three days in each House, thus failing to conform with Article III, Section 4. See Pa. Const, art. Ill, §§ 1, 3, 4 (stating, respectively, that “no bill shall be so altered or amended, on its passage through either House, as to change its original purpose[,]” “[n]o bill shall be passed containing more than one subject,” and “[e]very bill shall be considered on three different days in each House”).

Defendants filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, stating that Plaintiffs’ claims were precluded by Section 8305. In a supporting brief, Defendants argued that Act 47’s enactment complied with Article III and, moreover, a finding of unconstitutionality more than 22 years after the act became law would have far-reaching effects relative to potentially thousands of cases that have been adjudicated since 1988. In response, Plaintiffs suggested that the court could invalidate Section 8305 and sever it from the remainder of Act 47. In this regard, Plaintiffs observed that, in Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 583 Pa. 275, 877 A.2d 383 (2005) {“PAGE ”), this Court upheld most of the challenged enactment because virtually all of its provisions related to a single subject—regulation of the gaming industry—but severed two sections which disbursed monies from the State Gaming Fund to causes unrelated to gambling. See id. at 307-08, 877 A.2d at 402-03. As applied here, Plaintiffs proffered that most of Act 47 relates to a single subject, but that Section 8305 is distinct from that subject. However, Plaintiffs did not identify the single subject to which they believed most of Act 47 pertained.

The common pleas court determined that the act complied with Article III, sustained the preliminary objections on the basis that the wrongful-birth claims were barred by Section 8305, and dismissed the amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed, repeating their substantive arguments grounded on Article III, Sections 1, 3, and 4, and reiterating their position that Section 8305 could be severed from Act 47 if necessary.

A three-judge panel of the Superior Court reversed in a published decision. See Sernovitz v. Dershaw, 57 A.3d 1254 (Pa.Super.2012). Focusing on the single-subject claim, the court determined that there was no unifying topic to which all aspects of Act 47 pertained. Thus, the intermediate court held that the act violated the single-subject rule. See id. at 1263-64. The court concluded, however, that in spite of the single-subject violation, the principal topic of the legislation was “post-trial matters in criminal cases,” an area which was addressed by items such as the PCRA and the mandatory-minimum sentencing provision. Id. at 1266. Based on that premise, and applying a germaneness analysis, the court left those aspects of Act 47 in force while invalidating and severing four provisions that it viewed as unrelated to such purpose— including Section 8305.

Having stricken Section 8305, the Superior Court reversed the common pleas court’s order dismissing the amended complaint and remanded for further proceedings. See id.

Defendants requested reconsideration or reargument en banc, stating, among other things, that the court should have applied the laches doctrine to avoid setting aside, on procedural grounds, a statute that had been enacted 22 years earlier and whose provisions had been relied on by hundreds, if not thousands, of litigants and potential litigants—including felony defendants whose charges were not dismissed at a preliminary hearing and individuals who elected not to assert wrongful-birth claims due to the substantive validity of Section 8805. See generally Stilp v. Hafer, 553 Pa. 128, 134, 718 A.2d 290, 293 (1998) (“[L]aches may apply where a challenge to a law is made on procedural grounds years after its passage.”). Defendants additionally argued that, in rejecting the concept that amending Title 42 could constitute a valid single subject, the court overlooked that all of Act 47’s provisions relate to the narrower topic of “civil and criminal proceedings in Pennsylvania courts.”

After obtaining leave to intervene, the General Assembly also applied for reargument en banc. The Assembly agreed with Defendants’ argument that laches should have rendered Act 47 immune to procedural challenge more than 22 years after its passage. In this respect, the Assembly argued that the panel’s decision had significant public implications in that the integrity and stability of Pennsylvania law could be undermined if such belated challenges were permitted—particularly where, as here, the statute had withstood substantive constitutional scrutiny. The Assembly also agreed with Defendants that Act 47’s contents all related to the single subject of civil and criminal court proceedings, and it pointed out, in this regard, that the act was passed fifteen years before City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth, 575 Pa. 542, 838 A.2d 566 (2003), at a time when a more lenient standard was in effect for compliance with the single-subject rule. The Assembly particularly faulted the panel for failing to acknowledge such chronology or evaluate whether it was proper to apply the standards articulated in City of Philadelphia retroactively to a 1988 enactment. Finally, the General Assembly took issue with the panel’s invalidation of four of the act’s provisions while leaving the remainder intact, couching such action as improperly entering the legislative domain.

The Superior Court denied reconsideration and reargument en banc, whereupon Defendants and the Pennsylvania Legislature (collectively, “Appellants”) separately petitioned for further review in this Court. We initially held the petitions pending our resolution of Commonwealth v. Neiman, 74 MAP 2011, another dispute in which the Superior Court had found a single-subject violation and severed a subset of the enactment’s provisions while leaving the remainder in force. See Commonwealth v. Neiman, 5 A.3d 353 (Pa.Super.2010) (en banc), rev’d, 624 Pa. 53, 84 A.3d 603 (2013). After reversing the Superior Court’s disposition in Neiman on the grounds that severance was improper and the challenged legislation should have been set aside in its entirety, see Neiman, 624 Pa. at 74-75, 84 A.3d at 615, we granted both petitions. See Sernovitz v. Dershaw, 630 Pa. 404, 106 A.3d 1292 (2014) (per curiam).

Our review of the common pleas court’s order sustaining Defendants’ preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer is de novo and plenary. See Luke v. Cataldi, 593 Pa. 461, 468 n. 3, 932 A.2d 45, 49 n. 3 (2007). It is preferable to resolve disputes on a non-constitutional basis if reasonably possible. See Wertz v. Chapman Twp., 559 Pa. 630, 633, 741 A.2d 1272, 1274 (1999). Therefore, we will first address Appellants’ laches argument. “[L]aehes is ... principally a question of the inequity of permitting [a] claim to be enforced[.]” Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396, 66 S.Ct. 582, 584, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (internal quotation marks omitted). As such, we initially assume, without deciding, that Act 47 violates Article III, Section 3’s single-subject requirement, and evaluate whether the 22-year delay in challenging the act precludes relief.

In undertaking this assessment, we note preliminarily that the Superior Court’s decision to sever portions of Act 47 cannot be sustained. The question of severance in the context of an Article III, Section 3 challenge was recently addressed in Neiman. That matter involved a challenge to Act 152 of 2004, which, like Act 47, effectuated multiple revisions to the Judicial Code. These included changes to Megan’s Law and the imposition of new duties on certain governmental entities with regard to sexual offenders. Act 152 also encompassed provisions relating to such disparate topics as deficiency judgment procedures, the jurisdiction of county park police, and the statute of limitations for asbestos-related claims. See Neiman, 624 Pa. at 59-61, 84 A.3d at 606-07 (summarizing Act 152’s provisions). The Superior Court found a single-subject violation, but it did not invalidate Act 152 as a whole. Instead, it interpreted PAGE as supporting a general precept that, when a single-subject violation is found, “extraneous” provisions of the offending bill may be severed so as to preserve its “main subject.” Neiman, 5 A.3d at 359. Concluding that Act 152’s main purpose was to regulate sexual predators, the Superior Court severed all non-Megan’s Law provisions while leaving the remainder of the bill intact. See id. at 360.

This Court agreed that Act 152 contained more than one subject, but it disapproved the intermediate court’s remedy, reasoning that, where an omnibus bill encompasses multiple disparate subjects, “all of its provisions are equally repugnant to the constitution, and,, thus, equally void[.]” Neiman, 624 Pa. at 74, 84 A.3d at 615. While recognizing that the PAGE Court severed two provisions from the Gaming Act upon finding that they were not germane to the act’s purpose, Neiman distinguished that situation as involving “minor ancillary statutory provisions.” Id.

The severance issue in the present case is controlled by Neiman. This is not a situation like PAGE in which two minor, ancillary provisions of an otherwise single-subject enactment allocate funding from the regulated activity to causes unrelated to that activity. Rather, assuming Act 47 violates the single-subject rule, choosing which provisions should remain valid and enforceable would amount to “an untenable exercise in conjecture.” Neiman, 624 Pa. at 73, 84 A.3d at 615. In this respect, we cannot support the Superior Court’s decision to fashion the topic of “post-trial matters in criminal cases” from a subset of Act 47’s sections as the single subject to which the act primarily relates. The intermediate court’s action is irreconcilable with this Court’s prior admonition that “it would be arbitrary to preserve one set of provisions germane to one topic, and invalidate the remainder of the bill[.]” City of Phila., 575 Pa. at 586, 838 A.2d at 593, quoted in Neiman, 624 Pa. at 74, 84 A.3d at 615. Act 47 must stand or fall as a unit.

Keeping this in mind, we now turn more directly to the question of laches. Under its traditional formulation, laches bars relief when there has been a delay arising from the claimant’s failure to exercise due diligence in instituting an action, and such delay has resulted in prejudice to the other party. See, e.g., In re Iulo, 564 Pa. 205, 211, 766 A.2d 335, 338 (2001). On this topic, Appellants largely renew the arguments they advanced in their separate requests for reconsideration or reargument en banc as outlined above. The General Assembly also asks this Court to adopt a bright-line rule relating to procedural constitutional claims. Under the proposed rule, such a challenge may only be asserted if the complainant either (a) raises it before the end of the next full regular legislative session after the enactment’s effective date, or (b) demonstrates that: (i) there was no aggrieved person who could have asserted it within that time, (ii) the complainant is the first person aggrieved or in the first class of persons aggrieved, and (iii) the complainant has raised the challenge before the end of the next full regular legislative session after becoming aggrieved. See Brief for General Assembly at 27-28. The Assembly submits that limiting challenges in this way would provide an aggrieved party with a two-to-four-year window to file a complaint, and would also give the Legislature an opportunity to pass timely remedial legislation if the law is invalidated.

The Assembly recognizes that Plaintiffs may not themselves be guilty of failing to act with due diligence. It asserts, however, that, in this unique context, a broader view of the diligence inquiry should be employed—particularly as there were other interested parties who could have timely challenged the act on procedural grounds, as evidenced by Dansby and other appellate decisions published in the early 1990s in which the plaintiffs questioned the substantive constitutional validity of the wrongful-birth prohibition within the timeframe presently suggested. The legislative body argues:

Given the monumental public interest involved, it would be inappropriate to narrowly focus only on the diligence ... of any one particular plaintiff when evaluating whether the unreasonable delay element is satisfied. Such a myopic inquiry would leave the fate of our legislative system and fabric of our laws to mere happenstance.... This case presents a perfect example, as [Plaintiffs] may contend they did not unreasonably delay in filing their claim because they were not aggrieved by Act 47 until their child was born.

Brief for General Assembly at 24.

In response, Plaintiffs initially suggest that Defendants waived any defense based on laches by failing to raise it before the Court of Common Pleas and the Superior Court. They state that the Legislature’s advancement of the defense is also effectively waived. In this latter regard, Plaintiffs argue that the Attorney General’s decision not to participate before the Superior Court demonstrates that the Commonwealth has no interest in the matter, and hence, the Attorney General’s waiver is binding on the General Assembly. See Brief for Appellees at 40.

Apart from waiver, Plaintiffs indicate that laches should not pertain here because, unlike in Stilp, they exercised due diligence by timely bringing a claim after suffering an injury. They dispute the General Assembly’s suggestion that in the present context the lack of diligence by other similarly-situated parties is material. Plaintiffs posit that such has never been part of the laches defense and the Assembly has not supplied supporting authority for its proposed broader view of the diligence inquiry. Similarly, Plaintiffs argue that Appellants have not shown that the 22-year delay caused them to change their position or otherwise suffer prejudice. Plaintiffs contend, in this respect, that Appellants are forced to rely on either the harm that would befall Pennsylvania citizens generally who benefit from stability in the laws of the Commonwealth, or the impact on the finality of hundreds of settled criminal matters (unrelated to the present case) that would allegedly arise from the invalidation of Act 47. Again, Plaintiffs indicate that these types of harms are not pertinent to a laches defense and that, in all events, they are speculative harms that have not been proven by facts of record. See Brief for Appellees at 46-50.

More broadly, Plaintiffs maintain that the defense raised by Appellants does not sound in laches at all. Rather, they contend, it is based on the “simple assertion [that] too much time has passed to allow a challenge to Act 47 under Article III,” a principle they say this Court has never endorsed, making the present issue one of first impression. Id. at 51.

We agree with Plaintiffs that the argument forwarded by Appellants is not, strictly speaking, a laches defense. Laches rests, in part, on a finding that the complaining party is “guilty of want of due diligence in failing to institute his action” in a timely manner. United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. J.H. France Refractories Co., 542 Pa. 432, 440, 668 A.2d 120, 124 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). That circumstance is not directly implicated by process challenges (such as this one) in which tort plaintiffs, who may have been minor children or not yet born at the time the legislation under review became law, institute an otherwise timely action after suffering a private injury. Moreover, laches is an affirmative defense that should ordinarily be raised in a responsive pleading under “New Matter.” See Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 618 Pa. 228, 240 n. 6, 55 A.3d 1088, 1095 n. 6 (2012) (quoting Pa.R.C.P. No. 1030(a)). But cf. In re Marushak’s Estate, 488 Pa. 607, 610, 413 A.2d 649, 651 (1980) (suggesting that laches may be raised in preliminary objections if its “existence ... is clear on the face of the record”). Here, the litigation never proceeded to the responsive pleading stage: it was halted due to the county court’s determination that the allegations in the amended complaint were legally insufficient to make out a viable cause of action. As explained, that conclusion was based on Section 8305(a), 42 Pa,C.S., and Plaintiffs do not presently dispute that the provision, if upheld, would foreclose their cause of action.

Finally, and importantly for present purposes, in a traditional laches scenario, the plaintiffs claim is otherwise valid and the defendant bears the burden to demonstrate that enforcing the plaintiffs rights would be inequitable under the circumstances. See Weinberg v. State Bd. of Exam’rs of Pub. Accountants, 509 Pa. 143, 148, 501 A.2d 239, 242 (1985). Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs’ cause of action is presumptively invalid because it is precluded by Act 47. Hence, Plaintiffs are not trying to vindicate an otherwise viable legal claim; they are attempting to overcome a bar to the viability of their lawsuit by effectuating a large-scale change to Pennsylvania law. It may be observed, in this respect, that Act 47, like all duly-enacted legislation, enjoys a “strong presumption of validity,” City of Phila., 575 Pa. at 564, 838 A.2d at 580, and that Plaintiffs, as challengers, bear a “heavy burden of persuasion” in relation to their allegation of unconstitutionality. W. Mifflin Area Sch. Dist. v. Zahorchak, 607 Pa. 153, 163, 4 A.3d 1042, 1048 (2010). Defendants, therefore, relied, not on lach-es, but on the statute as the basis for their demurrer; they then argued that the process challenge arose too late to be cognizable.

In terms of substance, Plaintiffs are correct in proffering that Pennsylvania courts have not previously faced the precise argument advanced herein—namely, that, even apart from any fault by the challenger, the passage of many years can operate to preclude a process challenge to legislation. The Stilp case is distinguishable in that it dealt with a traditional laches defense raised in the defendants’ Answer and New Matter and predicated on the plaintiffs’ failure to exercise reasonable diligence. The holding was that laches could be raised as an affirmative defense to a constitutional process challenge. See Stilp, 553 Pa. at 132-34, 718 A.2d at 292-93 (reviewing Pennsylvania and extrajurisdictional authority, and concluding that “laches may apply where a challenge to a law is made on procedural grounds years after its passage”).

Despite the distinction, Stilp provides meaningful guidance in that it establishes that belated process challenges to legislative enactments are disfavored. In concluding that laches could be asserted, Stilp recognized that “courts would [otherwise] revisit statutes that are constitutionally sound in substance and that have been relied upon by the citizens of this Commonwealth.” Stilp, 553 Pa. at 134, 718 A.2d at 293. Even absent fault by the challenger, therefore, such reliance and the prejudice that would follow from belatedly overturning the statute are important considerations. As discussed more fully below, they are particularly salient in the context of the present case, where more than 20 years passed between enactment and the commencement of litigation.

Other jurisdictions faced with process challenges lodged after lengthy periods have likewise focused on the public’s reliance on the enactment’s validity and the harm that would ensue if the statute were set aside on procedural grounds. In resolving a procedural challenge to a set of public financing statutes that had been relied upon by the state and certain other parties, for example, the New York Court of Appeals referred to the “profound destabilizing and prejudicial effects from delay” as “decisive factors” in its analysis. Schulz v. State, 81 N.Y.2d 336, 599 N.Y.S.2d 469, 615 N.E.2d 953, 957 (1993). The court continued that such factors include the adverse effect invalidation would have “on the operation and maintenance of orderly government, on those with whom the State engaged in [certain] transactions, and on society in general.” Id.

The amount of time that has passed since enactment is a material consideration because the longer an act has been part of the statutory law and relied on by the public and the government, the more disruption to society and orderly governance is likely to follow from its invalidation. Where, as here, such reliance has continued for more than 20 years, a presumption naturally arises that any process challenge is too stale to be cognizable regardless of whether the challengers exercised reasonable diligence. Other courts have reached this conclusion relative to even shorter periods. For example, addressing a single-subject challenge to a state constitutional initiative brought nine years after voter approval, the Montana Supreme Court expressed that,

if we allowed Plaintiffs to challenge the procedure by which [the provision] was enacted nine years after the fact, what would prevent a party from filing a similar procedural challenge to some other constitutional initiative fifteen, twenty or even thirty years after that initiative’s enactment? There must be a point at which a claim asserting that Montana voters failed to follow the proper procedures in enacting a constitutional initiative simply comes too late. We have reached that point.

Cole v. State ex rel. Brown, 308 Mont. 265, 42 P.3d 760, 764-65 (2002) (emphasis added).

As well, we notice that in the 22 years between the passage of Act 47 and Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the criminal cases handled by Pennsylvania courts pursuant to the PCRA number in the thousands. It may also be presumed that felony charges which might have been dismissed at preliminary hearings because the victim or prosecuting attorney failed to attend were not dismissed and were ultimately pursued by the Commonwealth; defenses to claims for injuries sustained while in útero have been foregone; and would-be plaintiffs failed to assert causes of action for wrongful birth and/or wrongful life due to Section 8305’s bar to such claims. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8933, 8306, 8305. Invalidating all of these provisions retroactive to 1988 would be unduly disruptive to the orderly administration of justice in Pennsylvania. Doing so would, as the New York court stated, cause “greater harm to the public weal than the alleged constitutional transgression itself.” Schulz, 599 N.Y.S.2d 469, 615 N.E.2d at 957; accord Brief for General Assembly at 29 (asserting that a failure to bar belated procedural challenges “prejudices the Commonwealth ... by destabilizing the very foundation of its laws”).

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that, even if Act 47 contains more than one subject, the substantially belated nature of the present challenge, arising 22 years after enactment, renders the legislation immune to attack on that basis. Accordingly, we need not resolve definitively whether Act 47 violates the single-subject rule—either pursuant to the standards in effect at the time of its passage, or under the precepts set forth in City of Philadelphia and its progeny—or whether it would be appropriate to apply City of Philadelphia retroactively to legislation enacted before it was decided. Additionally, as our holding applies equally to the other two process challenges that were pending before the Superior Court, ie., those based on Sections 1 and 4 of Article III, see supra note 6, there is no need for further review in the intermediate court.

The order of the Superior Court is reversed and the matter is remanded for reinstatement of the common pleas court’s order dismissing the amended complaint.

Justices EAKIN, BAER, TODD and STEVENS join the opinion.

      . The provision states, in relevant part:
      (a) Wrongful birth.—There shall be no cause of action or award of damages on behalf of any person based on a claim that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, a person once conceived would not or should not have been bom....
      42 Pa.C.S. § 8305(a).

      . As this is an appeal from the sustaining of preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, the factual background is drawn from the amended complaint and developed in a light favorable to the plaintiffs. See Gresik v. PA Partners, L.P., 613 Pa. 303, 304 n. 1, 33 A.3d 594, 595 n. 1 (2011).

      . The Superior Court incorrectly stated that Plaintiffs also included a claim for wrongful-life on behalf of Samuel. Such a cause of action, had it been raised, would have been precluded by subsection (b) of Section 8305. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8305(b).

      . Plaintiffs also alleged an Article III, Section 6 violation, but they later abandoned that claim.

      . The other three sections that the Superior Court severed contained provisions: governing the appointment of substitute bail commissioners in Philadelphia, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 1125; limiting the defenses available for injuries sustained in útero, see id. § 8306; and prohibiting the dismissal of felony criminal charges at the preliminary hearing stage solely because the prosecutor or victim failed to appear, see id. § 8933.

      . For reasons that do not appear in the record or the intermediate court’s opinion, the court did not evaluate whether Act 47 violated Article III, Sections 1 or 4, or whether such a violation, if found, would require invalidation of the -entire act—notwithstanding that those issues were pending before the court. Moreover, the Superior Court invalidated the bill's sole original provision relating to the appointment of substitute bail commissioners in Philadelphia on the basis that it did not relate to the act’s overall topic, see supra note 5, but it did not discuss whether this might signify that the bill violated Article III, Section l's prohibition on a change in original purpose.

      . When Plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court, they notified Pennsylvania's Attorney General of their constitutional challenge. See Pa. R.A.P. 521(a) (requiring such notice). However, the Attorney General elected not to participate. See generally Sernovitz, 57 A.3d at 1256-57 & n. 4.

      . This suggested bright-line rule is based on a Missouri statute to similar effect, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.500, which additionally contains a proviso that "[i]n no event shall an action alleging a procedural defect ... be allowed later than five years after the bill ... becomes effective.” Id. The statute, in turn, is based on a concurring opinion from a Missouri Supreme Court decision. See Hammerschmidt v. Boone Cnty., 877 S.W.2d 98, 105 (Mo.1994) (Holstein, J., concurring).

      . In light of these distinctions, we find use of the "laches” rubric in the present context to be imprecise, and we believe it would be more appropriate to describe Appellants' contention as a stale-process-challenge argument. Contrary to Plaintiffs' assertion, moreover, Appellants have not waived this argument. Defendants forwarded it in briefs supporting their preliminary objections. See R.R. 210a, 399a-410a. As the appellees before the Superior Court, they did not bear the burden of issue preservation. See Friends of Pa. Leadership Charter Sch. v. Chester Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 627 Pa. 446, 452 n. 4, 101 A.3d 66, 69 n. 4 (2014). Upon becoming aggrieved by the intermediate court’s decision, Defendants addressed the topic in seeking reargument in that tribunal and discretionary review in this Court, and the General Assembly advanced the position at its first opportunity when it obtained leave to intervene. Plaintiffs have not supplied any authority to support their contention that the Attorney General’s decision not to participate before the Superior Court binds the General Assembly. That contention— which in any event would not apply to Defendants—appears especially suspect since the Office of the Attorney General is not part of the legislative branch and there is no rule-based requirement that the Assembly receive notice whenever a statute’s constitutionality is questioned in court.

      . See also SMDfund, Inc. v. Fort Wayne-Allen Cnty. Airport Auth., 831 N.E.2d 725, 731 (Ind.2005) (describing a 17-year delay in advancing a process challenge as "unreasonable”); Edel v. Filer Twp., 49 Mich.App. 210, 211 N.W.2d 547, 548-49 (1973) (finding an 18-year delay too long); Taylor v. Schlemmer, 353 Mo. 687, 183 S.W.2d 913, 916 (1944) (14-year delay excessive); City of Creston v. Center Milk Prods. Co., 243 Iowa 611, 51 N.W.2d 463, 465 (1952) (21-year delay inordinate); Benequit v. Borough of Monmouth Beach, 125 N.J.L. 65, 13 A.2d 847, 849 (N.J.1940) (nine-year delay too long). See generally Struyk v. Samuel Braen's Sons, 17 N.J.Super. 1, 85 A.2d 279, 282-83 (1951) (William Brennan, J.) ("The ordinance has been in effect for ten years and public policy forbids an attack based upon informalities and irregularities in the procedure which led to the adoption of the ordinance, when ... property owners affected by it have conformed to its provisions, and have fixed their status accordingly.” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).

      . It is also possible that mandatory minimum sentences have been imposed pursuant to Section 9719 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9719 (requiring a three-year minimum prison sentence for certain offenses committed while impersonating a law enforcement officer), albeit we observe that the Superior Court has declared Section 9719 unconstitutional on substantive grounds based on Alleyne v. United States, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) (holding that, under the Sixth Amendment, any fact which increases the penalty for a crime—e.g., by triggering a mandatory minimum sentence—must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt). See Commonwealth v.

        Watley, 81 A.3d 108, 117 n. 4 (Pa.Super.2013) (en banc), appeal denied, 626 Pa. 684, 95 A.3d 277 (2014) (per curiam).

      . This is not to suggest that a law which substantively violates the constitution may survive scrutiny based on the passage of time alone. One court has explained that
      an ordinance that is clearly a usurpation of power, inconsistent with constitutional ... provisions, or an invasion of property with no relation to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare, is void and incapable of being validated. It can be attacked at any time, regardless of previous acquiescence or the amount of time since its passage. However, defects and irregularities in the mode of enacunent ... do not pertain to the nature of the ordinance itself. In our judgment, challenges to such defects may be precluded by waiver, estoppel, or laches.

        Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. Kitsap Cnty., 52 Wash.App. 236, 758 P.2d 1009, 1011 (1988); accord Schaeffer v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 338 Md. 75, 656 A.2d 751, 753 (1995). Although Kitsap County made this distinction in relation to municipal ordinances, it applies equally to acts of a state legislature. See, e.g., SMDfund, 831 N.E.2d at 730-31.

      . Nothing in this opinion should be construed as undermining the viability of timely process challenges, which remain cognizable as reflected in decisions such as City of Philadelphia and Neiman.

      Separately, we decline at this time to erect, via judicial decree, a definitive restriction along the lines suggested by the General Assembly, Although we do not foreclose the possibility of establishing such a rule in future, it would be premature to do so now because, as noted, this is the first controversy in which the issue here decided has been presented; as such, we lack sufficient information and experience to determine the appropriate contours of a bright-line preclusive rule. In this respect, we observe that "[t]he adjudicatory process is structured to cast a narrow focus on matters framed by litigants before the Court in a highly directed fashion.” Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health Educ. & Research Found. v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers,

        LLP, 605 Pa. 269, 301, 989 A.2d 313, 333 (2010). Moreover, the holding of a judicial opinion is to be read against its facts. See Maloney v. Valley Med. Facilities, Inc., 603 Pa. 399, 415, 984 A.2d 478, 488 (2009), Thus, as a general precept, judicial constructs impacting wide ranges of scenarios tend to develop incrementally in light of the circumstances presented in each dispute. See generally Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 386, 101 S.Ct. 677, 681, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981) ("[W]e sit to decide concrete cases[.]”).