author: Chief Justice SAYLOR. Justice EAKIN,

text:
    125 A.3d 19
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Appellee v. James EISEMAN, Jr., and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Appellants. Aetna Better Health, Inc., Health Partners of Philadelphia, Inc., and Keystone Mercy Health Plan, Appellees v. James Eiseman, Jr., and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Appellants. UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc. d/b/a UnitedHealthcare Community Plan and HealthAmerica Pennsylvania Inc. d/b/a CoventryCares, Appellees v. James Eiseman, Jr., and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Appellants.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued May 5, 2015.
    Decided Oct. 27, 2015.

      Benjamin David Geffen, Esq., for James Eiseman, Jr., The Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia.
    Eric L. Cramer, Esq., Philadelphia, Nicholas Urban, Esq., Berger & Montague, P.C., for Polsky, Daniel, Appellant Ami-cus Curiae.
    Leonard Whitney Crumb, Esq., Harrisburg, for Department of Public Welfare.
    Daniel B. Huyett, Esq., Neil Coleman Schur, Esq., Stevens & Lee, P.C., Philadelphia, for The Pennsylvania Coalition of Medical Assistance Managed Care Organizations, Appellee Amicus Curiae.
    Jeffrey L. Poston, Esq., Crowell & Moring, L.L.P., for America’s Health Insurance Plans, Appellee Amicus Curiae.
    Karl Stewart Myers, Esq., Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, L.L.P., Philadelphia, for Aetna Better Health, Inc., CoventryCares.
    SAYLOR, C.J., EAKIN, BAER, TODD, STEVENS, JJ.
   OPINION

Chief Justice SAYLOR.

These appeals, as well as a companion set, concern the extent of the public’s statutory right of access to discrete information about the implementation of the Medical Assistance Program.

In Pennsylvania, the Medical Assistance or Medicaid Program is administered by the Commonwealth’s Department of Human Services, which, in the time period relevant to the events underlying these appeals, was known as the Department of Public Welfare (“DPW” or the “Department”). Funded jointly by the federal and state governments, Medicaid directs public monies toward the provision of healthcare services to qualifying individuals with low incomes and limited resources. See generally 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396-1396w-5; 62 P.S. §§ 441.1-449. In implementing one pillar of the delivery system in the Commonwealth—via a program called Health-Choices—DPW has negotiated and contracted with various managed care organizations (“MCOs”) to render the essential services available to enrollees. In the program’s Southeast Zone, five MCOs were selected.

As is pertinent here, HealthChoices encompasses the provision of dental care to low-income children, certain adults, and some persons with disabilities in Pennsylvania. The five MCOs serving enrollees in the Southeast Zone engaged DPW-approved dental subcontractors (“Subcontractors”) to fulfill the larger measure of the MCOs’ contractual obligations. See generally Dental Benefit Providers, Inc. v. Eiseman, 86 A.3d 932, 937 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014) (indicating that “[sjubcontractors have built sophisticated networks of providers, enabling them to provide services to enrollees in a cost-effective manner.”). Subcontractors then contracted with and paid providers of dental health care services to examine and treat Medicaid enrollees. In a few instances, however, MCOs arranged for services directly with providers.

In June 2011, James Eiseman, Jr. and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia (“Requesters”) tendered requests to DPW seeking records revealing, among other things, the rates that DPW paid to the MCOs for dental services in the Southeast Zone (the “Capitation Rates”), and the amounts paid by MCOs to provide dental services (the “MCO Rates”). These were submitted per the Right-to-Know Law.

DPW denied the requests in relevant part. As is most germane to our present consideration, with regard to the MCO Rates, the Department indicated that it had been informed by each of the MCOs that the rates were “trade secrets and/or confidential proprietary information” protected against disclosure. See 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(ll) (generally exempting from the requirement of public access a “record that constitutes or reveals a trade secret or confidential proprietary information”). Significantly, the Department did not deny that it possessed pertinent records; rather, it related that the MCOs had instructed that “DPW is not to disclose” the rates. Letter of DPW Open Records Officer to James Eiseman, Jr., dated July 25, 2011, at 6.

Requesters lodged an appeal in the Office of Open Records (the “OOR”). See 65 P.S. § 67.1101. See generally Bowling v. OOR, 621 Pa. 133, 141-42, 75 A.3d 453, 457-58 (2013) (describing the administrative tier of the appeals process under the RTKL). The five MCOs intervened as direct-interest participants, see 65 P.S. § 67.1101(c), relying upon the trade-secrets/confidential-proprietary-information exemptions.

At an evidentiary hearing, the MCOs offered expert and lay testimony to support the claimed exemptions. Additionally, the organizations adduced evidence that the disclosure of rate information would lessen the value of their investment in negotiating favorable rates.

The OOR, however, issued a final determination granting the relevant records requests. Initially, the appeals officer observed that records in the possession of a Commonwealth agency are presumed to be public, unless they qualify for an exemption under the RTKL or other law or are protected by a privilege, judicial order, or decree. See id. § 67.305; accord Bowling, 621 Pa. at 140, 75 A.3d at 457. Furthermore, he explained, the Law places the burden of proof upon a public body to demonstrate exemptions. See 65 P.S. § 67.708(a).

Of particular significance to his legal analysis, the appeals officer noted that the trade-secrets/confidential-proprietary-information exception does not extend to one statutorily-defined subset of public records, namely “financial records.” Id. § 67.708(c) (prescribing that “[t]he exceptions set forth in subsection (b) shall not apply to financial records,” subject to certain enumerated exceptions not applicable here). “Financial records,” the appeals officer elaborated, include “[a]ny account, voucher, or contract dealing with ... the receipt or disbursement of funds by an agency; or ... an agency’s acquisition, use or disposal of services[.]” Id. § 67.102. Since the Department’s agreements with the MCOs (containing the Capitation Rates) dealt with “the disbursement of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds for the acquisition of health insurance for Medicaid participants,” the appeals officer concluded that they “cannot be considered anything but a ‘financial record’ under the RTKL.” Final Determination in Eiseman v. DPW, No. AP 2011-1098, slip op. at 15 (OOR Sept. 17, 2012).

In the alternative, the appeals officer also considered whether the rates of payment to MCOs could be considered trade secrets or confidential proprietary information. He explained that a “trade secret” is defined by the RTKL, as well as in Pennsylvania’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as:

Information, including a formula, drawing, pattern, compilation including a customer list, program, device, method, technique or process that: ... [djerives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and ... [i]s the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

12 Pa.C.S. § 5302; see 65 P.S. § 67.102 (reflecting a materially identical formulation). See generally Final Determination in Eiseman, No. AP 2011-1098, slip op. at 13 (“[The Uniform Trade Secrets Act] provides injunctive relief and monetary damages to parties who have been harmed by the misappropriation of trade secrets, while the RTKL provides parties with protection from public disclosure by government agencies of records which contain trade secrets.” (citations omitted)). The appeals officer also related that the term “confidential proprietary information” is defined by the RTKL as “[c]om-mercial or financial information received by an agency: ... which is privileged or confidential; and ... the disclosure of which would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person who submitted the information.” 65 P.S. § 67.102.

Although the appeals officer accepted that DPW and the MCOs treat the Capitation Rates as confidential information, he indicated that it was “not clear that [their] disclosure ... would provide any economic value to the Department’s counter-parties in future negotiations or would cause substantial competitive harm to the Department.” Final Determination in Eiseman, No. AP 2011-1098, slip op. at 14. Accordingly, the appeals officer determined that DPW and the MCOs had failed to meet their burden of proof as to an exemption.

As to MCO Rates, the appeals officer relied substantially on Lukes v. DPW, 976 A.2d 609 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009), to conclude that records containing such information also were not exempt. See id. at 627 (“[A] party that voluntarily participates in a public program and is receiving and disbursing public funds in furtherance of that program has no legitimate basis to assert that these activities are private and should be shielded from public scrutiny.”). Although Lukes had been decided under the Law’s predecessor, the appeals officer highlighted this Court’s recent citation with approval to the decision. See SWB Yankees LLC v. Wintermantel, 615 Pa. 640, 665 n. 19, 45 A.3d 1029, 1044 n. 19 (2012). The appeals officer also found that the MCOs had failed to establish that they would suffer substantial harm if their rates were disclosed. See Final Determination in Eiseman, No. AP 2011-1098, slip op. at 18.

In a divided opinion, the Commonwealth Court sustained the portion of the OOR’s determination concerning Capitation Rates, as the members of an en banc panel unanimously agreed that contracts between DPW and the MCOs were financial records under the Law. See DPW v. Eiseman (Eiseman I), 85 A.3d 1117, 1124 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014) (en banc) (explaining that “[t]he Capitation Rates are records within DPW’s possession that evidence its transaction of paying MCOs pursuant to the Medicaid HealthChoices Program” and otherwise are financial records pursuant to the statutory definition); accord id. at 1133 (McCullough, J., concurring and dissenting) (“I join the Majority in its conclusion that the Capitation Rates negotiated between DPW and the MCOs are subject to disclosure.”). Although the majority agreed with the OOR’s conclusion that the statutory trade-secrets/confidential-proprietary-information exception contained within the RTKL did not apply to financial records, it took the position that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act implicated a distinct analysis.

The majority explained that the RTKL prescribes that: “Nothing in this act shall supersede or modify the public or nonpublic nature of a record or document established in Federal or State law, regulation or judicial order or decree.” 65 P.S. § 67.306; cf. id. § 67.3101.1 (“If the provisions of this act regarding access to records conflict with any other Federal or State law, the provisions of this act shall not apply.”). In light of this provision, the majority opined that “Section 708(c) cannot dilute operation of another law that provides an independent statutory bar to disclosure.” Eiseman I, 85 A.3d at 1124. Ultimately, however, the majority found that the Capitation Rates did not qualify as trade secrets, because DPW and the MCOs failed to explain how disclosure would impair their economic value. See id. at 1126-27.

While the members of the en banc panel all agreed that the Law required disclosure of the Capitation Rates, the viewpoints divided as concerns the MCO Rates. According to the majority, these were not aspects of financial records, since the rates are not contained in contracts “of a Commonwealth agency” and “do not involve disbursement of funds by a Commonwealth agency.” Id. at 1127 (“[T]he statute does not use the phrase ‘disbursement of agency funds;’ rather, the definition refers to disbursement of funds ‘by an agency.’ ” (emphasis in original)). In this regard, the majority viewed the MCO Rates as pertaining not to disbursements by a governmental entity, but disbursements by a contractor of the agency. See id. From the majority’s perspective:

That MCOs disbursed funds they received from DPW to their subcontractors does not render the MCOs mere conduits for public funds. Based on the language of the current RTKL, the funds lose their character as public funds once they leave an agency’s hands and enter the private sector.

Eiseman I, 85 A.3d at 1127.

Having concluded that the MCO Rates were not contained within financial records, the majority turned to the broader set of exceptions to disclosure attaching to “public records,” which include the express trade-secrets/confidential-proprietary-information exception. See 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(ll). In this regard, the majority focused most closely on the confidential-proprietary-information aspect, first concluding that the MCO Rates were “confidential,” on account of contractual and other measures taken to maintain secrecy. See Eiseman I, 85 A.3d at 1128. In terms of the “substantial harm to the competitive position” criterion, 65 P.S. § 67.102, the majority found that this factor was established primarily based on expert testimony submitted by the MCOs regarding “industry practice, the highly sensitive nature of the information, and potential for substantial harm from its disclosure.” Eiseman I, 85 A.3d at 1130. Accordingly, the majority concluded that the MCO Rates were protected from disclosure per the statutory exception. In a brief passage, the majority also opined that the information qualified for trade-secret status under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. See id. at 1131.

Throughout its opinion, the majority expressly departed from the intermediate court’s previous analysis in Lukes, taking the position that Lukes lacked relevance, given that the matter had been decided under the prior law. See id. at 1125, 1127.

Judge McCullough authored a concurring and dissenting opinion, in which she took the majority to task for what she characterized as a “cursory” and inapt treatment of Lukes. Eiseman I, 85 A.3d at 1136-37 (McCullough, J., concurring and dissenting) (“[T]he Majority’s reliance upon its cited case law to abrogate Lukes on a completely unrelated and separate point of law is misplaced.”). In her view, since the relevant substantive terms, as between the previous and new open-records laws, could not be distinguished by the majority (and, in fact, were materially identical), Lukes represented governing authority and commanded adherence. See id. at 1134-35. According to Judge McCullough, the majority also inappropriately glossed over material, functional terms within the statutory definition of “financial records.” Along these lines, she explained:

[T]he Majority’s interpretation ... effectively renders the words “any,” “dealing,” and “disbursement” superfluous and without meaning, and also ignores the fact that the funds originate with DPW.... [Sjection 102 of the RTKL is broad enough to include public funds that trickle down through contractor and subcontractor contracts (“any contract”) because these contracts nevertheless “deal” with, or simply pass along down the line, the “disbursement of funds by an agency.”

Id. at 1136-37 (citation omitted).

Consistent with the reasoning and holding of Lukes, Judge McCullough also stressed DPW’s delegation of a governmental function and disbursement of public monies to the MCOs to fulfill that essential purpose. See id. at 1134-35. On this point, she reasoned:

[T]he public funds originate with DPW, and no matter how many private entities the funds pass through, the funds end up in the hands of those performing the actual dental services and are the same funds that began with DPW. That is, public funds are used to pay for public dental insurance.

Id. at 1133. Since the MCO Rates qualified as financial records, Judge McCullough continued, the exemptions contained in Section 708(b) of the RTKL, including for trade secrets and confidential proprietary information, did not apply. See 65 P.S. § 67.708(c).

Finally, she asserted that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not serve as an independent exemption to open-records disclosure, particularly given that the definitions of “trade secret” in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the RTKL are materially identical. See Eiseman I, 85 A.3d at 1138 (McCullough, J., concurring and dissenting). This similarly, Judge McCullough explained, evinced a legislative intent to transpose the effect of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act into Section 708(b)(ll) of the RTKL. Thus, she concluded, the import of Section 708(c)—in terms of explicitly withholding the trade-secrets exception from any application to financial records— trumped any independent application of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Id. at 1138-39 (“Indeed, it would be anomalous for our legislature to explicitly exclude trade secrets as an exception to disclosure of financial records in section 708(c) of the RTKL, while simultaneously implying that trade secrets are an exception requiring disclosure of the same financial records in section 3101.1 of the RTKL.”).

Subsequent to the issuance of the Commonwealth Court’s opinion, DPW disclosed the Capitation Rates to Requesters, and no party has further pursued a challenge to such tender. Therefore, only the MCO Rates remain in issue before us.

In the present briefing, consistent with Judge McCullough’s concurring and dissenting opinion, Requesters maintain that records documenting the MCO Rates are financial records under the Law, including because they are contained within contracts “dealing with” the “disbursement of funds” and “acquisition, use or disposal of services” by DPW. Brief for Appellants at 17, 28 (quoting 65 P.S. § 67.102). Requesters highlight that the disclosure requirements pertaining to financial records are the most expansive, accord Eiseman I, 85 A.3d at 1133-34 (McCullough, J., concurring and dissenting) (“Prom a requester’s standpoint, the most potent provisions of the RTKL are arguably sections 102 and 708(c) pertaining to financial records.”), in light of the Legislature’s aim of promoting confidence in government via transparency in fiscal matters.

Additionally, Requesters rely on the analysis contained in Lukes, which they contend is even more salient under the new Law, given that that the enactment was designed to provide greater, not lesser, openness. Cf. Bowling v. OOR, 621 Pa. 133, 140, 75 A.3d 453, 457 (2013) (“In 2008, the General Assembly enacted the RTKL, which replaced the [Right to Know Act] and provided for significantly broadened access to public records.”); Levy v. Senate of Pa., 619 Pa. 586, 618, 65 A.3d 361, 381 (2013) (“[T]he enactment of the RTKL in 2008 was a dramatic expansion of the public’s access to government documents.”). According to Requesters, “[i]t is impossible to square the Commonwealth Court’s discarding of Lukes with the conclusion of SWB Yankees that the RTKL expands access to public records and with [SWB Yankees’] favorable treatment of Lukes.” Brief for Appellants at 20. Requesters also depict the majority decision of the Commonwealth Court as a departure from a long line of decisions of this Court, such as Sapp Roofing Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local Union No. 12, 552 Pa. 105, 109, 713 A.2d 627, 629 (1998) (plurality) (holding that payroll records of a private roofing contractor in the custody of a local agency were public records, because they evidenced a disbursement by a governmental unit).

Requesters note that, in other geographic areas of the Commonwealth, DPW has administered Medicaid as a fee-for-services program, rather than through managed care organizations. They urge that “[t]he insertion of middlemen— MCOs and subcontractors—between DPW and providers does not change the fact that DPW receives and expends federal and state Medicaid moneys so that, ultimately, the child can get his cavity treated.” Brief for Appellants at 26 (“The Commonwealth’s purpose is not to issue payments to private insurance companies or to enrich providers, but to ensure that specified members of society have access to healthcare.”); accord Pa. Pharmacists Ass’n v. Houstoun, 283 F.3d 531, 538 (3d Cir.2002) (en banc) (“It is ... apparent from the statutory language [in the Medicaid Act] that the intended beneficiaries of [42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) ] are recipients, not providers.”).

In terms of the trade-secrets issue, Requesters maintain that Section 708(c) of the RTKL reflects a policy judgment, on the part of the General Assembly, that openness of records related to public-funds expenditures is so important to the promotion of confidence in government that the trade-secrets and confldential-proprietary-information exceptions must yield to disclosure. The Commonwealth Court’s decision, they assert, nullifies this salutary aim. Requesters reject as perverse the notion that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act may be interposed independently of Section 708(c), particularly given the express displacement of the self-contained trade-secrets protection within the four corners of the Law itself.

As a policy matter, Requesters urge that the Commonwealth Court’s decision thwarts essential public access to a wide range of records documenting the administration of vital and costly public programs through private contractors. In an amicus submission, Daniel Polsky, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania elaborates extensively on the salient policy considerations. See, e.g., Brief for Amicus Daniel Polsky, PhD, at 9-10 (positing that restrictions on access to negotiated rate information pertaining to the administration of the Medicaid program diminishes government accountability by impeding an essential exploration of whether access to and quality of care is being compromised by the payment regime); accord Brief for Appellants at 14 (“Shielding from public view how nearly one third of the General Fund budget flows from DPW to providers substantially undermines [the Law’s] goal.”).

The MCOs, on the other hand, take a different position concerning the relevant policies. From their point of view,

[fjar from being mere conduits of public funds, the MCOs act as risk-bearing entities, responsible for providing all covered medical services, including dental services, to their members. Whether those services can be delivered at more or less cost to the MCO directly impacts the bottom-line of the MCO, not the finances of the Commonwealth.

Brief for Appellees Health Partners of Philadelphia, Inc., et al., at 15. According to the MCOs, public dissemination of otherwise confidential contractual payment rates would discourage private entities from doing business with the Commonwealth, thus limiting that option for securing goods and services necessary to public service. Such access would not serve the purpose of governmental transparency laws, they argue, since the contracts involved concern negotiations and relationships among private, rather than governmental, entities. According to the MCOs and their amici, preserving secrecy for the MCO Rates promotes investment, innovation and competition; maintains lower Medicaid costs; and affords Medicaid enrollees broader provider choices. See, e.g., Brief for Amicus America’s Health Ins. Plans at 14-23; Brief for Amicus the Pa. Coalition of Med. Assistance Managed Care Orgs. at 6-16 (elaborating extensively on policy considerations attending disclosure or non-disclosure of the MCO Rates).

One faction of the MCOs—UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, HealthAmerica Pennsylvania Inc., and Aetna Better Health, Inc.—urge that this Court’s review should be closely confined to the question of whether the MCO Rates constitute confidential proprietary information. See, e.g., Brief for Appellees UnitedHealthcare, et al., at 15 (“This Court should affirm because the record supports the Commonwealth Court’s finding below: that the rates paid by the private contractor health plans to the dental sub-contractors constitute ‘confidential proprietary information’ under the Right-to-Know Law.”). They assert that the record amply supports the Commonwealth Court’s determination on this score and characterize Requesters’ arguments concerning the financial-records aspect as collateral and technical in nature. See id. at 23-24. These MCOs also posit that the Commonwealth Court “struck a fair balance” by requiring that government-paid rates must be disclosed under the RTKL, but that the rates which private health plans pay to Subcontractors need not be disclosed. Id. at 11-12 (“The court below enforced the public’s right to know what the government has paid for a program, while simultaneously preserving the health plans’ abilities to compete in the marketplace by shielding their confidential competitive information from harmful disclosure.”). According to this group, there simply is no nexus between public access to the MCO Rates and government transparency, and Requesters’ efforts to obtain additional information represent “meddling” and “pry[ing] into the protected files of the health plans.” Id. at 12-13.

All of the MCOs, as well as dental-services subcontractor Dentaquest LLC, suggest that “financial records,” under the Law, subsume “only those showing the agency’s own disbursements.” See id. at 25 (emphasis in original). Furthermore, they contend, in effect, that the MCO Rates are simply too remote from Department contracts and disbursements to qualify as records “dealing with” such contracts and disbursements. See 65 P.S. § 67.102.

In terms of the confidential-proprietary-information exception, the MCOs stress the protection of confidentiality expressed in their subcontracts. Furthermore, they elaborate upon the ample lay and expert witness testimony evidencing that the MCO Rates have been kept secret and that the plans would be harmed by public disclosure. See, e.g., Brief for Appellees UnitedHealthcare, et al., at 19 (“[T]he health plan executives provided extensive testimony respecting the confidential nature and treatment of the rates they pay the subcontractors, including testimony that: the information is accorded such treatment in the contracts with the plans’ subcontractors; access to the rates is limited to a ‘need to know’ basis; security measures are in place to protect the rates; and internal and external disclosure is prevented.”).

Two of the MCOs, joined by subcontractor Dentaquest LLC, lead with the proposition that records reflecting the MCO Rates—including agreements between MCOs and Subcontractors—are not “public records” at all, because they are not in the Department’s possession. See 65 P.S. § 67.102 (defining a “public record” as one “of a Commonwealth or local agency”). These appellees also take the position that, even if records revealing the MCO Rates are deemed to be public, they are not “financial records,” and, to the degree which they may be deemed to be financial records, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act applies in any event to protect them from public disclosure.

DPW also now asserts that it simply does not possess records reflecting the MCO Rates. Therefore, the Department requests that, if this Court concludes that the Law requires disclosure, we should direct the MCOs to supply the records to Requesters. Otherwise, DPW relies upon the content of the MCOs’ briefs in support of its own position favoring affirmance.

Our present review turns on matters of statutory construction, over which our review is plenary. Additionally, we are obliged to liberally construe the Law to effectuate its salutary purpose of promoting “access to official government information in order to prohibit secrets, scrutinize actions of public officials, and make public officials accountable for their actions.” Levy, 619 Pa. at 619, 65 A.3d at 381 (quoting Allegheny Cnty. Dep’t of Admin. Servs. v. A Second Chance, Inc., 13 A.3d 1025, 1034 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011)).

At the outset of our review, we find that the assertion that DPW neither possesses nor controls records reflecting the MCO Rates (and, thus, they are not “records of an agency”) is not well taken. The Department did not claim non-possession in its response to the initial open-records requests, and it was agreed by all at the hearing stage that the only issue was whether disclosure exceptions applied. See, e.g., N.T., May 21, 2012, at 16-17 (reflecting DPW’s advancement of the trade-secrets exception as the basis for denial of the request for records subsuming the MCO Rates); id. at 18, 21 (memorializing the remarks of counsel for the MCOs that the hearing involved “a very narrow issue” and “narrow questions” concerning the applicability of the trade-secrets/confidential-proprietary-information exception). Furthermore, it is undisputed that managed care organizations are required to submit subcontracts delegating their healthcare-related responsibilities to DPW for the agency’s advance written approval, per the Department’s standard written contract. See, e.g., Health-Choices Physical Health Agreement at 87 (version effective July 1, 2010). This is unsurprising, of course, since the undertaking entails the allocation of a vital governmental function.

In light of this course of development, we granted discretionary review to consider the Commonwealth Court’s conclusions relative to the financial-records issue and trade-secrets/confidential-proprietary-information exceptions. See DPW v. Eiseman, 630 Pa. 215, 106 A.3d 610 (2014) (per curiam). To the extent that the Department may encounter difficulties flowing from our present focus on those questions, these would appear to be substantially of its own making. The Legislature designed the RTKL to afford reasonable and efficient access to public information; it contravenes this salutary purpose for the Department to advance shifting positions in opposing disclosure; and, accordingly, we will confine our review and mandate to the matters upon which appeal was allowed.

As to those issues, first, we agree with Requesters, the OOR appeals officer, and Judge McCullough that documents required to be submitted to DPW reflecting the MCO Rates are “financial records” under the Law. See 65 P.S. § 67.102. In this regard, while DPW and the MCOs would prefer to emphasize the definitional language associating contracts and disbursements with a government agency, accord supra note 7, the statute plainly reaches more broadly via its prescription that “financial records” encompass records “dealing with” disbursements of public money and services acquisitions by agencies. See 65 P.S. § 67.102; cf. N. Hills News Record v. Town of McCandless, 555 Pa. 51, 55, 722 A.2d 1037, 1039 (1999) (explaining that language within the former open-record’s law’s definition of “public record”—which the Legislature reposited in the definition of “financial record” under the new Law—reaches some range of records beyond accounts, vouchers, or contracts, subsuming records which “bear a sufficient connection” to such fiscally-related categories).

The MCOs’ position that “[t]his dispute does not relate to [ie., ‘deal with’] any payments actually made by the Pennsylvania government,” Brief for Appellees UnitedHealthcare, et al, at 4, greatly understates the relationship between government contracts with managed care organizations and the subcontracts by which such entities chose to fulfill their contractual undertakings with the Commonwealth. In other words, subcontracts containing MCO Rates plainly “deal with” DPW’s disbursement of billions of dollars of public monies to provide access to essential healthcare to vulnerable populations, as well as the Department’s acquisition of services to meet its own obligations under federal and state law (albeit through middlemen). See 65 P.S. § 67.102.

According to the MCOs, reliance on the above rationale to conclude that MCO Rates are contained within “financial records” yields disclosure of private-contractor records without rational limitation. See, e.g., Brief for Appellees UnitedHealthcare, et al., at 27 (“[U]nder [Requesters’] reading of the statute, all a requestor [sic] would need to do to defeat any of [the] exemptions would be to establish some connection, however remote, to ‘public funds.’ ” (emphasis added)); Brief for Appellees Health Partners of Philadelphia, Inc., et al., at 16-17 (“The fundamental flaw in [Requesters’] arguments is their reliance on the purported existence of a broad right of public access ... to all documents having any connection whatsoever with the carrying out of any governmental function, regardless of their remoteness from a government agency[.]” (emphasis added)). We differ with this criticism for several reasons.

First, not all private-contractor documents must be submitted to a government agency for approval. It is this initial requirement which separates subcontracts containing the MCO Rates from third-party records (to which a distinct legal analysis applies, see 65 P.S. § 67.506(d)). Cf. Sapp Roofing, 552 Pa. at 109, 713 A.2d at 629 (discussing the open-records treatment of payroll records of a private contractor which were required to be submitted to the government). Along these lines, the MCOs’ argumentation is laden with the implication that DPW does not possess the subcontracts in issue, whereas our analysis presumes that the Department does have possession (since the standard contract requires submission of those contracts, and neither DPW nor the MCOs asserted non-possession as this litigation evolved as a basis for denying the relevant open-records requests).

Second, since the Legislature did not choose to address disclosure of records pertaining to Medicaid disbursements on specific terms, it has fallen to the courts to provide necessary clarification incrementally through the decisional law process. Cf. SWB Yankees, 615 Pa. at 662-64, 45 A.3d at 1042-43 (elaborating upon the task of construing a new statutory regime and making an inroad into development in a discrete setting). It is not a satisfactory solution, in our view, to disregard the policy of liberal interpretation of a remedial statute in favor of a bright-line rule which, while facilitating ease of application, is plainly under-inclusive given the governing statute’s utilization of language establishing a broader nexus.

We recognize that the policy considerations involved here are deeply mixed, given the potential cost efficiencies which may be available to the government through access to the managed care industry, as well as the substantial proof of impact of MCO-Rate disclosure upon that industry’s business practices. Indeed, given the significance of the Medicaid program including its vast budgetary impact, the law would certainly benefit from a directed assessment by the General Assembly, bringing to bear its superior policymaking resources to determine the appropriate parameters of open-records disclosure in the Medicaid arena, rather than continuing to channel the inquiry through highly-generalized open-records provisions. Nevertheless, in the absence of such a legislative evaluation, we are simply unable to conclude that records which must be submitted to a government agency for approval, and which embody a delegation (albeit a downstream delegation) of a governmental function of the agency, are not records “dealing with” the agency’s monetary disbursements and services acquisitions. See 65 P.S. § 67.102.

With regard to such financial records, it is essentially undisputed that Section 708(c) renders the Law’s own internal trade-secrets/confidential-proprietary-information exception inapplicable. See 65 P.S. § 67.708(c) (establishing, as a general rule, that “[t]he exceptions set forth in subsection (b),” including the trade-secrets/confidential-proprietary-information exception, “shall not apply to financial records”). Accordingly, the sole remaining issue is whether the Uniform Trade Secrets Act protects the financial records containing the MCO Rates from disclosure.

Initially, we observe that contractual payment rates are not a close fit with the concept of a “trade secret,” as it is substantially debatable whether such rates are in the nature of a “formula, drawing, pattern, compilation including a customer list, program, device, method, technique or process.” See 12 Pa.C.S. § 5302. Perhaps for this reason, the majority of the MCOs do not advance the trade-secrets theory, but rather, confine their position to the more comfortable proposition that the rates are confidential proprietary information.

In any event, we agree with Judge McCullough that the Law’s self-contained trade-secrets exception supplants the more general application of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act based, inter alia, on the principle of statutory construction that more specific provisions control over general ones. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1933 (prescribing that a special provision in a statute “shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted later and it shall be the manifest intention of the General Assembly that such general provision shall prevail.”). In this regard, it seems unlikely that the Legislature would have specifically withheld trade-secrets protection relative to financial records within the four corners of the Law on the theory that such protection persists under another statutory regime. Rather, if the General Assembly wished for dissemination to be withheld, it would have been a straightforward matter to provide for redaction of trade-secrets information in Section 708(c) of the Law, as was done in relation to eight of the other openness exceptions which are otherwise withheld from financial records. See 65 P.S. § 67.708(c). Although the RTKL does generally recognize the primacy of other laws, see 65 P.S. §§ 67.306, 67.3101.1, it is our considered judgment that the Law’s own express and specific treatment of trade secrets should control in this instance. Accord 1 Pa.C.S. § 1933.

In terms of the discussion of the Lukes decision, we do not find it useful to consider the downstream point at which public funding transforms into private monies. Rather, our focus remains upon our conclusion that records which were required to be submitted to and approved by DPW, and which reflect the central means of implementing a core departmental function, are records “dealing with” DPW’s disbursement of public monies and its responsibility to afford access to healthcare services in furtherance of the public interest. Cf. SWB Yankees, 615 Pa. at 665 n. 19, 45 A.3d at 1044 n. 19 (“Particularly in the context of a government agency’s wholesale delegation of its own core governmental function to another entity, we find that a reasonably broad perspective concerning what comprises transactions and activities of the agency should be applied.”).

The order of the Commonwealth Court is reversed relative to the MCO Rates, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Justices BAER, TODD and STEVENS join the opinion.

Justice EAKIN files a dissenting opinion.

Justice EAKIN,

dissenting opinion.

I agree with the Commonwealth Court’s majority that documents containing MCO Rates are not “financial records” within § 102 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.102. See Dep’t of Public Welfare v. Eiseman, 85 A.3d 1117, 1127 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014) (en banc) (“Because MCO Rates are not disbursed ‘by an agency,’ [the] OOR erred in concluding MCO Rates are ‘financial records.’ ”). MCO Rates are rates set by a private company, not an agency. The private company disburses the funds— the agency does not. While the entire scheme of payment immediately suggests bureaucratic confusion and obfuscation, the plain language of the RTKL does not cover this situation—perhaps it should, but as it currently exists, in my judgment it does not.

I would remand the matter to the OOR to decide, in the first instance, whether the MCO Rates are exempt from disclosure under § 708(b)(ll). Contra id. (“Because we conclude the MCO Rates are not ‘financial records,’ we next consider the RTKL exceptions that OOR did not fully analyze based on its adherence to Luke [ v. Dep’t of Public Welfare, 976 A.2d 609 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) ]. Typically, we would remand to [the] OOR to serve as fact-finder.”). Thus, I respectfully dissent.

      . This region is comprised of Berks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties.

      . These are: Aetna Better Health, Inc., HealthAmerica Pennsylvania Inc. d/b/a CoventryCares, Health Partners of Philadelphia, Inc., Vista Health Plan, Inc. through Keystone Mercy Health Plan, and United-Healthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc. d/b/a United Healthcare Community Plan.

      . Act of Feb. 14, 2008, P.L. 6, No. 3 (as amended 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104) (the “RTKL” or the “Law").

      . The Law employs the concepts of “exceptions” and “exemptions” interchangeably. See 65 P.S. § 67.708.

      . Act of Feb. 19, 2004, P.L. 143, No. 14 (as amended, 12 Pa.C.S. §§ 5301-5308).

      . Although Sapp Roofing was a plurality decision, three of the five Justices participating in the decision agreed that the payroll records were public records for purposes of the former open-records law. See Sapp Roofing, 552 Pa. at 109, 713 A.2d at 629; id. at 112, 713 A.2d at 630 (Zappala, J., concurring).

      . In point of fact, the briefs submitted by the MCOs avoid developed treatment of the statute’s broad "dealing with” nexus defining financial records. See, e.g., Brief for Appellees UnitedHealthcare of Pa., et al. at 25 (asserting that the Legislature defined financial records as those "showing the agency’s own disbursements” (emphasis adjusted)).

      . In opining that the MCO Rates are not contained within "financial records” for proposes of the Law, the dissent focuses exclusively on the fragment of the statutory definition denoting "disbursement of funds by an agency." Dissenting Opinion, at 388, 125 A.3d at 33 (quoting, indirectly, 65 P.S. § 67.102). As explained above, however, the definition of "financial records” does not pertain solely to agency disbursements per se, but rather, it extends by its terms to accounts, vouchers and contracts "dealing with ... disbursement of funds by an agency.” 65 P.S. § 67.102 (emphasis added). In statutory interpretation, courts are obliged to give effect to all of the provisions of a statute. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a) (emphasis added).
      Notably, along these lines, the dissenting opinion does not suggest that key documents such as dental-services subcontracts which must be submitted to and approved by DPW do not "deal[] with" the large-scale disbursements of public monies being channeled through the MCOs and Subcontractors attendant to the performance of delegated healthcare responsibilities. 65 P.S, § 67.102 (emphasis added).

      . This is not to say that the MCO subcontracts would not qualify for public disclosure as third-party records under Section 506(d) of the Law. See generally Reply Brief for Appellants at 25 (‘‘taking the position that, [e]ven if DPW lacked actual possession, the records would be public records of DPW under Section 506(d)(1) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.506(d)(1)”). Our point here is only that the submission-and-approval requirement for subcontracts renders the documents agency financial records, even exclusive of Section 506(d)(1), which, in any event, is outside the scope of the questions upon which appeal was allowed. See Eiseman, 630 Pa. 215, 106 A.3d 610.

      . It can hardly be disputed that the subcontracts would qualify as "records of an agency” under Sapp Roofing, because they are plainly an essential component of an agency decision, i.e., approval of the subcontract. See Sapp Roofing, 552 Pa. at 109, 713 A.2d at 629 ("Pursuant to the Right to Know Act, to be available for inspection, the records must be both public records and records of a state agency." (emphasis added)).
      Parenthetically, contrasting with the approach under the Right to Know Act, the RTKL decouples the “of an agency” criterion from the statute’s main operative provision for access. Compare 65 P.S. § 66.2 ("Every public record of an agency shall, at reasonable times, be open for examination and inspection by any citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”) (repealed), with id. § 67.701(a) (prescribing that “[u]n-less otherwise provided by law, a public record, legislative record or financial record shall be accessible for inspection and duplication in accordance with this act,” without reference to whether the record is “of an agency”). Notably, the Law’s definition of “public record” contains an of-an-agency delimiter, see id. § 67.102, but the definition of "financial record”—which is specifically and independently referenced in the Law’s core access provision (i.e. Section 701)—does not include such element, see id.

      It is not necessary to the resolution of these appeals to consider whether this omission from the definition of “financial record” may have been by intention or oversight. In any event, it is worth noting that Section 506(d)(2) of the RTKL places a limitation on mandatory disclosure of third-party records, or at least those in possession of a third parly which has contracted with an agency. See id. § 67.506(d)(2).

      . See generally Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Allegheny Health Educ. & Research Found. v. PriceWaterkouseCoopers, LLP, 605 Pa. 269, 301-02 & n. 27, 989 A.2d 313, 332-33 & n. 27 (2010) (referencing the General Assembly’s capabilities for information-gathering, debate, and deliberation and explaining that, "[u]nlike the legislative process, the adjudicatory process is structured to cast a narrow focus on matters framed by litigants before the Court in a highly directed fashion”).

      . As noted, however, confidential proprietary information within financial records is subject to public disclosure under the Law. See 65 P.S. § 67.708(c). Further, the MCOs have not identified any independent statutory scheme which might otherwise protect "confidential proprietary information” as such.

      . Moreover, if we were to hold that Sections 306 and 3101,1 of the Law prevented dissemination of public records containing trade secrets, via application of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the trade-secrets aspect of the exception in Section 67.708(b)(ll) would be rendered into a mere redundancy. Such a holding, however, would contravene the presumption that the Legislature does not fashion statutory prescriptions as surplusage. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a); Commonwealth v. Ostrosky, 589 Pa. 437, 450, 909 A.2d 1224, 1232 (2006).


source: Caselaw Access Project

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

license: Public Domain

text:
    125 A.3d 394
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Jacob Matthew CHRISTINE, Appellant.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued Sept. 9, 2014.
    Decided Oct. 27, 2015.

      Michael Wiseman, Esq., Philadelphia, Law Office of Michael Wiseman, for Jacob Matthew Christine.
    Rebecca J. Kulik, Esq., John Michael Morganelli, Esq., Patricia Fuentes Mulqueen, Esq., Northampton County District Attorney’s Office, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
    CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, STEVENS, JJ.
   OPINION

Justice EAKIN.

An equally divided en banc panel of the Superior Court resulted in affirmance of appellant’s judgment of sentence for aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1), and recklessly endangering another person (REAP), id., § 2705. The trial court summarized the facts:

The convictions resulted from an incident that occurred in Northampton County Prison (NCP) on June 8, 2009. On that date, [appellant] and the victim, Thomas Mis[s]ero, were inmates in NCP when a confrontation between the two men occurred in [appellants cell in Unit B-2. The cell housed 8 inmates in four rows of bunk beds. While in [appellants cell, [appellant] was alleged to have slashed Mr. Mis[s]ero’s neck and ear with a razor blade. Immediately after the attack, corrections officers searched [appellants cell. Only one weapon, a shank, was found in the cell.[] It was hidden within [appellants bed.

Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/11, at 1-2.

Appellant filed a motion in limine to exclude the shank from evidence, arguing it was irrelevant and would cause undue prejudice by confusing the jury, because the Commonwealth agreed the shank was not used in the attack. N.T. Trial, 10/5/10, at 13. The trial court ruled the shank admissible under multiple theories. The court first stated the shank was admissible under the similar-weapon exception because it showed appellant had “access to a weapon and that he had the ability to fashion a homemade weapon from objects in the prison.” Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/11, at 7; see also id., at 6-7 (discussing similar-weapon exception). Additionally, the court found the shank was relevant because it “tend[ed] to show [appellant] had knowledge and familiarity with prison-made weapons and could conceal them in his prison cell ... [and] to rebut [appellant’s assertion that he was unarmed and acted in self-defense.” Id., at 8. The court found the shank’s probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect and, therefore, admitted it into evidence. Id.

Appellant filed another pre-trial motion seeking to admit into evidence Missero’s post-attack simple-assault conviction, He argued Missero’s conviction was relevant to his self-defense claim because the conviction demonstrated Missero’s violent propensities and that he was the initial aggressor. The trial court denied the motion because, as the events leading to Missero’s simple-assault conviction occurred after the jailhouse attack, “nothing about the timing or nature of the charges [ ]could establish Mis[s]ero’s reputation for violence at the time of the [attack].” Id., at 11-12.

At trial, appellant testified he was reading on his cot when one of his cellmates invited Missero inside. N.T. Trial, 10/6/10, at 44-45. Appellant stated the cellmate and Missero argued about a debt, and the conversation escalated and became confrontational; appellant tried to leave the cell, but Missero was standing in the doorway. Id., at 45. Appellant testified Missero threw a cup of hot coffee at him and a struggle ensued, during which punches were exchanged. Missero produced a razorblade; appellant stated he disarmed Missero, retrieved the razorblade, and accidently may have cut Missero as he left the cell. Id., at 46, 49. The razorblade was never found.

A jury convicted appellant of aggravated assault and REAP. The trial court sentenced appellant to nine to 20 years imprisonment for aggravated assault and a concurrent one- to two-year sentence for REAP, the entire sentence running consecutive to his current sentence.

Appellant appealed, and a divided three-judge panel of the Superior Court reversed, holding the shank was properly admitted but finding error in refusing to allow appellant to question Missero about his post-attack conviction for simple assault. Commonwealth v. Christine, No. 1893 EDA 2011, unpublished memorandum at 6, 10 (Pa.Super. filed April 24, 2012) (withdrawn). The Superior Court granted the Commonwealth’s application for reargument en banc. See Pa.R.A.P. 2543. On reargument, an equally divided en banc panel affirmed the trial court. Commonwealth v. Christine, 78 A.3d 1, 2 (Pa.Super.2013) (en banc) (per curiam). All eight judges agreed, albeit for different reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the post-trial conviction. The court was evenly divided regarding admissibility of the shank.

The OISA held that even though it was not used in the attack, the shank demonstrated appellant’s familiarity with and ability to fashion a homemade weapon similar to the one used in the attack. The OISA noted the razorblade and the shank both had the “distinctive characteristic” of having “ ‘cloth or tape at the end of the instrument in order to have a handle on it.’ ” Id., at 8 (Mundy, J., OISA) (citation omitted). The OISA reasoned that while a generic razorblade is not unique, “it is the intentional and specific modification of the razor and the bookcase’s metal rod into makeshift weapons! ] that makes both of them distinctive ... [, and it tends to show appellant] ‘had the ability to fashion a homemade weapon from objects in the prison.’ ” Id., at 8-9 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).

The OISR, citing Commonwealth v. Robinson, 554 Pa. 293, 721 A.2d 344 (1998), and Commonwealth v. Marshall, 743 A.2d 489 (Pa.Super.1999), believed the shank was irrelevant because “there was no dispute that [it] was not the weapon used in the fight[,] there was testimony ... that razor blades were readily available to inmates at the prison[, and] the shank did not corroborate or rebut any testimony.” Christine, at 13 (Ott, J., OISR). The OISR also disagreed that appellant’s self-defense claim was rebutted by a different weapon having been found in his bed. Id., at 13 & n. 6 (citing Commonwealth v. Williams, 58 A.3d 796, 801 (Pa.Super.2012)). Moreover, because the Commonwealth’s case depended largely on credibility determinations, the OISR concluded the error was not harmless. Id., at 15-16.

We granted allowance of appeal to determine:

(1) Is a conviction for assault, which occurs subsequent to the incident at issue in a criminal trial, admissible to prove the allegedly violent propensities of the victim, where self-defense is asserted and where there is an issue raised as to who was the aggressor?
(2) Did the [t]rial [c]ourt commit error of law or abuse its discretion when it permitted the Commonwealth to admit a “shank” as physical evidence, as well as testimony regarding said shank, in the course of the jury trial in the instant matter?

Commonwealth v. Christine, 624 Pa. 505, 86 A.3d 831 (2014) (per curiam); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 724(a).

Both issues concern the admissibility of evidence, which rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and therefore, we “will reverse [the] trial court’s decision ... only if the appellant sustains the ‘heavy burden’ to show that the trial court has abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218, 67 A.3d 716, 726 (2013) (citations omitted). The following principle leads to our affirmance of the trial court’s rulings:

It is not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion^] it is necessary to show an actual abuse of the discretionary power. An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error of judgment, but rather exists where the court has reached a conclusion [that] overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.

Id. (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Only relevant evidence is admissible at trial. Pa. R.E. 402. Evidence is relevant if it tends to make a material fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Id., 401. Even if relevant, however, evidence may be excluded “if its probative value is outweighed by ... unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Id., 403. Appellant’s claim of inadvertent injury while exercising the right of self-defense is pertinent to both rulings. As to the first issue, when a defendant asserts a claim of self-defense:

[E]vidence of the victim’s prior convictions involving aggression may be admitted, if probative, either (1) to corroborate the defendant’s alleged knowledge of the victim’s violent character, to prove that the defendant was in reasonable fear of danger, or (2) as character/propensity evidence, as indirect evidence that the victim was in fact the aggressor.

Mouzon, at 741 (citation omitted). The defendant need not have knowledge of the victim’s prior conviction if it is being offered to prove the victim was the aggressor. Commonwealth v. Amos, 445 Pa. 297, 284 A.2d 748, 752 (1971). Thus, evidence of the victim’s prior conviction is admissible if the trial court determines it is “similar in nature and not too distant in time.... ” Mouzon, at 741 (citation omitted).

Relying on Commonwealth v. Beck, 485 Pa. 475, 402 A.2d 1371 (1979), appellant first argues the lower courts erred in looking to the facts behind the subsequent conviction to determine whether it was “similar in nature” to the jailhouse attack, as “an assault conviction necessarily implies violent propensity.” Appellant’s Brief, at 13. In regard to the not-too-distant-in-time element, appellant avers the fact that case law refers to a conviction preceding the present incident does not necessarily limit the admissibility of victim’s convictions to prior convictions. Id., at 15 (“Nowhere in either [Beck or Amos ] did this Court consider whether a conviction must occur before or after the incident on trial in order to be relevant to violent propensity.”). He contends that because Beck and Amos were murder cases, where it was tautologically impossible for the victim to commit a subsequent offense, the prior-conviction language in those opinions is dicta, and thus, precedent does not bar subsequent convictions from being admissible. Id., at 15-16. Therefore, according to appellant, the reasoning of those cases logically applies to subsequent convictions and the trial court erred by “categorically refusing” to admit any subsequent conviction. See id., at 16-17. Finally, appellant submits the trial court’s error was not harmless because “the only contested issue at trial was which party was the aggressor[.]” Id., at 18.

The Commonwealth responds by arguing any conviction subsequent to the incident at issue can never be probative that the victim was the aggressor during a previous altercation. Commonwealth’s Brief, at 8; see also id., at 6-7 (stating no case law supports “position that subsequent convictions of the victim may be admitted to show alleged violent propensities in a prior conflict” and noting this Court’s precedent “specifically refers to ‘prior convictions’ and ‘past crimes’” (emphasis in original) (quoting Mouzon, at 741)). The Commonwealth asserts logic does not warrant extending the rule to subsequent convictions because “numerous intervening factors ... could have affected the victim’s character and propensities going forward.” Id., at 8-9.

We hold the Superior Court did not err in determining the trial court acted within its discretion by excluding Misse-ro’s subsequent simple-assault conviction. The “decision in each case as to similar nature and remoteness ... rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Amos, at 752. While we disagree with appellant’s position that the trial court abused its discretion, we do not endorse the claim that a subsequent conviction can never be probative and admissible. Proximity in time is a factor, as is similarity of facts. Here we have 11 months between events, but a strikingly disparate factual scenario. See Weakley, at 1190 (stating, in context of using prior bad acts to identify defendant, “the importance of a temporal nexus between crimes declines as the similarity of the crimes increases”); see also N.T. Trial, 10/6/10, at 46 (appellant testifying Missero started fight by throwing hot cup of coffee). We uphold the ability of the trial court to duly consider all things appropriate, and find the court here did not abuse its discretion in excluding Missero’s conviction. We “reaffirm our confidence in our trial judges to oversee the presentation of evidence ‘so that overtly passionate, intentionally biased and inflammatory material is kept out of the courtroom.’ ” Bryant, at 726 (quoting Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1, 915 A.2d 1122, 1139 (2007)).

Appellant’s second issue challenges the admission of the shank found hidden in his bed. Appellant first argues the trial court erred by ruling it admissible under the similar-weapon exception because the Commonwealth conceded the shank did not cause Missero’s injuries. See Appellant’s Brief, at 23 (quoting Lee, at 652). Instead, the Commonwealth contends the shank was admissible “to show that [ajppellant ‘had possession and control of a weapon similar to the one used to commit his crimes.’” Commonwealth’s Brief, at 14 (quoting Williams, at 801).

A weapon not “specifically linked” to the crime is generally inadmissible; however, the fact “the accused had a weapon or implement suitable to the commission of the crime charged ... is always a proper ingredient of the case for the prosecution.” Robinson, at 351 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Any uncertainty that the weapon is the actual weapon used in the crime goes to the weight of such evidence.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 537 Pa. 1, 640 A.2d 1251, 1260 (1994) (citing Commonwealth v. Coccioletti, 493 Pa. 103, 425 A.2d 387, 390 (1981)). “The only burden on the prosecution is to lay a foundation that would justify an inference by the finder of fact of the likelihood that the weapon was used in the commission of the crime.” Lee, at 652 (citing Commonwealth v. Thomas, 522 Pa. 256, 561 A.2d 699, 707 (1989) (“If a proper foundation is laid, the weapon is admissible where the circumstances raise an inference of the likelihood that it was used.”)).

The cases cited deal with weapons that might have been used. Possession of a handgun may be relevant even if the particular gun possessed cannot be proven to be the one used in the crime. That it was possessed may allow the inference it could have been used. Here, however, the exception is not in play, as the shank was admittedly not used in the pertinent assault. The theory of the exception is that the weapon possessed could have been the weapon used—that simply is not the case here, and admission under the similar-weapon exception was error. To the extent that cases affirm use of this exception strictly on the basis of similarity, without an inference they were the weapons used, we reject them.

Of course, admission on other grounds remains possible. In that regard, the trial court also found the shank relevant and admissible to demonstrate appellant’s ability to fashion a homemade weapon, and to rebut his self-defense claim. Noting razorblades are regularly handed out to inmates, appellant argues “it does not take much ingenuity to put a piece of paper, tape, or cloth on one end of the blade in order to hold it. [His] ability to do so was not at issue.” Appellant’s Brief, at 27. However, the Commonwealth laid a foundation of the similarity between the handles on the shank and razorblade, which, as admittedly generic that may be, the trial court found demonstrated appellant’s familiarity with and ability to fashion jailhouse weapons, which one cannot say is irrelevant.

Appellant claims “the shank does not rebut his assertion of self-defense except by the improper inference of guilt arising from his alleged possession of an unrelated weapon.” Id. Even if another judge would have ruled otherwise, it is “ ‘not sufficient to persuade the appellate court that it might have reached a different conclusion^] it is necessary to show an actual abuse of the discretionary power.’” Bryant, at 726 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). We find the trial court’s decision to admit the shank in order to rebut appellant’s self-defense claim was not “ ‘manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias[,] or ill-will.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit reversible error by admitting relevant evidence, and the OISA did not err by ruling the shank was relevant under alternative theories of admissibility.

Order affirmed; jurisdiction relinquished.

Former Chief Justice CASTILLE and Former Justice McCAFFERY did not participate in the decision of this case.

Justices BAER and STEVENS join the opinion.

Justice TODD files a concurring opinion.

Chief Justice SAYLOR files a dissenting opinion.

Justice TODD,

concurring.

I join the majority in affirming the Superior Court’s holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence the shank found in Appellant’s cell for the purpose of rebutting Appellant’s claim that he was unarmed and acted in self-defense. I also agree that the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion in limine to question the victim regarding his conviction for simple assault which occurred after his jailhouse altercation with Appellant; I write separately, however, because my reasoning on this second issue differs from that of the majority.

As noted by the majority, Appellant was charged with, inter alia* aggravated assault based on a jailhouse altercation involving the victim in June 2009, during which the victim allegedly threw hot coffee onto Appellant and punched Appellant several times. Appellant filed a pretrial motion seeking to introduce evidence that the victim was convicted of simple assault based on an incident of domestic violence between the victim and his girlfriend which occurred subsequent to the victim’s release from prison, approximately 11 months after the jailhouse altercation involving Appellant. Appellant argued that the victim’s simple assault conviction was relevant to Appellant’s self-defense claim because it demonstrated the victim’s violent propensities and suggested the victim was the initial aggressor.

In denying Appellant’s motion to introduce evidence of the victim’s simple assault conviction, the trial court first noted that, pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1), evidence of other crimes generally is inadmissible to prove the character of a person in order to show conformity therewith. Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/11, at 12. The trial court acknowledged that this Court has held that a defendant who alleges self-defense may use a deceased victim’s criminal record either to corroborate his alleged knowledge of the victim’s quarrelsome and violent character to show the defendant reasonably believed his life was in danger; or to prove the allegedly violent propensities of the victim to show the victim was the aggressor. See Commonwealth v. Amos, 445 Pa. 297, 284 A.2d 748 (1971); Commonwealth v. Beck, 485 Pa. 476, 402 A.2d 1371 (1979), However, the trial court distinguished those cases on the basis that, unlike the present altercation, they involved a deceased victim. The trial court concluded that Appellant was attempting “to use future events to retroactively establish [the victim’s] character,” and opined:

the law only allows evidence of prior incidents to prove the character or reputation of the victim at the time of the crime in question. A subsequent conviction arising from events that transpired after the incident involving [Appel: lant] simply has no bearing on whether [the victim] possessed violent propensities on June 8, 2009.

Id. at 13.

On appeal, the Opinion in Support of Affirmance (“OISA”) below recognized the principle expressed in Amos that a defendant alleging self-defense may use a deceased victim’s criminal record to prove the alleged violent propensities of the victim to show that the victim was the aggressor, and further recognized that, to be admissible, the victim’s crimes must be “similar in nature and not too distant in time” from the underlying incident. Commonwealth v. Christine, 78 A.3d 1, 5 (Pa.Super.2013) (OISA) (citing Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 617 Pa. 527, 53 A.3d 738, 741 (2012)). However, without acknowledging, as the trial court did, that Amos was distinguishable because the victim in the instant case is not deceased, the OISA concluded the trial court in the instant case properly excluded evidence of the victim’s simple assault conviction because the offense was not “similar in nature” to the jailhouse altercation during which the victim threw hot coffee onto and punched Appellant. Christine, 78 A.3d at 5 (OISA).

Although the Opinion in Support of Reversal (“OISR”) below also concluded the trial court properly precluded introduction of the victim’s conviction for simple assault, it did so based on its belief that the victim’s simple assault conviction did not show a propensity for violence on June 8, 2009, because the conduct underlying the conviction was then a future event. Thus, the OISR would have affirmed the trial court’s ruling because the victim’s “subsequent conviction for an event that transpired after the prison incident should not be used ‘to retroactively establish [his] character’ at the time of the incident.” Christine, 78 A.3d at 11-12 (OISR) (citation omitted).

The majority concludes that “the Superior Court did not err in determining the trial court acted within its discretion by excluding [the victim’s] subsequent simple-assault conviction,” but declines to “endorse the claim that a subsequent conviction can never be probative and admissible.” Majority Opinion at 399, 125 A.3d at 400 (emphasis original). The majority further opines: “Proximity in time is a factor, as is similarity of facts. Here we have 11 months between events, but a strikingly disparate factual scenario.” Id. The majority proceeds to affirm the trial court based on this factual disparity.

While I agree with the majority that the Superior Court did not err in affirming the trial court’s holding, I disagree with its premise. Indeed, there is no case law supporting introduction of evidence of a victim’s subsequent conviction to demonstrate the victim’s character for purposes of proving the victim was the aggressor. Both Amos and Beck involved evidence of a deceased victim’s aggressive behavior which occurred prior to their fatal altercations, and this Court has continued to limit introduction of evidence of a victim’s convictions to those which occurred prior to the incident in which the victim is alleged to have been the aggressor:

[A]s an evidentiary matter, this Court has held that when self-defense is properly at issue, evidence of the victim’s prior convictions involving aggression may be admitted, if probative, either (1) to corroborate the defendant’s alleged knowledge of the victim’s violent character, to prove that the defendant was in reasonable fear of danger, or (2) as character/propensity evidence, as indirect evidence that the victim was in fact the aggressor.

Mouzon, 53 A.3d at 741 (emphasis added).

Thus, I would hold that the trial court properly precluded Appellant from introducing evidence of the victim’s subsequent simple assault conviction to support Appellant’s claim of self-defense pursuant to Rule 404(b)(1), and would not engage in an analysis of whether the facts underlying the two altercations were sufficiently similar in nature.

Chief Justice SAYLOR,

dissenting.

The majority relates that it “uphold[s] the ability of the trial court to duly consider all things appropriate” and finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Thomas Missero’s conviction. Majority Opinion, at 399, 125 A.3d at 400. The difficulty with this position, however, is that the trial court simply did not consider all things appropriate or exercise any discretion whatsoever. Instead, that court implemented a bright-line rule of law—presently disapproved by the majority—permitting the admission of evidence only of “prior incidents to prove the character or reputation of the victim at the time of the crime in question.” Commonwealth v. Christine, No. 3344-2009, slip op. at 13, 2011 WL 11513539 (C.P. Northampton Apr. 26, 2011) (emphasis added).

Given the majority’s rejection of the per se evidentiary rule implemented by the trial court—and in the absence of any other supporting rationale deriving from that court’s opinion— I fail to see how the court’s decision, in any way, can be credited on its own terms or otherwise denominated as an appropriate exercise of discretion.

In light of the above, the majority’s de novo evaluation of the overall circumstances presented to determine admissibility appears to represent a form of a de facto harmless-error assessment. In my view, however, Missero’s conviction, entailing assaultive behavior within eleven months of the events giving rise to Appellant’s judgment of sentence, is sufficiently probative of violent propensities that the trial court had the discretionary latitude to admit the evidence. See generally Pa.R.E. 405(b) (sanctioning the admission of evidence of specific instances of conduct to prove a character trait of an alleged victim where evidence of such trait is otherwise admissible per the applicable rule).

In effectively holding to the contrary, the majority not only undertakes to disapprove a salient per se facet of a previous decision of this Court by way of a footnote, see Majority Opinion, at 399 n. 9, 125 A.3d at 400 n. 9 (overturning an aspect of Commonwealth v. Beck, 485 Pa. 475, 402 A.2d 1371 (1979)), but also appears to implement an entirely countervailing bright-line approach. The majority does so by effectively suggesting that the subject instance of assaultive behavior on Missero’s part—because it reasonably can be couched as less severe than the conduct of the victim alleged by the defendant and since it occurred approximately eleven months after the prison incident—simply could not have been admitted into evidence within the trial court’s discretionary purview, had discretion actually been exercised. Thus, while the majority purports to afford wide latitude to the discretionary evidentia-ry decisions of the trial courts, I believe that the effect of its decision, in fact, is constrictive.

Rather than implementing a de novo appellate-level eviden-tiary ruling, I believe that an appropriate harmless-error analysis should center on whether the Commonwealth has demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is essentially no possibility that the evidence of Missero’s assaultive behavior which was excluded by the trial court for an erroneous reason could have made a difference in terms of the outcome of Appellant’s trial. See generally Commonwealth v. Howard, 538 Pa. 86, 100, 645 A.2d 1300, 1307 (1994) (setting forth the standard governing harmless-error review) (quoting Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391, 409, 383 A.2d 155, 164 (1978)). In this regard, I tend toward the view of Judge Strassburger, expressed in his initial memorandum opinion, as follows:

Appellant and Missero were the only witnesses to testify at trial about who did what in Appellant’s cell on June 8, 2009. Missero testified that Appellant ambushed him with the razor blade. Appellant testified that Missero initiated the fight by throwing coffee at him and coming after him with the razor blade. Clearly the evidence of Missero’s assaul-tive character could persuade a jury to believe Appellant’s version of events. As such, we cannot deem this to be harmless error.

Commonwealth v. Christine, No. 1893 EDA 2011, slip op. at 10 (Pa.Super. Apr. 24, 2012) (withdrawn).

As to the admissibility of the shank found in Appellant’s cell, I would forego addressing the issue, because I do not believe that the salient questions have been framed and presented adequately. With respect to the admissibility of other-weapons evidence, I find it important to distinguish between legal and illegal weapons, since the latter also comprises evidence of other bad acts subject to the restrictions on admissibility imposed under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b). See Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1) (“Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”). While this rule admits of exceptions, see Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2) (“This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”), such exceptions are subject to the following express and important caveat: “In a criminal case this evidence is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.” Id.

Accordingly, while I have little difficulty with the majority’s assessment that the shank found under Appellant’s bed can be deemed relevant under the minimal relevancy requirements set forth in our evidentiary rules, see Pa.R.E. 401 (providing that “[ejvidence is relevant if ... it has any tendency to make a fact [of consequence in determining the action] more or less probable than it would be without the evidence”), I find it noteworthy that Appellant would have been entitled to a more discerning evaluation of probative value versus prejudice, had such question been raised and preserved.

In this regard, I also observe that our written and common-law evidential rules protect against the use of evidence of specific conduct to prove propensity against a criminal defendant, see Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1), 405(b), while affording latitude to defendants to use specific-conduct evidence of a victim’s propensity for violence in furtherance of self-defense claims. See Pa.R.E. 405(b)(2); Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 617 Pa. 527, 532, 53 A.3d 738, 741 (2012). These principles are out of focus in the present case both since the trial court’s decision was erroneous in several material respects, see Majority Opinion, at 400-02, 125 A.3d at 400-01, and because its effect was to allow for the admission of specific-conduct-type evidence against the defendant (his constructive possession of a shank) while excluding such evidence relevant to the victim (Missero’s assault conviction). In the circumstances, I do not find the other-weapons aspect of the appeal to present a suitable context for adding clarity to the jurisprudence.

In summary, I would reverse the order of the Superior Court, since I agree with the majority that the trial court’s actual evidentiary ruling concerning the admissibility of the victim’s assault conviction was predicated on an erroneous rationale. Further, to the degree that the question of harmless error resides within the appropriate scope of this appeal, I conclude that the Commonwealth has not satisfied its burden in this regard.

      . Then-President Judge Stevens did not participate in the consideration or decision of the en banc decision below.

      . Appellant was found not guilty of attempted murder, id., §§ 901(a), 2502(a).

      . The "shank” was an 18- to 20-inch rod from a metal bookshelf, “with a sharp point and a handle wrapped around it, which is a piece of cloth wrapped real tight so they can have a grip on it.” N.T. Trial, 10/6/10, at 38. The Commonwealth conceded the shank was not used in the attack. See, e.g., N.T. Trial, 10/5/10, at 13 ("[The shank] was not the weapon used in this incident.... We believe a razorblade was used, no razorblade was found. Right after the incident they searched the [appellant's cell, what they found was a shank. The Commonwealth intends to introduce the shank even though we do not believe that that is the instrument that was used.”).

      . The similar-weapon exception, discussed infra, permits the introduction of a weapon not "specifically linked” to the crime if the Commonwealth "lay[s] a foundation that would justify an inference by the finder of fact of the likelihood that the weapon was used in the commission of the crime." Commonwealth v. Lee, 541 Pa. 260, 662 A.2d 645, 652 (1995) (citation omitted).

      . Almost 11 months after the attack, Missero, who was released from prison, was arrested for domestic violence. The prosecutor summarized the incident as follows:
      [On] May 1st of 2010, Nazareth Police were called to the American Hotel in Nazareth for a report of an assault. Thomas Missero was outside and his girlfriend was there, Melissa Miller. She claimed that [Missero] had grabbed her and had pushed her. She had minor damage to her ear as a result of falling, I guess, from the push, and that he had threatened her.
      N.T. Trial, 10/5/10, at 27. On June 24, 2010, Missero pled guilty to simple assault and REAP. Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/11, at 11.

      . The Opinion in Support of Affirmance (OISA) reasoned Missero’s subsequent conviction was inadmissible because that "offense is not 'similar in nature’ to the events that [alppellant alleged transpired [during the attack].” Id., at 5 (Mundy, J., OISA) (quoting Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 617 Pa. 527, 53 A.3d 738, 741 (2012)) (citing N.T. Trial, 10/6/10, at 45-47 (stating Missero threw hot cup of coffee on appellant and punched him multiple times)). The Opinion in Support of Reversal (OISR) opined “the only relevant time period for purposes of proving a victim’s ... character is the time period up until the occurrence of the confrontation^]” and therefore, "Missero’s subsequent conviction for an event that transpired after the prison incident should not be used ‘to retroactively establish [his] character' at the time of the incident." Id., at 11-12 (Ott, J., OISR) (emphasis and alteration in original) (quoting Trial Court Opinion, 4/26/11, at 13).

      . In Beck, this Court held it was error for the trial court to exclude the victim’s three-year-old prior convictions for assault and battery. We stated, “When the prior conviction is for assault and battery, there is no need to compare the facts. Any difference is irrelevant. A conviction for assault and battery necessarily implies a character involving aggressive propensities.” Id., at 1373.

      . The Commonwealth argues, while there is a dearth of case law dealing with the admission of subsequent offenses “in any context ..., in those cases where courts have allowed [such] evidence ... to be admitted at trial, [it] has come in under the exceptions listed in [Pa.R.E.] 404(b)(2) and it has related to the defendant, not the victim.” Id., at 7-8 (citing Commonwealth v. Reid, 533 Pa. 508, 626 A.2d 118, 121 (1993); Commonwealth v. Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182, 1188 (Pa.Super.2009); Commonwealth v. Wattley, 880 A.2d 682, 686-87 (Pa.Super.2005)).

      . In this regard, we overrule Beck insofar as it stands for the bright-line rule that all assault convictions are sufficiently similar to demonstrate the victim’s violent propensities. See Beck, at 1373. Instead, trial courts may determine whether the facts are sufficiently similar on a case-by-case basis, and the trial court here did not err in doing so.

      . This Court’s entry into the similar-weapon exception was in Commonwealth v. Ford, 451 Pa. 81, 301 A.2d 856 (1973), where police believed a 12-inch knife found in the defendant's home was the murder weapon. The victims were stabbed with “a kitchen knife about 12 inches long,” and the medical examiner testified the victims’ "wounds were caused by a knife with a seven to seven and one-half inch blade.” Id., at 857. However, the knife at trial was never positively identified as the one used, and the medical examiner was unable to link it to the crime. Id. We held the knife was admissible because there was a foundation to " 'justify an inference of the likelihood of [the knife] having been used.... ’ ” Id., at 858 (quoting United States v. Ramey, 414 F.2d 792, 794 (5th Cir.1969) (per curiam)). Accord Commonwealth v. Edwards, 588 Pa. 151, 903 A.2d 1139, 1156-57 (2006) ("[T]he Commonwealth need only lay a foundation that would justify an inference by the finder of fact of the likelihood that the weapon was used in the commission of the crime.” (citation omitted)); Lee, at 652 (same); Thomas, at 707 (same); Commonwealth v. Yount, 455 Pa. 303, 314 A.2d 242, 249 (1974) ("The knife [found on defendant and admitted at trial] was of a kind that could have inflicted the wounds, even though the prosecution was unable conclusively to demonstrate that the particular knife was the weapon used.” (emphasis added)); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 419 Pa.Super. 625, 615 A.2d 1322, 1334 (1992) (citing Commonwealth v. Fromal, 392 Pa.Super. 100, 572 A.2d 711, 724 (1990)).
      Unfortunately, some appellate decisions have omitted language referring to the need for a foundation justifying an inference the weapon was used in the crime. See, e.g., Williams, 640 A.2d at 1260 (stating weapon admissible "if it tends to prove that the defendant had a weapon similar to the one used in the perpetration of the crime”); Williams, 58 A.3d at 801 (stating similar-weapon exception applies "where 'the accused had a weapon or instrument suitable to the commission of the crime charged’ ”); Commonwealth v. Owens, 929 A.2d 1187, 1191 (Pa.Super.2007) (citation omitted). But see Edwards, at 1156-57 (citation omitted); Lee, at 652; Thomas, at 707; Yount, at 249; Ford, at 858; Johnson, at 1334 (citation omitted). This exception requires evidence sufficient to allow such an inference. It is not present herein.

      . To the degree to which the majority opinion would allow that the trial court actually had discretion to permit the admission of the evidence of Missero’s subsequent assaultive behavior, it would be necessary to apply a materially different approach to the question of harmlessness. See infra.

      . Relevant to such balancing, I have otherwise expressed my belief that “the presentation of other-weapons evidence is attended by a fairly high risk of undue prejudice, and, therefore, courts should refrain from sanctioning admission absent a strong and legitimate probative purpose justifying its introduction.” Commonwealth v. Hitcho, 633 Pa. 51, 122, 123 A.3d 731, 773-74, 2015 WL 5691067, at *36 (2015) (Saylor, CJ., concurring). Indeed, I believe that such prejudice is the reason underlying the general prohibition in the first instance.

      . Although there is a lack of parity in these principles as between the interests of criminal defendants and the Commonwealth, only the liberty (and, sometimes, the lives) of the former are at stake in criminal proceedings.
      Parenthetically, the evidentiary rules do establish some degree of equilibrium when a defendant seeks to prove a character trait of an alleged victim by permitting the Commonwealth to introduce reputation evidence and engage in cross-examination relative to the same trait of the defendant. See Pa.R.E. 404(a)(2)(B)(ii), 405(a). The rules, however, simply do not operate in this fashion relative to evidence of specific instances of conduct. See Pa.R.E. 405(b).


author: PER CURIAM.

text:
    125 A.3d 406
    Steven BURDA, Petitioner v. Alla KORENMAN (f/k/a Alla Burda), Respondent. Steven Burda, Petitioner v. Alla Korenman (f/k/a Alla Burda), Respondent. Steven Burda, Petitioner v. Alla Korenman (f/k/a Alla Burda), Respondent. Steven Burda, Petitioner v. Alla Korenman (f/k/a Alla Burda), Respondent. Steven Burda, Petitioner v. Alla Korenman (f/k/a Alla Burda), Respondent.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 3, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of November, 2015, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal and Applications for Relief are DENIED.


text:
    125 A.3d 407
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Gabriel GONZALEZ, Petitioner.
    No. 110 EM 2015.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 3, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of November, 2015, the Motion Seeking Leave to Exceed Word Count Limit is DENIED, and Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a compliant Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 30 days.


text:
    125 A.3d 407
    Abraham ITUAH, Individually, and d/b/a Osaze & Sons Enterprise v. TD BANK, N.A., Successor to Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, N.A., 2005 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
    No. 111 EM 2015.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 3, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of November, 2015, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.


text:
    125 A.3d 407
    Alycia LANE v. CBS BROADCASTING INC., Michael Colleran, and Lawrence Mendte. Petition of Lawrence Mendte. Alycia Lane v. CBS Broadcasting Inc., Michael Colleran, and Lawrence Mendte, Defendant. Petition of Lawrence Mendte.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 4, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of November, 2015, Lawrence Mendte’s Petition to Join in Allowance of Appeal Out of Time is DENIED.


text:
    125 A.3d 407
    Alycia LANE, Respondent v. CBS BROADCASTING, INC., t/a KYW-TV; Michael Colleran and Lawrence Mendte. Petition of CBS Broadcasting, Inc. t/a KYW-TV and Michael Colleran. Alycia Lane, Respondent v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., t/a KYW-TV; Michael Colleran and Lawrence Mendte. Petition of CBS Broadcasting, Inc. t/a KYW-TV and Michael Colleran.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 4, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED; CBS’s Rule 123 application is DENIED.


text:
    125 A.3d 408
    Theresa M. WOLFE, Administratrix of the Estate of Kevin T. Wolfe, Petitioner v. Robert ROSS, Respondent v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Respondent.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 4, 2015.
   0RDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Whether a clause in a homeowner’s insurance policy, excluding coverage for liability for bodily injury “arising out of the ownership, maintenance [or] use ... of a motor vehicle owned or operated by ... any insured” is ambiguous where the homeowner’s liability is based solely upon his negligence in supplying alcohol to an underage person, and no insured committed any tortious act related to any vehicle.
(2) Whether the independent concurrent cause rule should be adopted as the law of Pennsylvania.


text:
    125 A.3d 409
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Charles McCULLOUGH, Petitioner.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 6, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 6th day of November, 2015, the Petition Pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. 1701 for the Expedited Allowance of a Subpoena Directed to a Sitting Commonwealth Court Judge is GRANTED.


text:
    125 A.3d 771
    Mr. Joseph P. GUARRASI, J.D., Petitioner v. Honorable Albert J. CEPPARULO and the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, Respondents.
    No. 141 MM 2015.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 13, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED, and the Protho-notary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.


text:
    125 A.3d 771
    Michael BULLOCK, Petitioner v. COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA and Judge(s) and/or Authority of Court Dispositions, Respondents.
    No. 114 EM 2015.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 13, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.


text:
    125 A.3d 772
    Kevin S. MINES, Petitioner v. Honorable Shelia WOODS-SKIPPER, President Judge, Philadelphia County, Respondent.
    No. 116 EM 2015.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 13, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are GRANTED. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is DIRECTED to dispose of Petitioner’s pending petition within 90 days. The Prothonota-ry is DIRECTED to strike the name of jurist from the caption.


text:
    125 A.3d 772
    In re Michael J. SULLIVAN, Judge, Philadelphia Traffic Court, Philadelphia County. Appeal of Michael J. Sullivan.
    No. 35 EAP 2015.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 13, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 2015, the Motion to Withdraw the Appeal without Prejudice is GRANTED, and the Application to Quash is DISMISSED AS MOOT.


text:
    125 A.3d 772
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Jason KOKINDA, Petitioner.
    No. 140 MM 2015.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 13, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 18th day of November, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Application for Exercise of King’s Bench or Extraordinary Jurisdiction, the Application to Recuse, the Application to Waive Service Requirements, and the Application for Immedi-. ate Hearing are DENIED.


text:
    125 A.3d 772
    Lawrence HARPER, Petitioner v. COMMON PLEAS COURT OF PHILADELPHIA, County Clerk of the Court (Crim. Div.) and President Judge Pamela Prior Dembe, Respondents.
    No. 118 EM 2015.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 13, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are DISMISSED. See Commonwealth v. Ali, 608 Pa. 71, 10 A.3d 282 (2010) (explaining that hybrid representation is not permitted) The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to forward the filings to counsel of record and to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.


text:
    125 A.3d 773
    Vincent C. McGEE, Petitioner v. John E. WETZEL, Secretary of Corrections; Stacy P. Miller, Esq.; Centre County District Attorney’s Office, Respondents.
    No. 147 MM 2015.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 17, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.


text:
    125 A.3d 773
    Justin Meredith CORLISS, Petitioner v. Donna ASURE, Respondent.
    No. 139 MM 2015.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 17, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Application for a Hearing are DENIED.


text:
    125 A.3d 773
    Vamsidhar VURIMINDI, Petitioner v. CLERK OF the COURT, COMMON PLEAS COURT, PHILADELPHIA, Respondent.
    No. 119 EM 2015.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 17, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.


text:
    125 A.3d 774
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Westley A. CLEVENGER, Respondent.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 17, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 631 Pa. 692, 115 A.3d 1284 (2015), and Commonwealth v. Hvizda, 632 Pa. 3, 116 A.3d 1103 (2015).

The Petition to Remand is DENIED.


text:
    125 A.3d 774
    James LEEDS, Sr., Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Anne Brennan Leeds; James Leeds, Jr.; Edward S. Leeds; Ryan A. Leeds; Patricia Corr; and Chelsea Dalsey, Individually and as the Executrix of the Estate of Marcella Dalsey; Grace Dalsey; Robert Dalsey; and John Dalsey, Petitioners v. GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORPORATION (DELAWARE); Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Georgia); SK Travel, L.L.C.; Honeywell International; Parker Hannifin Corporation, Respondents.
    No. 93 EM 2015.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Nov. 17, 2015.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2015, the Application for an Exercise of King’s Bench Power or Extraordinary Jurisdiction is DENIED, and the Application to Substitute Corrected and Updated Affidavit is DISMISSED AS MOOT.