In the Interest of C.S.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In the Interest of C.S.

84 A.3d 698, 624 Pa. 212, 2014 WL 259782, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 232

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 23, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 A.3d 698 (In the Interest of C.S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Interest of C.S., 84 A.3d 698, 624 Pa. 212, 2014 WL 259782, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 232 (Pa. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2014, the order of the court of common pleas is REVERSED, the delinquency petition is REINSTATED, and the case is REMANDED to the court of common pleas for resolution of any issues C.S. properly raised in her motion to dismiss. The court erred when it sua sponte raised a vagueness challenge to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312 and declared the statute unconstitutional on that basis. See MacGregor v. Mediq, Inc., 395 Pa.Super. 221, 576 A.2d 1123, 1128 (1990) (determining it was improper for trial court to act as advocate and sua sponte raise defenses on behalf of a party). By failing to raise such a challenge in the trial court, C.S. waived the issue for purposes of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Klobuchir, 486 Pa. 241, 405 A.2d 881, 883-84 (1979) (holding that issues, even of constitutional dimension, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal); see also Pa. R.A.P. 302(a). C.S.’s additional argument that we should address the constitutional issue now in the interest of judicial economy is meritless, because she cannot raise the issue on remand. See Pa.R.J.C.P. 346 (“Unless otherwise required in the interests of justice, all pre-adjudicatory requests for relief shall be included in one omnibus motion filed prior to the adjudicatory hearing.”).

Justices EAKIN and TODD join the order reversing and remanding the case, but express no opinion on matters of waiver.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2014, the order of the court of common pleas is REVERSED, the delinquency petition is REINSTATED, and the case is REMANDED to the court of common pleas for resolution of any issues C.S. properly raised in her motion to dismiss. The court erred when it sua sponte raised a vagueness challenge to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312 and declared the statute unconstitutional on that basis. See MacGregor v. Mediq, Inc., 395 Pa.Super. 221, 576 A.2d 1123, 1128 (1990) (determining it was improper for trial court to act as advocate and sua sponte raise defenses on behalf of a party). By failing to raise such a challenge in the trial court, C.S. waived the issue for purposes of appeal. See Commonwealth v. Klobuchir, 486 Pa. 241, 405 A.2d 881, 883-84 (1979) (holding that issues, even of constitutional dimension, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal); see also Pa. R.A.P. 302(a). C.S.’s additional argument that we should address the constitutional issue now in the interest of judicial economy is meritless, because she cannot raise the issue on remand. See Pa.R.J.C.P. 346 (“Unless otherwise required in the interests of justice, all pre-adjudicatory requests for relief shall be included in one omnibus motion filed prior to the adjudicatory hearing.”).

Justices EAKIN and TODD join the order reversing and remanding the case, but express no opinion on matters of waiver.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.3d 698, 624 Pa. 212, 2014 WL 259782, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-cs-pa-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack