JUSTICE SAYLOR
[M.O. - Dougherty, J.] Appeal from the Judgment of Superior Court entered on 10/7/19 at No. 1392 EDA 2017 affirming the order entered on 4/5/17 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No. MC-51-CR-0005268-2017
CONCURRING OPINION
JUSTICE SAYLOR
I join the majority opinion.
I write separately only to highlight my point of view that additional clarification of the "prima facie" standard governing preliminary hearings in Pennsylvania is needed. See Commonwealth v. McClelland, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 233 A.3d 717, 742-43 (2020) (Saylor, C.J., concurring and dissenting) (favoring a unitary probable cause standard applicable to both the determination whether a crime has been committed and commission by the defendant); Commonwealth v. Ricker, 642 Pa. 367, 381-82, 170 A.3d 494, 503 (2017) (Saylor, C.J., concurring) (discussing this Court's varying expressions of the standard of evidentiary sufficiency applicable at preliminary hearings).
Notably, the majority opinion reinforces the application of a probable cause standard relative to commission by the defendant, see Majority Opinion, slip op. at 17, and the fact that a crime was committed is undisputed in the present case. Because the use of the term "prima facie" in the applicable Rules of Criminal Procedure seems facially incongruent with a "probable cause" standard, I take the position that modifications to the applicable Rules of Criminal Procedure are warranted. Accord, McClelland, ___ Pa. at ___, 233 A.3d at 742-43 (Saylor, C.J., concurring and dissenting). --------
I read the majority opinion as reasonably refraining from addressing the incongruity in the rule-based delineation of a prima facie standard meant in whole or in part to connote probable cause, in light of the more limited argumentation presented by the parties.
Justice Todd joins this concurring opinion.