Opinion ID: 2379526
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appeal of James Hamm

Text: James Hamm raises two issues not raised by his brother: (1) whether he was tried in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100, and (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow counsel to conduct voir dire personally or, in the alternative, by refusing to ask prospective jurors a number of questions proposed by his counsel. The criminal complaints against the Hamm brothers were signed on March 30, 1979. The Rule 1100 run date, therefore, was September 26, 1979. On July 30, 1979, the Commonwealth requested that the cases against James Hamm, Raymond Hamm and James Dotson [7] be tried together and announced that it was ready to proceed. James Hamm's attorney, a public defender, was out of town and for personal reasons was not available on that day. Raymond Hamm and James Dotson were also represented by public defenders, who requested a continuance of the trial. When Raymond's attorney moved for a continuance, he told the court: Sir, I would be making the same application on behalf of Mr. Kalmbach for James. Although I am not his counsel specifically at this time, because of the fact that we are working together and it is the Public Defender's Office representing both, I am prepared to ask for a continuance on both matters. [8] The District Attorney, to avoid Rule 1100 problems, requested written waivers of the rule's requirements. Counsel for Raymond Hamm and James Dotson obtained waivers from their clients and delivered them to the District Attorney. Upon the filing thereof, the trial was continued and relisted by agreement of counsel for October 9, 1979. The day after Mr. Novak, Raymond Hamm's attorney, and Mr. Reed, James Dotson's attorney, had requested continuances for the three defendants, Novak informed Kalmbach that the Commonwealth intended to try the defendants together and that a continuance of all cases had been requested by the defense. He also told Kalmbach that the Commonwealth expected a waiver from his client, James Hamm, in connection with the request for continuance. Several requests for a waiver were subsequently made upon Kalmbach by the District Attorney, but Kalmbach ignored them. When the Commonwealth did not receive the anticipated waiver from James Hamm, it filed a timely petition to extend the time for commencing trial. James Hamm filed an answer and moved to dismiss the charges. The trial court, after hearing, granted an extension until October 19. Trial commenced on October 10. In Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 469 Pa. 214, 364 A.2d 1345 (1976), the Supreme Court held: [T]he trial court may grant an extension under rule 1100(c) only upon a record showing: (1) the `due diligence' of the prosecution, and (2) certification that trial is scheduled for the earliest date consistent with the court's business; provided that if the delay is due to the court's inability to try the defendant within the prescribed period, the record must also show the causes of the court delay and the reasons why the delay cannot be avoided. Id., 469 Pa. at 222, 364 A.2d at 1349-1350. See: Commonwealth v. Kite, 321 Pa.Super. 411, 415, 468 A.2d 775, 777 (1983); Commonwealth v. Jones, 314 Pa.Super. 515, 521, 461 A.2d 276, 279 (1983). The sole issue before this Court in the instant case is whether the trial court properly held that the Commonwealth had met its burden of proving due diligence in bringing Hamm to trial within the mandatory period. [9] We agree that the Commonwealth presented evidence sufficient to support the granting of an extension. In its petition to extend, the Commonwealth alleged that it had been unable to bring James Hamm to trial within the mandatory period because of continuances requested by Hamm's co-defendants. Periods of delay caused by co-defendants and/or their counsel may not normally be excluded from the computation of the prescribed period under Rule 1100(d). Commonwealth v. Hagans, 482 Pa. 572, 577, 394 A.2d 470, 472 (1978); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 266 Pa.Super. 381, 384, 404 A.2d 1340, 1342 (1979); Commonwealth v. Clarence Robinson, 263 Pa.Super. 330, 332, 397 A.2d 1233, 1234 (1979); Commonwealth v. Edward Brown, 251 Pa.Super. 179, 183, 380 A.2d 436, 438 (1977). However, such delays may constitute sufficient grounds for an extension of time for trial under Rule 1100(c). See: Commonwealth v. Hagans, supra, 482 Pa. at 577, 394 A.2d at 472; Commonwealth v. Kite, supra, 321 Pa.Super. at 415, 468 A.2d at 777; Commonwealth v. Brett, 262 Pa.Super. 326, 330, 396 A.2d 777, 780 (1978); Commonwealth v. Edward Brown, supra 251 Pa.Super. at 183, 380 A.2d at 438; Commonwealth v. Walter Brown, 242 Pa.Super. 397, 401-402, 364 A.2d 330, 332-333 (1976). In the instant case, there was no basis for determining that the Commonwealth had failed to exercise due diligence. It was prepared to proceed. The case was not tried prior to the original run date solely because of continuances requested by counsel for co-defendants. They represented to the Court and to the District Attorney that counsel for James Hamm was joining their request for postponement and had no objection to an October trial date. Whether counsel for the co-defendants had express authority to make such representations is not the issue. The fact is that the representations were made, and because they were made the trial was continued and agreement was reached to reschedule the trial for October. Under such circumstances, the delay cannot be attributed to a lack of due diligence by the Commonwealth. It is true, as appellant argues, that a criminal defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial or remind the Commonwealth that time is running out. See: Commonwealth v. Manley, 282 Pa.Super. 376, 383 n. 6, 422 A.2d 1340, 1343 n. 6 (1980); Commonwealth v. Garrison, 277 Pa.Super. 18, 25, 419 A.2d 638, 642 (1980); Commonwealth v. Walter Brown, supra 242 Pa.Super. at 401, 364 A.2d at 332; Commonwealth v. Hagans, 242 Pa.Super. 393, 396-397, 364 A.2d 328, 330 (1976), aff'd, 482 Pa. 572, 574, 394 A.2d 470 (1978). This does not mean, however, that the Commonwealth should not be granted an extension where a joint trial has been continued upon request of a co-defendant and trial cannot be achieved within the mandatory period because of the delay caused thereby. In Commonwealth v. Genovese, 493 Pa. 65, 425 A.2d 367 (1981), the Supreme Court said: Rule 1100 `serves two equally important functions: (1) the protection of the accused's speedy trial rights, and (2) the protection of society, Commonwealth v. Brocklehurst, 491 Pa. 151, 153-154, 420 A.2d 385, 387 (1980); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 449 Pa. 297, 297 A.2d 127 (1972). In determining whether an accused's right to a speedy trial has been violated, consideration must be given to society's right to effective prosecution of criminal cases, both to restrain those guilty of crime and to deter those contemplating it. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 487 Pa. 197 n. 4, 409 A.2d 308 n. 4 (1980). The administrative mandate of Rule 1100 certainly was not designed to insulate the criminally accused from good faith prosecution delayed through no fault of the Commonwealth. Id., 493 Pa. at 69-70, 425 A.2d at 369-370. See also: Commonwealth v. Dunbar, 503 Pa. 590, 599, 470 A.2d 74, 78 (1983). The public . . . has an important `interest in having the guilt or innocence of the accused determined. Indeed, the criminal justice system owes society the duty not to abort trials, but rather to conduct proceedings expeditiously.' Commonwealth v. Crowley, 502 Pa. 393, 466 A.2d 1009, 1012 (1983) (citation omitted). This requires that Rule 1100 be construed reasonably so as to achieve an expeditious determination of criminal charges and not hypertechnically to abort trials thereof. There is no merit in appellant's argument that the trial court's refusal to allow counsel to conduct individual voir dire violated appellant's right to the effective assistance of counsel. The trial judge could himself conduct the voir dire examination. This is expressly authorized by Pa.R.Crim.P. 1106(d), which provides in pertinent part that the trial judge may permit either counsel to conduct voir dire or may itself conduct the examination. In noncapital cases, the method of examining prospective jurors  whether individually or collectively  is discretionary with the court. See: Pa.R.Crim.P. 1106(e); Commonwealth v. Mayo, 272 Pa.Super. 115, 119, 414 A.2d 696, 698-699 (1979); Commonwealth v. Gore, 262 Pa.Super. 540, 557, 396 A.2d 1302, 1310 (1978); Commonwealth v. Howard, 248 Pa.Super. 246, 251, 375 A.2d 79, 82 (1977). The sole purpose of voir dire is to provide the accused with a competent, fair, impartial and unprejudiced jury. Commonwealth v. Christian, 480 Pa. 131, 139, 389 A.2d 545, 549 (1978) (plurality opinion); Commonwealth v. England, 474 Pa. 1, 6, 375 A.2d 1292, 1295 (1977); Commonwealth v. Futch, 469 Pa. 422, 426, 366 A.2d 246, 248 (1976); Commonwealth v. Richmond, 316 Pa.Super. 304, 307, 462 A.2d 1362, 1363 (1983); Commonwealth v. Short, 278 Pa.Super. 581, 590, 420 A.2d 694, 698 (1980); Commonwealth v. Fulton, 271 Pa.Super. 430, 432, 413 A.2d 742, 743 (1979). James Hamm does not suggest that the court's handling of voir dire impaired his or his counsel's ability to select a fair and impartial jury, and the record discloses no prejudice whatsoever. We reject Hamm's invitation to find the denial of his request prima facie prejudicial. We also find no merit in the related contention that James Hamm is entitled to a new trial because the Court refused to submit the following proposed questions to the prospective jurors: The judge will tell you that the Commonwealth has the burden of proof and must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If, during your ultimate deliberation, you had such a doubt, would you have any hesitation in acquitting the defendant? Even though you will hear the Commonwealth's evidence first, will you keep an open mind until all the evidence has been presented and the judge has instructed you on the law? The trial judge has broad discretion regarding the scope of voir dire examination; absent a showing that the court abused its discretion, its rulings will not be reversed. Commonwealth v. Futch, supra 469 Pa. at 427, 366 A.2d at 248; Commonwealth v. Layman, 290 Pa.Super. 244, 253, 434 A.2d 735, 739 (1981); Commonwealth v. Boone, 286 Pa.Super. 384, 388, 428 A.2d 1382, 1384 (1981). Moreover, voir dire questions encompassing legal principles and the jury's understanding thereof are improper. See: Commonwealth v. Kingsley, 480 Pa. 560, 573, 391 A.2d 1027, 1033 (1978); Commonwealth v. Richmond, supra, 316 Pa.Super. at 310, 462 A.2d at 1365; Commonwealth v. Bright, 279 Pa.Super. 1, 8, 420 A.2d 714, 717 (1980); Commonwealth v. Everett, 262 Pa.Super. 61, 64-65, 396 A.2d 645, 646 (1978); Commonwealth v. Perea, 252 Pa.Super. 272, 277, 381 A.2d 494, 497 (1977).