Court Opinion

ID: 9650292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:28:31.010673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:19.503062
License: Public Domain

O’BRIEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent from the opinion by Mr. Justice Larsen and his determination that appellant’s confession was not obtained in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 130 (formerly Pa.R.Crim.P. 118) and Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972).
I. REVIEWABILITY
I must initially comment that I believe, as does Mr. Justice Larsen, that the issue is properly preserved for appellate review.
On February 13, 1976, appellant filed boilerplate post-verdict motions reserving the right to file supplemental reasons. No such additional reasons were filed. Appellant did, however, file a memorandum in support of his post-verdict motions, in which all of the now proffered allegations of error were presented. The court below considered and decided all of appellant’s allegations, except the issue of *411whether there was probable cause to arrest appellant. The court below determined that issue was not properly before it for consideration because of appellant’s failure to include the argument in his suppression motion.
The remaining issues now presented to this court are properly preserved for appellate review.
In Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 33, 331 A.2d 213 (1975), n. 1, this court stated:
. . Appellant’s written post-trial motions were boiler plate challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Although counsel apparently made more specific oral motions that were considered by the court, the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 1123(a), 19 P.S. Appendix, requires written post-trial motions.
“The practice in some judicial districts of ignoring the requirements of Rule 1123(a) is condemned. Henceforth, issues not presented in compliance with the rule will not be considered by our trial and appellate courts.”
At that time a majority of the court determined that after January 27, 1975, all post-verdict motions must comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123.
The Blair rule was modified in Commonwealth v. Grace, 473 Pa. 542, 375 A.2d 721 (1977), and Commonwealth v. Pugh, 476 Pa. 445, 383 A.2d 183 (1978). In both Grace and Pugh, the court excused strict compliance with Blair, supra, and Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123. The deviation was permitted in circumstances where a brief or memorandum was submitted to the court arguing the questioned issues and where the court considered the issues.
In the instant case, post-verdict motions were filed thirteen months after this court’s decision in Blair; however, as a memorandum was filed which argued all of the now-contested issues, and those issues were considered and decided by the court below, we believe Grace and Pugh control this case. We will, therefore consider the issues decided by the *412court below and presented in appellant’s brief to this court. Compare Commonwealth v. Carrillo, 483 Pa.-, 395 A.2d 570 (1978); Commonwealth v. Kozek, 479 Pa. 171, 387 A.2d 1278 (1978), and Commonwealth v. McClain, 478 Pa. 10, 385 A.2d 970 (1978).
II. MERITS
Appellant argues that his motion to suppress the inculpatory statement given to the police was erroneously denied. He contends that the statement was the product of an unnecessary delay between arrest and arraignment and, therefore, violative of Pa.R.Crim.P. 130, adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965, suspended effective May 1, 1970, revised January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970, renumbered September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974, and Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972).1
In reviewing the suppression court’s determination, an appellate court will consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and the uncontradicted evidence of appellant. Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 265, 361 A.2d 282 (1976). So viewed, the evidence establishes the following facts.
Appellant was arrested at 5:30 a. m., on August 20, 1975. He arrived at the Police Administration Building at 5:55 a. m. At 6:00 a. m., the police warned appellant of his constitutional rights and informed him of the charges against him. The police first questioned appellant between 7:05 and 9:10 a. m. During this time, he stated that he did not remember shooting Earl Blake.2 He agreed to take a polygraph exami*413nation and it was conducted between 9:10 a. m. and 1:30 p. m. No explanation is given in the record whether the polygraph test was conducted for four hours or a lesser time within the four-hour period. Appellant was informed that he had failed the polygraph examination at 1:40 p. m. He was rewarned of his constitutional rights and at 1:55 p. m., appellant admitted the homicide of Earl Blake. Between 2:10 and 2:40 p. m. he gave a written statement.
Appellant was subsequently arraigned. The time with which we are concerned is from 5:55 a. m., the time of arrival at the Police Administration Building, and 1:55 p. m., the time appellant incriminated himself. See Commonwealth v. Coley, 466 Pa. 53, 351 A.2d 617 (1976).
On the basis of the foregoing facts, I find that arraignment was unnecessarily delayed and that the inculpatory statement was related to the delay and, therefore, the confession should have been suppressed. Approximately eight hours elapsed between the arrest and the confession. More than four hours elapsed between the first and second interrogation sessions during which time a prolonged polygraph test was administered. Appellant was induced to undergo the second interrogation after being told that he failed the polygraph test. This court has previously found unnecessary delay under such circumstances. In Commonwealth v. Sanders, 458 Pa. 281, 327 A.2d 43 (1974), Sanders was arrested at 3:30 p. m. and arraigned at 8:30 the next morning. He did not confess during his first interrogation, but confessed during a subsequent interrogation after being told that he had “not done too well” on a polygraph test. In Commonwealth v. Eaddy, 472 Pa. 409, 372 A.2d 759 (1977), we found a confession to be inadmissible where it was obtained eight hours after arrest and six hours after the beginning of interrogation where the suspect did not implicate himself until being told that he had “failed” a polygraph test. The instant case is similar to Sanders and Eaddy, supra, in the amount of time that elapsed and in the *414role of the polygraph test in inducing the confession. We find it improper to have admitted appellant’s confession.
The opinion of Mr. Justice Larsen does not address the merits of either Sanders or Eaddy, supra, nor does it distinguish those cases. That opinion seeks to excuse the eight-hour delay between arrest and arraignment premised on Commonwealth v. Whitson, 461 Pa. 101, 334 A.2d 653 (1975).
The facts in Whitson are highly instructive in clarifying the result this court reached in that case. The facts in Whitson as recited by this court are:
“. . . Appellant was arrested on January 17, 1973, at or about 1:15 p. m., by officers of the Pittsburgh police force. He arrived at police headquarters at 2:15 p. m. and was advised of his rights. Appellant then gave police a statement in which he outlined his activities on the day of the murder. This initial interview lasted approximately thirty minutes. The police then left appellant alone and proceeded to check his story. At 6:00 p. m., appellant was again interviewed, and at 6:10 p. m. he gave an oral admission, which culminated in a formal statement concluded at 6:50 p. m. At 7:00 p. m., appellant was arraigned. . . . ”
The court, in Whitson, then analyzed the above fact in relation to the law and stated:
“. . ‘In Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972), we held that evidence reasonably related to an unnecessary delay between arrest and arraignment must be excluded. In the instant case, we are of the opinion that the delay between appellant’s arrest and arraignment was not unnecessary. The record reveals that after appellant gave his initial statement to the police, in which he detailed his activities on the night of the murder, appellant was left alone and his story was checked by the police officers. In Futch, we held that a delay in arraignment caused by the necessity to investigate a defendant’s story was permissible. In Futch, we adopted the reasoning of the District of Columbia Court of *415Appeals, wherein Judge Burger, now Chief Justice Burger, stated in his concurring opinion in Adams v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 203, 399 F.2d 574, 579 (1968) (concurring opinion):
“ ‘ “Necessary delay can reasonably relate to time to administratively process an accused with booking, fingerprinting and other steps and sometimes even to make same [sic] limited preliminary investigation into his connection with the crime for which he was arrested, especially when it is directed to possible exculpation of the one arrested.” ’ Adams v. United States, 130 U.S. App.D.C. 203, 399 F.2d 574, 579 (1968) (concurring opinion).’ 447 Pa. at page 392, 290 A.2d at page 418.
“In the instant case, the record reveals that appellant’s initial questioning ended at 2:47 p. m. and that from 2:47 p. m. until 5:45 p. m., appellant was left alone by the police while his story was checked out. At 5:45 p. m., appellant’s questioning was resumed, with an oral admission coming at 6:10 p. m. Under these facts, we conclude that appellant’s delay in arraignment was caused by a necessary step in the police process, the checking of his story, a reason sanctioned by this court in our Futch decision.”
The important and determinative factor used by the court in Whitson was the cessation of police interrogation while the police sought to investigate or check appellant’s exculpatory story. See Commonwealth v. Kampo, 480 Pa. 516, 391 A.2d 1005 (1978). In the instant case the police never ceased the interrogation process. After receiving an exculpatory statement, appellant was administered a four hour polygraph examination.
The facts of this case remove it from the rationale of Whitson, supra. Therefore, Sanders and Eaddy would apply, thereby rendering appellant’s statement inadmissible.
MANDERINO, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

. See Commonwealth v. Davenport, 471 Pa. 278, 370 A.2d 301 (1977) for arrests after May 16, 1977.

. Appellant was previously questioned by police on August 13, 1975, in connection with the Blake homicide. At that time he gave a statement and took a polygraph test. On August 13, appellant contended that he did not remember shooting Earl Blake. Appellant was released later that day. This statement on August 13 was similar to appellant’s initial statement of August 20, that he did not remember shooting Earl Blake.