Court Opinion

ID: 9650227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:27:17.549257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:19.093847
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
dissenting:
As I read Commonwealth v. Hailey, 470 Pa. 488, 507, 368 A.2d 1261, 1271 (1977), an indictment will not be quashed if the defendant has shown no prejudice and there has been “substantial compliance” with Rule 140(f). In Commonwealth v. DeCosey, 246 Pa.Super. 412, at 418, 371 A.2d 905, at 908 (1977), in a concurring opinion, I asked, “Who knows, or can predict, what ‘substantial compliance’ means?” Whatever the answer, there wasn’t substantial compliance here. In Hailey, compliance was missed by only one day, in DeCosey, by only four days; here it was missed by almost two months.
I should therefore vacate the judgment of sentence and quash the indictment.