Court Opinion

ID: 9697232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:09:01.323789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:29.694664
License: Public Domain

*181BECK, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur and agree with the majority that Cruz waived his objection to any defect in the information when he did not raise that objection pre-trial. Pa.R.Crim.P. 306, 9020(d).
The majority does not limit the basis of its decision to waiver. Instead it concludes that the trial court erred when, at the close of evidence, it granted a defense motion to dismiss the information.
I would find waiver alone sufficient to support reversal. I, therefore, conclude that the majority’s explication of the substantive law of this case is dicta. I, however, respond to the majority’s discussion of the substantive issue.
The majority holds that the absence of an averment in the information that the Commonwealth was seeking to toll the statute of limitations did not warrant a dismissal, relying on Commonwealth v. Stockard, 489 Pa. 209, 217-18, 413 A.2d 1088, 1092 (1980). Until Stockard, the rule in Pennsylvania was that “[wjhere the Commonwealth seeks to toll the statute of limitations by establishing one of the enumerated exceptions, it must allege the exception in the indictment. The purpose of this rule is ‘to apprise the defendant that he must defend not only against the crime itself but also against the limitation of prosecution.’ ” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Bender, 251 Pa.Super. 454, 459, 380 A.2d 868, 870 (1977)).1
In Stockard, notice of the Commonwealth’s intent to toll the statute of limitations was not in the information, but was in Commonwealth’s answer to defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Moreover, the issue was contested at a pre-trial hearing on the motion. The Stockard court held that the facts in the case constituted sufficient notice to defendant; the notice requirement was satisfied because the defendant was informed in an official document that the Commonwealth sought to toll the statute “some reasonable time before trial.” Id. 489 Pa. at 217-18, 413 A.2d at 1092-93.
*182The case sub judice is distinguishable from Stockard, and I would conclude the notice requirement was not met. The majority states that Cruz “was fully aware of the facts relied on by the Commonwealth. Indeed, they were recited in the affidavit submitted in support of the request for an arrest warrant.” Maj. Opinion at 180. I would find that this is not sufficient notice for two reasons. First, an affidavit in support of an arrest warrant is not sufficient to give a defendant pre-trial notice, because there is no guarantee that the defendant will see the affidavit. An answer to a defense motion, as in Stockard, is routinely transmitted to defense counsel. In the normal course of events defense counsel does not receive a copy of the arrest warrant affidavit. Second, in the case sub judice the affidavit merely recites the dates of Cruz’s escape in 1973 and his arrest in Chicago in 1985, along with the efforts of law enforcement officials to find him in the interim. These facts, even if Cruz was aware of them independently, did not give specific notice before trial that the Commonwealth intended to allege an exception which would toll the statute of limitations. Stockard requires more than simply that a defendant be aware of the facts on which the Commonwealth might base an allegation; it holds that due process requires pre-trial notice that the Commonwealth will allege the exception. Without that specific notice, in a document which the defendant will receive, the defendant is denied his due process right to an opportunity to defend against the allegation.2
I would reverse solely on the basis that the trial court erred in not finding that Cruz waived his objection to the information at trial. I therefore join only that part of the majority opinion that relates to waiver. Maj. op. at 179-180. I do not join the majority’s discussion of the substantive issue, Maj. op. at 179-181, which amounts to an unwarranted extension of the holding of Stockard.

. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5554 for the enumerated exceptions.

. The argument that proof of an exception to a statute of limitations at trial satisfies due process has been rejected. See Commonwealth v. Eackles, 286 Pa.Super. 146, 155-56, 428 A.2d 614, 619 (1981).