Court Opinion

ID: 9762001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:07:06.406087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:29.051626
License: Public Domain

*77Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Chief Justice Jones:
While I am fully cognizant of the language contained in Rule 1118(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, I must dissent from the majority view in this matter.
Rule 1118(b) provides that: “In all cases only the defendant or the attorney for the defendant may move for a mistrial.” (Emphasis added.) The Rule itself refers in its title to “Motion to Declare a Mistrial.” In my view, the Rule was never intended to restrict judges in the declaration by them, sua sponte, of a mistrial. The Rule refers only to “motions”; “motions” in the context of the Rule are made by parties or counsel and not by the court whose function it is to pass upon “'motions”.
It is my belief that this Rule does not and should not deprive a judge of his inherent power under appropriate circumstances and in the interest of justice to declare a mistrial. A review of the instant record reveals that the judge, in order to protect the right of this defendant to a fair and impartial trier of foot, very properly declared a mistrial. The majority view reverses the action of a judge who was protecting the defendant’s right in the finest judicial tradition.
I dissent.
Mr. Justice Pomeboy joins in this dissenting opinion.