Court Opinion

ID: 9635417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:50:17.835254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:28:57.788918
License: Public Domain

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
Rule 1101 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, in relevant part:
*456In all cases the defendant may waive a jury trial with the consent of his attorney, if any, and approval by a judge of the court in which the case is pending, and elect to be tried by a judge without a jury. The judge shall ascertain from the defendant whether this is a knowing and intelligent waiver, and such colloquy shall appear on the record.
(Emphasis supplied.)
It is undisputed that the clear mandate of this rule was not followed in this case. As the Chief Justice points out in his dissenting opinion, “[t]he dictate of Rule 1101 is in no way onerous, and the failure of a jurist to fulfill this responsibility is without justification.” Dissenting Opinion of Nix, C.J., at 1093. Since there was no record colloquy in this case, and since we lack even a PCHA hearing record from which to ascertain whether defendant’s waiver of a jury trial was knowing, I cannot agree with the majority. Until Rule 1101 is repealed or amended by this Court, I believe it must be followed. I would affirm Superior Court.
In this regard, I would note that this Court has all too commonly adopted procedural rules, only to fail to follow them when exercising its decisional function. Unless the Federal or state constitution requires abrogation of a rule adopted by this Court, I would require that rule to be followed unless and until we amend or repeal it. Our rule-making function is legislative in nature. The rules promulgated pursuant to that function are entitled to the same respect as are enactments of the legislature. They should receive that respect from all levels of the judicial system, including this Court.
Some colloquy on the part of the trial judge, on the record, is desirable to show that a defendant was advised of his constitutional rights. This is the rationale behind Ingram and Williams. The extent of the colloquy generally necessary to insure a knowing waiver may be subject to dispute. Perhaps the record colloquy may be abbreviated without harm where there is a detailed, signed, written *457waiver, as in Commonwealth v. Smith, 498 Pa. 661, 450 A.2d 973 (1982). However, that there should be a colloquy, and that it should be on the record, has not been recently questioned.
Finally, I would add a note to Mr. Justice Zappala’s distinguishing of the cases cited by the majority. See Dissenting Opinion of Zappala, J. Of all the cases cited, only Commonwealth v. Smith, supra, involved a direct attack (i.e., in a direct appeal) on an allegedly defective colloquy. All of the other cases involved collateral attacks, either by PCHA petition (Martinez, Gardner, Carson, Anthony ) or by post-sentence petition to withdraw the guilty plea (Shaffer, Schultz). We have allowed beyond-the-record investigation only in cases of collateral attack. The exception noted (Smith) involved a highly detailed waiver form explaining all the necessary elements for a knowing waiver, with the form itself part of the record. On direct appeals, we can remedy an Ingram violation by remanding the case for a new trial. Indeed, with no record upon which to make a determination of whether the waiver was knowing, we have no effective alternative. Collateral attacks, however, provide us with a record of the hearing held pursuant to the petition filed, and the issues of waiver, ineffective assistance of counsel, etc. have been addressed below and can be reviewed by our. Court. Such a hearing also gives the Commonwealth an opportunity to show that the waiver was knowing.
This case, a direct appeal, where there has been no on the record colloquy and no attempt to determine whether the jury waiver was knowing, would require a factual investigation, wholly beyond the record. Under these circumstances, I believe the remedy mandated judicially by Ingram and in a manner analogous to legislative action by Rule 1101 should be followed until they are modified. I would affirm Superior Court’s order granting defendant a new trial.