Court Opinion

ID: 9631034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:27:18.711619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:47.749363
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I wholeheartedly join Justice Pomeroy in his dissenting opinion.
I would also like to emphasize that the majority now wants Pa.R.Crim.P. 131(b) to serve the new and novel purpose of causing the arrest which was made on February 10, 1975, to be “construed” as if it were made on July 28, 1974, so that the defendant, who was convicted of murder of the first degree and conspiracy, will be discharged because he was not tried within one hundred eighty days (Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100) of the “construed” arrest date. The defendant was in fact tried within one hundred eighty days of his actual arrest.
The majority has misconstrued the purpose and effect of Rule 131(b). Rule 131(b) provides that all alleged offenses *385. . arising from the same incident, the issuing authority shall accept only one complaint and shall docket the matter as a single case.” Rule 131(c) provides that when 131(b) is not adhered to, “. . .a judge of the court may order the forfeiture of all additional costs of the issuing authority accrued by reason of such violation . . ..” Thus, Rule 131(b), which was adopted three years * before Rule 1100 came into existence was adopted for the sole purpose that a defendant would not be wrongfully subjected to multiple arrests and hearings and additional costs for alleged multiple crimes arising out of one incident. It was not adopted for the purpose of somehow being wed to Rule 1100 to reach the result which the majority reached.
The effect of the majority’s opinion is to have created a one hundred eighty day Statute of Limitations for the crime of murder for this defendant and other defendants similarly situated. For the other citizens of the Commonwealth there is not, nor should there be, a Statute of Limitations for the crime of murder.
The majority is piling technicalities upon technicalities with the result that form is taking precedence over substance; this is wrong — all form must emanate out of substance. I dissent.

 Rule 131 replaced former Rule 103 which contained identical language.