Court Opinion

ID: 9765012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:47:55.173335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:03.474579
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
We cannot subscribe to the majority’s conclusion that the Commonwealth can impose the cost of a change of venue, here over $8,000, on appellee. Neither the Commonwealth nor the majority refers to any case in this or any other jurisdiction, and research reveals none, in which the prosecution has been permitted to impose such costs. Unlike the majority, we agree with the Superior Court that this unprecedented imposition of costs is impermissible.
*204Through no fault of appellee, substantial prejudicial publicity surrounded appellee’s case. Appellee properly obtained a change of venue, approved by both the trial court and this Court.
“There are rights of constitutional stature whose exercise a State may not condition by the exaction of a price.” Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 500, 87 S.Ct. 616, 620,17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967). No right is more basic and fundamental to our system of fair and impartial justice than the right to a fair trial before an impartial judge and jury. See U.S. Const, amends. VI & XIV; Pa.Const, art. I, § 9. It is manifestly unfair and unreasonable to penalize appellee for exercising so fundamental a constitutional right.
The majority’s result would, until today, have been all but unthinkable in this Commonwealth given these constitutional guarantees. The majority’s result is even more remarkable, however, in light of existing statutory provisions and rules of this Court. Pa.R.Crim.Pro. 312(b) expressly provides that “[a]ll costs accruing from a change of venue shall be paid by the county in which the complaint was filed.” See also Act of May 18, 1875, P.L. 30, § 3, formerly 19 P.S. § 553. Just two months ago, in supplementing existing venue procedure by establishing a means for transporting jurors from other counties, our Legislature took care to relieve an accused citizen of the costs of this change of venire:
“All costs incurred under this section shall be paid by the county where the complaint is filed.”
42 Pa.C.S. § 8702(c). The majority’s determination to ignore these plain mandates, as well as its failure to protect fundamental constitutional rights, once again unnecessarily forces a Pennsylvania litigant to seek redress in a federal court for vindication of rights that should have been respected in the state system. The order of the Superior Court should be affirmed. The majority’s failure to do so compels dissent.
O’BRIEN and KAUFFMAN, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.