Court Opinion

ID: 9643980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:45:40.315572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:06.933981
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
dissenting:
¶ 11 respectfully dissent from my distinguished colleagues’ Majority Opinion because I conclude that the trial court erred in denying John Perez’s motion to suppress his statement. Currently, the six-hour rule enunciated in Commonwealth v. Davenport, 471 Pa. 278, 370 A.2d 301 (1977), and refined in Commonwealth v. Duncan, 514 Pa. 395, 525 A.2d 1177 (1987), requires the suppression of a statement made by a defendant after arrest and prior to arraignment if the statement is given after the elapse of six hours following arrest. See Commonwealth v. Odrick, 410 Pa.Super. 245, 599 A.2d 974 (1991). In the instant case, the record shows, and the Majority acknowledges, that Perez’s statement was made prior to arraignment and that he commenced giving his statement after the six hours following his arrest had elapsed. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial.
¶ 2 The Majority concludes that Perez should be denied the protection of the six-hour rule because his untruthfulness with police delayed his arraignment. See Majority Opinion at 876 (stating that “as a result of Perez’s lies regarding his name, birthdate, address and telephone number, Detective Fetters was forced to spend additional time determining Perez’s identity”). Therefore, the Majority holds that the six-hour rule does not require suppression because “the delay in this case was deliberately caused by Perez himself.” Id. I disagree with the Majority’s conclusion and find its jurisprudence problematic for three reasons. First, the Majority anchors its analysis in a case that has no precedential value. Second, the Majority’s holding permits police officers to postpone a criminal defendant’s arraignment while they do investigative work that is not a necessary prerequisite to the arraignment. Third, the Majority’s holding contravenes Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent by abrogating the safeguards established by the Court in Davenport and Duncan, supra. In the following discussion, I shall address these issues seriatim.
¶ 3 First, the Majority cites to Commonwealth v. Devan, 338 Pa.Super. 95, 487 A.2d 869 (1985), as the foundation for its holding. Devon was decided by a three judge panel consisting of Judge Del Sole, Judge Montemuro, and Judge Hoffman. Judge Hoffman wrote the opinion, Judge Del Sole concurred in the result, and Judge Montemuro wrote a concurring opinion. Thus, no other judge joined Judge Hoffman’s opinion. Importantly, Judge Montemuro’s concurring opinion does not endorse any part of Judge Hoffman’s opinion. “Unless an issue in a panel decision commands a majority both as to result and as to rationale, the principle embodied in the issue is not precedential.” Askew v. Zeller, 361 Pa.Super. 35, 39-41, 521 A.2d 459, 462 (1987) (emphasis added). See also Commonwealth v. Price, 543 Pa. 403, 407-09, 672 A.2d 280, 282 (1996) (stating that a plurality decision is non-prece-dential). Consequently, Devan has absolutely no precedential value. See id. See also Podrat v. Codman-Shurtleff, Inc., 384 Pa.Super. 404, 558 A.2d 895 (1989) (stating that an opinion “not joined by a majority of the participating judges is not prece-dential”). Accordingly, I conclude that the Majority’s reliance upon Devan is in error.
¶4 Moreover, I cannot agree with the Majority’s attempt to analogize this case to that of a defendant who makes him or herself unavailable for trial and then seeks the protection of Rule 1100. See Pa. R.Crim.P. 1100 (requiring that a trial commence no later than 270 days from the date on which the complaint is filed). The Majority, following the rationale of Judge Hoffman’s opinion in Devan, discusses *881three such cases: Commonwealth v. Herbert, 348 Pa.Super. 566, 502 A.2d 690 (1985); Commonwealth v. Machi, 294 Pa.Super. 338, 439 A.2d 1230 (1982); and Commonwealth v. Gallo, 276 Pa.Super. 562, 419 A.2d 601 (1980). Each of these cases is readily distinguishable. In Herbert and Gallo, the defendants made themselves physically unavailable for trial either by evasion or deception. In Machi, the defendant’s counsel requested a postponement of the proceedings pending the outcome of a Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Pittsburgh Police Magistrate’s Court. By the time the Supreme Court had decided the case and upheld the constitutionality of the Magistrate’s Court, over eleven months had passed since the complaint had been filed against the defendant, Machi. One month after the Supreme Court’s decision, Machi was tried in a bench trial and convicted. On appeal, Machi claimed that he was not tried within the time period required by Rule 1100. Though in dicta we stated that “a defendant may not benefit from a delay that he has caused[,]” we reversed the judgment of sentence and ordered Machi released because we concluded that Machi did not waive his right to a prompt trial. Machi, 439 A.2d at 1233. The Majority relies upon Machi, Gallo, and Herbert, for the proposition that “a defendant cannot profit from a delay in being brought to trial that he or she has caused.” Majority Opinion at 877-78. However, these cases are not analogous to the instant one because Perez’s untruthful statements did not make him physically unavailable for arraignment, nor did Perez waive his right to a prompt arraignment under Pa.R.Crim.P. 123. Thus, I conclude that the Majority’s reliance on the foregoing cases is misplaced.
¶ 5 Second, the Majority states that although a defendant is under no obligation to provide the police with information as to his identity or any other matter, “once a defendant chooses to talk with the police, he should not profit from any delay his untruths may cause.” Majority Opinion at 876. Initially, I note that we are not here addressing a defendant’s rights subsequent to arraignment or the quantum of information a defendant must give the police in order for him to be entitled to bail. On these facts, I am at a loss to discover the elusive profiteering that a defendant purportedly commits when he or she lies to the police. A defendant’s untruthful statements do not spring him from incarceration or give him a tangible advantage over his interrogators. Nor do a defendant’s untruthful statements “cause” the delay in being brought to arraignment. Regardless of the lies that a defendant spews forth, he can be arraigned at any time.
¶ 6 At issue in this case is whether a statement should be suppressed when it is made after the passage of a certain period of time and prior to arraignment. In Duncan, our Supreme Court reiterated that this exclusionary rule
“was adopted not simply to guard against the coercive influence of custodial interrogation, but to ensure that the rights to which an accused is entitled at preliminary arraignment are afforded without unnecessary delay.” Davenport, 370 A.2d at 305.
While [this exclusionary principle] was not designed to terminate police interrogation, it was intended to interrupt it after a reasonable period of time to allow the suspect to be advised of his custodial rights by an impartial judicial officer, as opposed to police officials, and in appropriate cases to establish the conditions of his release pending trial.
525 A.2d at 1181 (citations omitted) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 500 Pa. 144, 147-49, 454 A.2d 1004, 1006 (1982)). Stated more directly, the very purpose of the six-hour rule is to allow for and require judicial arraignment after a strictly limited period of time. See Black’s Law DictioNARY 104 (7th ed.1999) (defining “arraignment” as: “The initial step in a criminal *882prosecution whereby the defendant is brought before the court to hear the charges and to enter a plea”). Surely, if the police can bring a defendant to be arraigned without delay even when the defendant does not give the police one iota of information, as it is a defendant’s right to remain silent, then the police should also be able to bring a defendant to be arraigned when they are given false information. Put another way, the police did not need Perez’s correct name, address or telephone number to arraign him. Nor was Perez under a duty to cooperate with the police in their investigation or be truthful with them. Thus, contrary to the Majority’s assertion that Perez’s dishonesty caused the delay in his arraignment, the delay in this case can only be attributed to the police who chose to do unnecessary investigative work before bringing Perez to arraignment.
¶ 7 Thirdly, the Majority’s decision is guided by a quote from Duncan in which our Supreme Court stated that the primary purpose of the six-hour rule “ ‘was to discourage the obtaining of incriminatory information through coercive means, and it was felt that the mere passage of time while under arrest could have a coercive effect on the defendant.’ ” Majority Opinion at 878-79 (quoting Duncan, 525 A.2d at 1182). The Majority goes on to state that “Perez does not allege that his confession was coerced, unknowing or involuntary.” Id. at 879. However, this analysis is of no import when one considers that the Supreme Court’s rationale in establishing the six-hour rule was that the “mere passage of time” while under arrest could have a coercive effect on a defendant. Duncan, 525 A.2d at 1182 (emphasis added). Moreover, after a review of the many Supreme Court cases on this issue, I am unable to find any support for the proposition that a defendant either must allege or show that his or her statements, in addition to being made after the elapse of six hours following arrest and prior to arraignment, were in fact the result of coercion or were unknowing or involuntary.
¶ 8 In conclusion, I acknowledge the Majority’s advocacy of abrogating the six-hour rule. See Majority Opinion at 879 n. 12 (citing Commonwealth v. Bridges, — Pa. -, 757 A.2d 859 (2000), solely for the proposition that the six-hour rule is now viewed unfavorably by some members of our Supreme Court). It is beyond our authority, however, to discard the six-hour rule so long as it remains binding Supreme Court precedent. In fact, the very case upon which the Majority relies for illustrating the unpopularity of the six-hour rule actually reaffirms the rule as binding law in our Commonwealth. See Bridges, 757 A.2d at 871-72. Faced with over two decades of Supreme Court precedent on this issue, we may not now eviscerate the rule in such a way that reverts us back to a method of determining unnecessary delay by examining the particular circumstances of each interrogation.
¶ 9 So long as the six-hour rule remains the law of this Commonwealth, I am wary of the curtailment advocated by the Majority. The Majority’s holding would diminish established safeguards against potential police abuses affixed by our Supreme Court. This curtailment of a defendant’s right to be arraigned without unnecessary delay would expose our criminal justice system to potential abuse by law enforcement officials. A defendant is under no obligation to inform the police of his true identity or to give the police any information whatsoever. Surely, the Supreme Court recognized this when it fashioned the six-hour rule. The reality of the criminal justice system is that defendants routinely lie to the police. If police officials could delay the six hour period by the amount of time it takes to verify information obtained from an arrestee, when such information is unnecessary to the commencement of an arraignment procedure, the six-hour rule would no longer exist. Therefore, I dissent.