Court Opinion

ID: 9729733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:47:44.806429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:00.838313
License: Public Domain

POMEROY, Justice,
dissenting.
Nothing that has been presented to us in this case or otherwise has caused me to abandon my previously expressed view that this Court’s per se rule requiring reversal whenever a juvenile has waived his constitutional rights without opportunity to consult with a parent or other interested adult who himself has first been advised of the juvenile’s constitutional rights, is unwise, unnecessary and unwarranted, and that in any event the rule should not be applied retroactively to cases whose trial commenced prior to the announcement of the rule. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Smith, 472 Pa. 492,-, 372 A.2d 797, 804-06 (1977) (dissenting opinion of Pomeroy, J., joined by Eagen, C. J.); Commonwealth v. Lee, 470 Pa. 401, 406-408, 368 A.2d 690, 693-94 (1977) (dissenting opinion of Pomeroy, J., joined by Jones, C. J., and Eagen, J.); Commonwealth v. Chaney, 465 Pa. 407, 409-10, 350 A.2d 829, 831 (1975) (dissenting opinion of Pomeroy, J., joned by Jones, C. J., and Eagen, J.). This is another such case. Hence, I must again dissent.