Court Opinion

ID: 9635695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:00:03.806661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:33.197732
License: Public Domain

*182ROBERTS, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. Although I agree that the first statement appellant gave to police was admissible, the subsequent statements made by appellant should have been ruled inadmissible as the product of an unreasonable delay between arrest and preliminary arraignment; Pa.R.Crim. P. 130, Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972); Commonwealth v. Rowe, 459 Pa. 163, 327 A.2d 358 (1974); Commonwealth v. Cherry, 457 Pa. 201, 321 A.2d 611 (1974); Commonwealth v. Dixon, 454 Pa. 444, 311 A.2d 613 (1973); Commonwealth v. Wayman, 454 Pa. 79, 309 A.2d 784 (1973); Commonwealth v. Dutton, 453 Pa. 547, 307 A.2d 238 (1973); Commonwealth v. Tingle, 451 Pa. 241,301 A.2d 701 (1973).
By 11:00 p. m. on April 16, 1973, appellant had signed a written inculpatory statement which had been properly obtained. Instead of taking appellant to preliminary arraignment without delay, as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 130, the police attempted to elicit additional statements from appellant to “clarify” her original statement. A second written statement was completed and signed at 7:45 a. m. the following day. Thus, 22 hours after her arrest she had still not been arraigned. These unwarranted, unnecessary delays which produce “clarifying” statements in violation of Rule 130 and the cases decided thereunder cannot be tolerated.
In an attempt to justify its conclusion that the subsequent statements were properly admissible, the majority contradicts its own recitation of the facts. The opinion states that after the initial statement was given, the police sought to have appellant “clarify” her inculpatory recitation. These clarifications were apparently sufficiently important to be reduced to writing by the police, given to appellant to sign more than eight hours after her first statement was signed, and used by the prosecution at trial. The majority states however, “Since the information obtained during the subsequent period was *183merely repetitious, the appellant was not prejudiced.” I cannot join this equivocation. The facts of record indicate that the subsequent statements should have been suppressed.
MANDERINO, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.