Court Opinion

ID: 9762000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:07:06.402199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:29.050993
License: Public Domain

Concussing Opinion by
Mb. Justice Robeets:
The majority correctly concludes that Pa. R. Crim. P. 1118(b) was violated by the trial court’s sua sponte declaration of a mistrial without appellant’s consent. *76The majority seems also to correctly assume that the mistrial was declared without “manifest necessity”. United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 487, 91 S. Ct. 547, 558 (1971); Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 447 Pa. 91, 101, 288 A. 2d 727, 733 (1972) (dissents on other grounds).
The majority opinion is, however, somewhat ambiguous as to whether it is the failure of the trial court to comply with Rule 1118(a) or the absence of a “manifest necessity” which precludes a second trial. In my view the second trial is prohibited on either ground.
The trial court during the course of the trial felt compelled to declare a mistrial in part because of counsel’s apparent conflict of interest in representing two defendants. It might perhaps be helpful to direct attention to the ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Function of the Trial Judge, §3.4(b) (Approved Draft, 1972), which provides: “Whenever two or more defendants who have been jointly charged, or whose cases have been consolidated, are represented by the same attorney, the trial judge should inqudre into potential conflicts which may jeopardise the right of each defendant to the fidelity of his counsel” (Emphasis supplied.)
The commentary to Section 3.4(b) suggests that the trial court should determine prior to trial whether joint representation by the same attorney created a potential conflict of interest. The commentary offers these guidelines: “A waiver of the right to separate representation should not be accepted by the court unless the defendants have each been fully informed of the probable hazards; and the voluntary character of their waiver is apparent.” (Emphasis supplied.) See also ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function and the Defense Function, The Defense Function, §3.5(b) (Approved Draft, 1971).
Mr. Justice Nix joins in this concurring opinion.