Court Opinion

ID: 9759775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:27:37.644551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:04.527704
License: Public Domain

POMEROY, Justice
(concurring).
I agree with the Court that appellant has not been denied the right to a speedy trial and that he has waived the issúe of whether his confession should have been suppressed as the product of an unnecessary delay between arrest and preliminary arraignment. I also agree with the Court that appellant is entitled to a new trial because the trial court improperly restricted defense counsel in (1) presenting evidence concerning the time period between appellant’s confession and his preliminary arraignment, and (2) arguing to the jury the relationship between that period of time and the voluntariness of appellant’s confession. To the extent, however, that the Court holds or implies that a defendant is entitled at trial to raise the issue of unnecessary delay between arrest and preliminary arraignment, and argue to the jury that unnecessary delay is a factor to be considered in assessing the voluntariness of a confession, I disagree. In my view, the question of the • necessity of the delay between arrest and preliminary arraignment is a question of law which is not within the province of the jury to consider or decide when confronted with a claim that a confession was obtained involuntarily. See Commonwealth v. Coach, 471 Pa. 389, 370 A.2d 358 (1977) (Pomeroy, J., concurring).