Court Opinion

ID: 9762799
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:31:22.414862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:37.547593
License: Public Domain

*362BROSKY, Judge,
concurring:
I join in the Concurring Opinion of President Judge Spaeth. I would only add that I have a different and, perhaps, more fundamental reason for disagreeing with the majority’s conclusion that appellant’s trial commenced for Rule 1100 purposes when the hearing was held on her pre-trial motion challenging the constitutionality of 18 Pa. C.S. § 5903.
As noted by the majority, the comment to Rule 1100 states the following:
It is not intended that preliminary calendar calls should constitute commencement of a trial. For the purpose of this rule, a trial commences when the trial judge determines that the parties are present and directs them to proceed to voir dire or to opening argument, or to the hearing of any motions which had been reserved for the time of trial, or to the taking of testimony, or to some other such first step in the trial (emphasis added).
I agree with the majority that case law has interpreted this comment as setting forth two requirements which must be met before a hearing on a motion can be considered to mark the commencement of trial under Rule 1100: (1) the accused is adequately warned that the hearing has been reserved until the time of trial and (2) the hearing actually leads directly into the guilt-determining process. See Commonwealth v. Dozier, 258 Pa.Super. 367, 392 A.2d 837 (1978). The majority’s analysis focuses solely on the second requirement and leads it to the conclusion that a hearing on the type of motion involved in the instant case intrinsically leads into the guilt-determining process. Whether or not this conclusion is correct, the fact remains that the majority’s analysis overlooks the first requirement that the hearing on the motion be reserved for time of trial and that the defendant be adequately warned of such reservation.
I believe the record is clear that the hearing of appellant’s pre-trial motion was not reserved for time of trial. Since Dozier’s first requirement was thus not satisfied, I must disagree with the majority’s conclusion that trial com*363menced when the hearing was held on appellant’s pre-trial motion.