Com. v. Jaouni, N.
1361 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Appellant Nadim Zuhaire Jaouni was charged on June 10, 2013; Rule 600 (former version) governs timing for commencement of trial (one-year mechanical run date).
- Appellant requested numerous continuances, including a 56-day postponement for a preliminary hearing and repeated requests to enter ARD and for medical reasons beginning September 18, 2013.
- The Commonwealth argued that nearly all time from June 10, 2013 to June 18, 2015 was attributable to Appellant (739 days).
- Trial court found judicial delay and some Commonwealth due diligence, denying Appellant’s Rule 600 dismissal; Appellant moved to dismiss on July 12, 2016.
- The Superior Court (concurring memorandum by Judge Bowes) concluded the Commonwealth failed to meet its Rule 600 obligations and reversed, focusing on attribution of delay and the Commonwealth’s failure to prove due diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 600 violation occurred (timeliness) | Commonwealth: delays mostly attributable to Appellant; no violation | Jaouni: cumulative delays pushed trial beyond adjusted run date; violation | Court: Commonwealth failed to prove it met Rule 600; reversal of denial of dismissal |
| Whether entire period from complaint to June 18, 2015 is excludable | Commonwealth: all time from filing through 6/18/15 should not count against it | Jaouni: much of that period counts against Commonwealth; some short defendant-caused delays excluded | Court: Commonwealth’s blanket exclusion is untenable; normal case progression counts unless excusable/excludable shown |
| Attributing delay to judicial docket congestion vs. Commonwealth due diligence | Commonwealth: judicial reassignment and calendar congestion excused time | Jaouni: Commonwealth must first show due diligence before judicial delay applies | Court: Judicial delay may be relevant only after Commonwealth proves due diligence; Commonwealth did not prove it here |
| Effect of lab analyst unavailability on due diligence | Commonwealth: time was excusable because toxicologist unavailable; thus it exercised due diligence | Jaouni: Commonwealth never scheduled case and conceded it did not attempt to find alternate analyst; no due diligence | Court: Trial court abused discretion treating unscheduled, unproven unavailability as excusable; Commonwealth bore burden to show diligence and failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2007) (explains computing mechanical and adjusted Rule 600 run dates)
- Commonwealth v. Mills, 162 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2017) (normal progression of a case is not automatically "delay"; Commonwealth must show diligence before judicial delay excuses time)
- Commonwealth v. Browne, 584 A.2d 902 (Pa. 1990) (government must employ basic recordkeeping to meet due diligence obligations)