Com. v. Shue, N.
Com. v. Shue, N. No. 448 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 23, 2017Background
- Neil Eugene Shue was arrested and charged with DUI on October 24, 2015; complaint filed the same day (Rule 600 mechanical run date: Oct. 23, 2016).
- After prelim hearings and scheduling activity, Shue requested a jury trial at a pretrial on April 14, 2016; the case was later handled as a bench (non‑jury) matter following Birchfield-related adjustments.
- Shue appeared for a bench trial scheduled July 27, 2016 at 1:30 p.m., but miscommunication among court administration, chambers, and the DA resulted in witnesses being excused and the case not being called then.
- On October 24, 2016 the Commonwealth emailed court administration to convert the matter from jury to non‑jury trial (post‑Birchfield); court later scheduled the bench trial for January 26, 2017.
- Shue filed a Rule 600 motion to dismiss on January 25, 2017 (one day before the scheduled bench trial); the trial court denied the motion, conducted a stipulated bench trial (Jan. 30, 2017), convicted Shue of DUI, and sentenced him.
- Shue appealed, arguing the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 because it made only two inadequate efforts to bring the case to trial over 464 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shue) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 600 was violated due to delay overall and lack of Commonwealth due diligence | Commonwealth made only two half‑hearted attempts (July 27 scheduling cancellation and Oct. 24 email four days before run date); delays were attributable to Commonwealth failure to act | Delays were caused or excusable: defense/MDJ continuances, judicial staffing shortages, Birchfield decision effects, and miscommunications not attributable to DA; Commonwealth exercised reasonable diligence | Trial court affirmed: no Rule 600 violation; Commonwealth exercised due diligence and delays were excusable or not attributable to the DA |
| Whether specific July 27, 2016 scheduling mishap and subsequent scheduling choices (including waiting until late Oct. to convert to bench trial) show lack of due diligence | DA should have known the morning jury trial (Servas) would not proceed and thus should have proceeded with Shue in afternoon; rejecting early reschedule dates and waiting until four days before run date to seek bench date demonstrates lack of effort | County court was short‑staffed; newly appointed judges and heavy Birchfield workload produced a “perfect storm”; miscommunication among multiple offices; DA could not have compelled immediate bench dates given calendar/prioritization of jury weeks | Court held DA was not culpable for the miscommunication and scheduling constraints; scheduling practices and Birchfield impacts justified the delays and supported finding of due diligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sloan, 67 A.3d 1249 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013) (defines due diligence standard under Rule 600)
- Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693 (Pa. 2012) (discusses due diligence and exclusion of delay beyond Commonwealth control)
- Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 188 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) (judicial delay may be excluded if Commonwealth exercised due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Lynn, 815 A.2d 1053 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) (delay by district justice is judicial delay and not excludable absent due diligence by Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 875 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (Rule 600 construed to balance defendant's speedy trial rights with society's interest in prosecuting crime)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (held breath tests, but not blood tests, may be administered as search incident to arrest; decision generated surplus motions affecting court calendars)