Commonwealth v. Bethea, 185 A.3d 364

In March 2008 Appellant Hillard Bethea solicited a prostitute, drove a stolen van to a parking lot, removed a condom, urinated on her, assaulted and choked her, and stabbed her multiple times; the victim later fought back and survived. Appellant lost an eye in the confrontation.
Police located the stolen van, identified and arrested Appellant; DNA on the knife matched the victim.
Appellant originally proceeded to a bench trial in 2010, then agreed to an open guilty plea to certain charges while other charges (including rape) were withdrawn; his sentence was vacated on appeal in 2012 because plea colloquies misstated maximum exposure, and the case was remanded for trial.
After remand, Appellant withdrew the plea and elected a jury trial; multiple scheduling delays followed, and voir dire began January 27, 2014; defense counsel repeatedly referred to Appellant as "an innocent man."
The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion in limine to prohibit further reference to Appellant as an "innocent man" during voir dire; a jury convicted Appellant of rape, aggravated assault and related offenses in February 2014; he was sentenced in November 2014 and designated an SVP.
On appeal Appellant challenged (1) denial of his pretrial Rule 600 motion to dismiss for delay and (2) the in limine ruling forbidding counsel’s references to him as an "innocent man." The Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether the trial court miscalculated the Rule 600 run date by adding 32 days (judicial scheduling delay)	Bethea: the 32-day addition was not attributed to defense on the record so the adjusted run date should have remained earlier; dismissal required	Court/Commonwealth: the added time was judicial delay (court scheduling) and excludable under Rule 600; the record supports available dates and continuances	Affirmed: judicial delay properly excluded; no Rule 600 violation
Whether prohibiting defense counsel from calling Appellant "an innocent man" during voir dire violated presumption of innocence	Bethea: prohibition undermined constitutional presumption of innocence and counsel’s ability to counter charges during voir dire	Court/Commonwealth: voir dire must focus on juror qualifications; legal instruction or assertions of law (like "innocent man") are improper in voir dire; court preserved ability to argue presumption in opening and to instruct jury	Affirmed: exclusion was within trial court’s discretion and did not prejudice defendant

Commonwealth v. Wendel, 165 A.3d 952 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Rule 600 framework; mechanical, adjusted, and final run dates and dual purposes of speedy trial rule)
Commonwealth v. Malgieri, 889 A.2d 604 (Pa. Super. 2005) (judicial delay can extend run date when Commonwealth ready but court unavailable)
Commonwealth v. Wroten, 451 A.2d 678 (Pa. Super. 1982) (judicial scheduling delays justify extension if Commonwealth prepared)
Commonwealth v. Merrick, 488 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1985) (scope of voir dire is within trial court’s discretion to secure impartial jury)
Commonwealth v. Kingsley, 391 A.2d 1027 (Pa. 1978) (voir dire purpose limited to discovering juror bias and qualifications)
Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 9 A.2d 161 (Pa. Super. 1939) (court, not counsel, must instruct jurors on law)
Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017) (SORNA retroactive application raises ex post facto concerns)