Commonwealth v. Roles, 116 A.3d 122

Appellant Brian J. Roles was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses arising from a fatal Easter 2012 vehicle crash, including homicide by vehicle while DUI, homicide by vehicle, aggravated assault by vehicle while DUI, involuntary manslaughter, two REAP counts, and multiple DUI offenses.
The crash killed Roles’s sixteen-year-old son; Roles was driving a pickup with his son in the front passenger seat and his nephew Kevin Roles in the rear seat.
An eyewitness and accident reconstruction testimony, along with blood tests showing BAC .17% and presence of oxycodone and alprazolam, supported the prosecution’s theory that Roles was driving and intoxicated.
Roles presented expert testimony suggesting his son may have been driving; the jury credited the Commonwealth’s evidence and found Roles guilty of the charged offenses.
During trial, issues were raised about Rule 600 speedy-trial calculations, admission of a medical report (Exhibit 73) to the jury, and the trial court’s handling of a change in an expert’s opinion (Corporal Carrick).
On appeal, Roles argued: (1) improper Rule 600 dismissal; (2) inadmissible or erroneously sent Exhibit 73 to the jury; (3) failure to issue curative instructions or exclusion for Carrick’s changing opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 600 dismissal standard	Roles contends the delay violated Rule 600 and required dismissal.	Commonwealth argues delays were excludable due to defendant’s availability issues and prosecutorial continuances.	Rule 600 relief denied; delays largely attributable to defendant and non-controlling precedents.
Admission to jury of Exhibit 73	Exhibit 73 was not admitted and was not properly provided to the jury.	Commonwealth contends exhibit was not actually sent to the jury and any error was waived.	No evidence the exhibit was admitted or given to the jury; issue waived.
Carrick testimony and discovery	Discovery violation occurred because Carrick changed his opinion without disclosure.	Change was not precluded or prejudicial; counsel could rebut and defense readiness remained intact.	Discovery violation found, but no prejudice to defense; no reversal since guilt was overwhelming.

Commonwealth v. Solano, 906 A.2d 1180 (Pa. 2006) (time attributable to defendant; thirty-five day delay example)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 445 A.2d 537 (Pa. Super. 1982) (unavailability and extension under Rule 1100/Rule 600 context)
Commonwealth v. Cohen, 392 A.2d 1327 (Pa. 1978) (failure to appear attributable to defendant; extension issue)
Commonwealth v. Manley, 469 A.2d 1042 (Pa. 1983) (indigent defendant without counsel; delay excludable if due to lack of counsel)
Commonwealth v. Millhouse, 368 A.2d 1273 (Pa. 1977) (delay due to defendant’s inability to retain counsel; limited excludable period)
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 959 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2008) (failure to appoint counsel and its delay implications; nuanced rule)
Commonwealth v. Harris, 703 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1997) (discovery/credibility context; cross-examination of changed opinion and prejudice)
Commonwealth v. Hood, 872 A.2d 175 (Pa. Super. 2005) (prejudice inquiry for discovery violations when considering likelihood of impact)
Commonwealth v. Causey, 833 A.2d 165 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discovery and harmless error considerations in criminal trials)
Commonwealth v. Stith, 644 A.2d 193 (Pa. Super. 1994) (civil-adopted standard for expert testimony scope in criminal cases)
Commonwealth v. Harris, 703 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1997) (see above (discovery/inconsistency context for expert testimony))