*1 ABNER, Appellant. Supreme Court of
Argued 1974. Decided March *2 Jr., Appel Natali, Natali, Segal, & Philadel- Louis M. phia, for A. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Atty., Richard Emmett Dist.
F. Goldblatt, Atty., H. First Asst. Dist. Steven Sprague, Garrett, Atty., Appeals Div., Chief, Asst. Dist. James Atty. Gafni, Deputy Dist. Atty., Dist. Abraham J. Asst. appellee. Law, Philadelphia, for for J., EAGEN, O’BRIEN, JONES, and ROB- C. Before MANDERINO, ERTS, POMEROY, JJ. NIX and THE COURT OF OPINION O’BRIEN, Justice. judge and tried
Appellant, Abner, was degree and jury guilty in the first of murder and found denied, and robbery. motions aggravated Post-trial imprisonment for appellant to life was sentenced concurrent sentence first-degree and a conviction murder robbery con- years aggravated twenty for of ten to appeal followed. viction. This robbery-murder out of Appellant’s arose conviction of City age seventy-seven, in the Rudolph, of Arthur 2,1971. January Philadelphia, on argues confession that his Appellant first his arrest between an product of arraignment and, therefore, should have been exclud- ed. We do not surrounding
The facts are as confession eighteen, January age On follows. approximately p. was arrested at his home at m. 6:30 police headquarters He then transferred his separate Appellant police mother followed in a vehicle. p. headquarters m., ad- arrived at and was 7:30 charges against vised He was then alone him. left until 8:15 when he was taken to the room. men’s p. m., appellant rights, given At 9:15 p. which he chose From waive. m., appellant by police was interviewed an admitting complicity Ar- in the homicide Rudolph. thur At was rewarned *3 rights a and thereafter formal written statement which the same his oral was as statement. The formal on statement was concluded January 2,1971. opinion delay
We are the that from the appellant gave admission, when oral unnecessary. one-and-three-quarter-hour period not The charges used the to inform of the against him and to In Commonwealth feed v. Rowe, 163, 361, presented 358, 459 Pa. A.2d we 327 were analogous with an that the de situation and held “initial lay, primarily an administrative on rec one, cannot this unnecessary.” ord be viewed as
Having found the not admission was product any unnecessary delay that the oral was, substance, in writ- the same as his formal ten any statement, in involved obtain- ing prejudi- the formal written statement would not be cial the in was, since written statement sub- stance, the same as the oral statement.
Lastly, appellant argues that failed the Commonwealth prove beyond a reasonable doubt that of the death
324
by appellant.
victim
a result
of the blows inflicted
pathologist
doWe
not
who
The Commonwealth’s
performed
post-mortem
that
victim
on the
stated
opinion,
in
examination,
based on his
medical
blows inflicted on the victim
the cause of the vic-
Webb,
490,
tim’s
449 Pa.
death. See Commonwealth v.
(1972).
Judgments of sentence affirmed.
POMEROY, J., concurring opinion. filed a MANDERINO, J., in concurs the result.
POMEROY, (concurring). Justice opinion of join in the in not I concur the result but do retrospective application it the Court because involves in exclusionary announced Common of the rule first (1972). 389, Futch, A.2d 417 290 wealth v. 447 Pa. dissenting in opinion of this writer Common See 171, (1974) 618, wealth A.2d Johnson, v. 459 Pa. 620 Commonwealth opinions cited. See also therein 884 n. Wilson, - Pa. -, - n. affirmance). (1974). (Opinion support of in A.2d 749 *4 Appellant. LEE, Carl Supreme Court of Submitted 18, 1975. March
Decided