*1 vаcated, Order the court below of the custody children involved herein is restored accord- ance with the decree of the courts of Denmark and the authorized tо take the children to Denmark. Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH BRINTON, Appellant. Larry Pennsylvania. Court of Superior 29, 1979. June Submitted Filed Feb. *2 Defender, Media, Public
Robert F. Assistant for Pappano, Messick, Media, District for Attorney, A. Assistant Guy Commonwealth, appellee. *3 CERCONE, President and WIEAND and Judge,
Before LOUIK, JJ.*
WIEAND, Judge: a and Brinton was tried before found jury guilty
Larry intercourse, deviate sexual corrupting rape, involuntary assault, assault, minor, simple criminal mоrals a indecent from that determina- appeals coercion and He conspiracy. bring failed to (1) tion that the Commonwealth contending: in violation Pa.R.Crim.P. him to trial within 180 days restricted cross-ex- 1100; improperly that the trial court (2) victim; failed to the Commonwealth (3) amination of (4) and the court County; in Delaware prove jurisdiction because оf inconsisten- verdict in a directed refusing erred merit in these find no We testimony. cies in the victim’s therefore, affirm. and, contentions o’clock, 1:00 at approximately left her home Linda Rappa Brookhaven. in visit a A.M., girlfriend to on May * Judge designation. sitting by special Judge E. WIEAND is DONALD Allegheny Pleas of of the Court of Common MAURICE LOUIK by designation. sitting County, Pennsylvania is home, to walk not she continued her girlfriend Finding man in front standing met a until she Brookhaven through man for a brief period to the speaking of a After building. her house. boyfriend’s him for ride to time, she asked Avenue, Rаppa Ms. Edgemont reached 22nd When they with whom (Daniel Brennan) named “Speed” a man spotted to her rest of take agreed acquainted. “Speed” she was to house, transferred and she to her boyfriend’s the way were vehicle, Bradshaw and Billy where “Speed’s” present. also where Chester, in first to Chevrolet King drove group Bradshaw, together Brennan the car. exited in Chester and returned store then visited a
with Ms. Rappa, appel- followed They to meet Chevrolet King vehicle, to Chester residence lant, in another who was asked to be taken to Rappa as Eye.” a man known “One “have to she would was told that home but her boyfriend’s some home for Eye’s” at “One The four remained wаit.” in they present, engaged then where, with others time now Eye’s,” Rappa left “One DMT. When smoking Brinton, house Chester. be to her sister’s asked to taken refused. Brennan and Bradshaw to find out. She awakened car, passed Rappa
While resistance, she was bed. Despite nude on a herself lying deviate sexual acts sexual and multiple subjected forcibly bеaten, she was episode, During the three men. matches, with scissors, burned choked, poked gun. threatened with a *4 the completed, three men had been
When the assaults to take her and threatened to the car returned their victim home. Brennan upon going insisted into Philadelphia. She distance; and driven a short after had was off dropped to from the car. escape was able lаter Rappa a short time Park where she house in nearby ran to a She beaten, raped. and drugged she had been related that on appellant was filed complaint against criminal A date, therefore, run Rule 1100 29, 1977. The May original 25, would however, have been November 1977. Appellant, 13, was not found and until August arrested 1977. On 1977, 16, November filed a the Commonwealth to petition extend, and a was for thereon scheduled December hearing hearing On that the was continued. It was day 9,1977. on continued December The was held again hearing Meanwhile, on 16, December 1977. an appellant has filed to was at the application dismiss, and this heard same time. The court found that the had exer- hearing Commonwealth cised due find but that had been diligence to he 29, 13, between 1977. August unavailable 1977 and May 19, Trial on commenced December 1977.1 1100 provides: Rule (d)(1) Section trial, “(d) In for commencеment of period determining period there shall be therefrom such at delay excluded from: as results any proceedings stage his of the defendant or (1) attorney.” the unavailability exclusion, the In order to avail itself of of the evidence was prove preponderance required by due were unknown and that whereabouts appellаnt’s locating apprehending appel- was utilized in diligence Mitchell, lant. Commonwealth Hinton, A.2d (1977); 54 the lower court’s
The in the case confirms record instant was exercised the Common- due finding diligence Chief William arresting locating wealth in looked for Eddystone Maitland of the Borough told by appellant’s his but at home Eddystone, police Chester was not thеre. sister-in-law that appellant National information filed warrant the arrest Eddy- sent copies nearby (NCIC) Crime Index Center nothing do to disturb that it would hearing judge also observed granted the Common- on an order entered December ' apparently was entered petition This order for extension. wealth’s proper In view of day was revoked. it error. tried On compleunt emd signing of the of the time between exclusion effect, any, of this arrest, if determine the appellant’s we need not order.
309 had addresses where appellant Park and stone Brookha- checks at the made periodic listed. Chester police to frequent. known was which Brinton bowling alley, ven himself told his in Eddystone, arrest Following there been and had in Florida he had been that police employed. every to exhaust required is not
The Commonwealth
The standard
a defendant.
of locating
conceivable method
be
reasonable efforts
demands
diligence
only
of due
Hinton,
Common
supra;
v.
undertaken. Commonwealth
(1978).
A.2d 1167
389
Jones,
Pa.Super.
v.
256
wealth
case;
therefоre,
delay
in this
standard was met
That
With the exclusion
excluded.
prior
properly
arrest
was commenced
trial
it
clear that appellant’s
is
period,
time allowed thеrefor.
within the
improper
claims that the trial court
next
Appellant
victim concern
allow cross-examination
refused to
ly
had
and subse
brought
which she
charges
prior rаpe
ing
cross-examina
The
scope
prosecute.
refused to
quently
of the trial
discretion
within the sound
tion is a matter
appeal
be reversed on
court,
will not
whоse exercise thereof
Sisco,
v.
absent a clear abuse of discretion.
Holland,
(1979); Commonwealth
484 Pa.
In Commonwealth
236
212,
345
said: “It is well-estab
(1975),
A.2d
214
this Court
a
as
lished law in the Commonwealth
county
before
crime,
act
over &
some overt
must have
jurisdiction
sumes
Tumоlo,
v.
223 Pa.Super.
Commonwealth
occurred therein.
189,
aff’d,
424,
455 Pa.
“The case
of
when
of
part
some
ples
jurisdiction
of a
assertion of
county’s
See, e.
or
occurred therein.
the criminal activity
conspiracy
v.
Thomas,
Commonwealth
supra;
v.
g., Commonwealth
88,
Marino,
v.
213
Tumolo,
Pa.Super.
Commonwealth
supra;
aff’d,
(1969),
A.2d 911
435 Pa.
255
(1968),
Appellant’s inconsistencies evidence, minor including Conflicts in the factfinder. Com for the victim, were of the testimony A.2d 917 460, 372 monwealth Bryant, distur inconsistency requiring no is in this record There verdict. bance of the jury’s affirmed. of sentence
Judgment statement. J., dissenting LOUIK, files LOUIK, dissenting: Judge, on ground for clarification
I and would remand dissent extension grants an extant Order only 2,1977, but Reed dated December Order Judge time is the an Order dated Reed Judge revoked by this Order Therefore, trial at the time December exten- granting of record case, any was no Order there 180 days. sion beyond Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH *7 WALKER, Jr., Appellant. Otis Pennsylvania. Superior Court July Submitted Feb. Filed