*1 action the release to the at C.P. No. only pertained injuries personal with the mother’s dealing for a bar to incurred recovery expenses appellants’ care and treatment for the infant medical providing plaintiff.
For all would reasons, ap- foregoing grant in- new trial medical pellants expenses fant permissible element plaintiff damages. Eagen
Mr. Mr. Justice O’Brien join reversal. opinion support Appellants. Commonwealth Ditzler et al., *2 1970. Before C. Bell, J., November Submitted Pomeroy, Roberts Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Jones, JJ.
Frederick 8. Bemer, & for Brandt, Wolf Wolf appellants. Com- Attorney, E. District Christianson,
George appellee. monwealth, 1971:
Opinion Eagen, May 13, Mb. Justice posed The but question sole difficult important were appellants is whether appeal trial.1 denied their constitutional The facts are follows:
On G. February Charles appellants, Ditzler Coun- and Leon were indicted Lebanon Ruhl, ty assault charges breach, robbery by force and of a motor all of crimes larceny vehicle, which occurred on 1965. allegedly January 13, Before indictments were Ditzler and returned, Ruhl been taken into the State Ten- custody nessee, convicted on criminal charges [violation 18 USC Dyer Act, of a stolen §2312, transportation *3 in in automobile interstate the Federal Dis- commerce] trict Court sentenced for term imprisonment a of five in the Federal years at Atlanta. Penitentiary
In November petition Ditzler filed Lebanon 1965, Court County requesting trial. Ruhl speedy filed a similar in December of request year. Counsel was appointed to represent them after and, argument, petitions denied were on 6, 1966. February
On March Ditzler 16, and Ruhl petitioned the Court, requesting charges be dismissed lack prosecution. of petition This was denied on April 11, 1967.
The of attorney district Lebanon County secured a writ of ad corpus habeas prosequendam on July 30, 1968. quash Motions indictments were filed on September 11th, subsequently refused. On Septem- 1 argument The case was submitted to us without oral on attorney To date the November 1970. district County Lebanon file with a brief tihs has failed Court. Such irresponsibility part emphatically official condemned. on tbe convicted Ruhl were Ditzler and ber 16, 1968, were dis- motions trial Post jury. indictments by On appeal were imposed. sentences missed opin- affirmed without Superior of the Court a majority dissenting opinion filed a ion. Judge Hoffman Spaulding Montgomery joined. Judge which Judge Supe- 217 Pa. See dissenting opinion. a separate filed A. 2d We alloca- granted rior Ct. tur. to a development
The
of the right
history
that it
speedy
designed solely
indicates
was
individuals who had
been
protect
formally
charged
a crime. The first written articulation of the right ap
peared
wherein it was
Magna Charta,
written,
no
“We will sell to
we will not
or defer to
man,
deny
man
any
justice
either
3And
right.”2
though
was
included
Framers
the Bill of
Rights,
Amendment
speedy
guarantee
Sixth
held
long
applicable
federal
only
against
and not
government
the states.
However,
North
Carolina,
U.S.
Since the indictments4 the instant case were re turned more than two years before the decision in
2 Magna Charta, 29; quoted C. Coke, Translated in E. England The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of [5th 1797]. Ed. E. Brooke *4 3 Pennsylvania provides: §9 Art. of the Constitution “In all prosecutions right criminal the accused hath speedy to ... jury impartial vicinage ,” an . . . but it was prior Klopfer, supra, this, itself, held in did not warrant beyond anything discharge imprisonment from where indict- delayed. Clark, ment or trial was Cf. Commonwealth v. 439 Pa. (1970). 741 266 A. 2d 4 right speedy courts have ruled that Some the to a trial at- prosecution as soon the taches example, initiated. For see
77 the Klopfer question was announced 13, 1967], [March be applied arises as to whether need Klopfer naturally here. In Smith v. 89 Ct. 575 S. Hooey, the Court applied Klopfer retroactively5 since relevant Smith are Hooey the circumstances in similar it substantially presented to those logi herein,6 cally follows that Klopfer also controls the instant case, and we so rule.
With the
in
foregoing premise
we
mind,
proceed
a consideration of the central
involved.
question
States,
(D.C.
1965).
Hanrahan v. United
In Smith v. Mr. Justice Hooey, supra, Stewart a at to 377-78, said that the constitutional right pp. to been trial “has essential universally thought justice three demands of criminal protect least basic in the (1) prevent Anglo-American legal system: trial; (2) undue and incarceration oppressive prior to minimize concern anxiety accompanying public that long to limit the accusation; (3) possibilities the of the accused defend impair ability will 116, 120, himself. United States v. Ewell, demands He “these added, S. Ct. (1966).” of an in the case are both aggravated compounded in another jurisdiction.”7 accused imprisoned who is from rather muddled an Smith-Hooey The case is re- the fact that the case standpoint by was analytical not proceedings further to the Texas court “for manded not opinion.” the Court did inconsistent with Thus, petitioner of nine denied years decide whether a delay the court nor did the Justices state give speedy trial, a on how to decide that issue. There very any guidelines three concurrences: Justice stress- separate were Black the set aside judgment the that only fact ing explained may ultimately that result Justice Stewabt already prisoner oppression to one for the in as much reasons partially above, possibility (1) of a concurrent sen- as to already being served lost the trial one tence procedures widely charge postponed because under pending present imprisonment may in- practiced, of his be duration which he must his under serve sentence conditions creased and pendency outstanding greatly of another criminal worsened above, charge, (2) charge. an untried of which even a con- As to depressive fully upon may innocent, as can have effect be vict large person is at since detainers prisoner who have a as (3) above, attempts to rehabilitate. self- effect corrosive disappear, and witnesses can explanatory memories since evidence perspective, man isolated their lose and events fade investigative mitigate efforts to his own these powerless to exert passage of time. effects erosive petitioner trial; of giving the purpose White open leaving remand that he understood the saying must Texas dismiss question the ultimate whether said, who and Justice criminal proceedings, Harlan for- automatically the state inter alia, feited try petitioner. its *6 the United Smith, to and previous
Long “the that Court said consistently States Supreme is It is con of a speedy necessarily relative. right depends circumstances. sistent and delays It preclude It to a rights secures defendant. does of Beavers v. 198 rights justice.” Haubert, the delay U.S. 25 S. Ct. 576 “Whether 77, 87, 573, (1905). . . to an uncon prosecution . amounts completing cir deprivation depends upon stitutional rights cumstances . . . The not be purposeful must oppressive.” Pollard v. United 352 U.S. States, 354, 77 S. (1957). ingre Ct. 486 essential 481, “[T]he speed.” dient is and not mere Smith orderly expedition v. United 79 S. Ct. 997 States, 1, 10, In v. 398 (1959). Florida, U.S. 90 S. Dickey Ct. Burger Chief writing held: “The Court is not theo right speedy retical or abstract but one rooted right hard reality in the need to have . charges promptly exposed . . [T]he to a into criminal right prompt inquiry charges duty and the charging authority fundamental trial.” 90 S. prompt Ct. provide 1569. This [Emphasis Court supplied.] aptly has said that “in . . . determining whether fundamental are rights denied we must look at the substance of things rather ex than mere form.” Commonwealth rel. Smith v. Pat Pa. 187 A. 2d terson, 500, 504, (1963). mentioned With the above principles mind, we record present examined the find have it inade- permit intelligent determination of quate whether to a has been appellants’ vitiated. be further proceedings incumbent It is therefore permit development court facilities held where If for a determination. necessary proper facts must sustained, charges claim then appellants’ v. n. be Cf. Commonwealth 3. Clark, dismissed. supra, But be estab- before the claim must sustained, lished that prej- involved was oppressive udicial. Cf. United States 2d 429 F. Penland,
The order of the Superior Court and the judgments of the court of original are jurisdiction vacated, the record is remanded the trial court for further proceedings consonant with this opinion.
Mr. Justice Cohen took part no the decision of this case.
Concurring Dissenting Opinion Mr. Jus- tice : Roberts
Although
concur
vacating
appellants’
*7
I dissent from the
convictions,
majority’s mandate di-
that
recting
the record be remanded to determine wheth-
er
in
appellants
bringing
to trial
pre-
judicial.
In my view,
prejudice
such
is already appar-
ent on the record
before
presently
us,
would
limit the
accordingly
inquiry upon remand to the ques-
tion whether the Commonwealth
a
made
diligent and
faith effort to
good
bring appellants to trial after they
demanded,
so
duty imposed upon the states by
virtue
United States Spreme Court’s two recent
in
decisions
Smith v.
393 U.S.
Hooey,
374,
To date it does that appear appellants’ ability to defend has been impaired. themselves However, of guarantee the Sixth Amendment is also prevent undue and designed oppressive incarceration to to minimize prior anxiety and concern States United accusation. accompanying In 776 86 S. Ct. U.S. Ewell, thoughtfully analyzed the Court Smith v. supra, Hoey, of to the situation pertain they factors as these latter under a lawful sentence: one already prison man already that a might “At first blush it appear in a posi- sentence prison hardly under a is lawful incarcera- tion to from ‘undue and oppressive suffer tion the fact is that prior bring- to trial’. But charge may such a to trial ing person pending oppression result in as much as suffered ultimately bail an untried jailed one who is without upon al- charge. defendant First, possibility receive a sentence ready might at least prison par- may concurrent with the one he is tially serving be forever if pending charge lost of . . . postponed. argued person already
“And while it
be
might
would be less
than others
be affected
likely
and concern
public accusa-
‘anxiety
accompanying
that an outstanding
there is reason
believe
tion,’
untried
which even a convict
of
(of
charge
may,
course,
be
have
innocent)
can
as
effect
fully
depressive
upon
person
who
Cf.
prisoner
upon
large.
v. North
386 U.S. at
Carolina, supra,
221-222,
In
of
opinion
In I would light above, appellants’ vacate convictions and remand the record with instructions that unless the Commonwealth establishes either expended diligent effort bringing appellants trial or that such effort could not any event have succeeded, judgments of sentence against appellants should be arrested. would the burden impose of proof on this issue on the Commonwealth “since far more it, than the to know defendant, likely why the delay took place.” Dickey Florida, supra, U.S. at 56, n.22, 90 S. Ct. at n.22 J., concurring). (Brennan, Pomeroy
Mr. joins in the concurring and dissenting opinion. Appellant.
Commonwealth v. Sheid,