*1 on record.5 At that stage, the whole granting judgment of case. negligence longer appellant’s trial court’s action with object to the Appellant nor this action appealed the issue of drawing negligence, if Kuisis’ claim is not .6 even Consequently, from of of the issue negli barred the statute limitations, not be retried. gence may would affirm the order Court. Superior
Mr. Justice Nix joins dissenting opinion. Washington Co., aptly Mincy As stated v. National Insurance Superior (1938) “A Ct. 196 A. 897-98 : motion judgment upon disposed for the entire record must be as it existed ‘at the close of the trial.’ The court can neither may improperly admitted, eliminate evidence which have been nor insert offers of evidence which should have been admitted but were excluded; remedy Thus, in either case is a new trial. . . .” as suming that the statute of limitations did bar the amendment bearing complaint, appellee’s liability to the if evidence on under improperly excluded, appellant Section 402A were would be entitled liability. new to a trial based Section 402A 6Appellant grounds appeal had available as on this issue improper proffered testimony expert exclusion of the negligence, pursue but chose not to this avenue. Appellant, Dreuitt. *2 1974. Before
Argued April 26, C. J., Eagen, Jones, and Manderino, JJ. Eoberts, Nix O’Brien, Pomeroy, Homes, Assistant District Attorney, Cliff David C. Rendell and Edward Riclvman, Assistant Dis- Deputy District At- Attorneys, Gafm, Abraham J. trict Sprague, District Assistant torney, First Richard A. Fitzpatrick, Attor- Attorney, District Emmett and F. appellant. ney, for Myers Atkinson, Myers, Zook, with him Jack M. appellee. 1, 1974: July Justice O’Beien, Mr. appellee granting appeal from an order This arises suppress confession motion to Andre Dreuitt’s complicity The Com- in homicide. he admitted appealed decision. has monwealth Andre warrant, arrest Pursuant valid Maryland, a.m., at 5:40 in Baltimore, was arrested teenage- alleged February role for his fourteen-year-old in Phila- killing gang Keith Sworn *3 apparently delphia. on statements based The arrest was alleged co-conspirators, that who other from two taken youths, had also fled to who other Dreuitt and two youths among involved the five were Baltimore, February p.m., approximately on killing. 2, 2:30 At police Dreu- Philadelphia informed that were 1972, rights companions to would their his two waive itt and they hearing back taken before were an extradition February p.m., Philadelphia.1 on two 2, 8:00 At to police and Baltimore detectives arrived companions. group and his two Dreuitt left with headquarters, Philadelphia, police at at back arrived sep- suspects p.m. approximately The three were 10:50 immediately placed in a deten- Dreuitt was arated February p.m., approximately on 11:00 At room. tion rights, of his constitutional advised was Dreuitt excerpts read from the He was then he waived. companions, proceedings case of one of Dreuitt’s For Faulcon, see Commonwealth two formal statements of the first co-con- two alleged to have been spirators apprehended, which had led to his to apparently arrest. According police Dreuitt was then asked if “he was testimony, to his side of the He willing give story.” replied make and the left statement, Dreuitt alone and off went the other question men who were arrested him. From approximately 11:15 on 2 until 5:45 p.m., February a.m., February Dreuitt remained handcuffed a chair in the de- tention for a brief room, except when period, a meal. given resumed at
Questioning 5:45 a.m. At time, again being advised his constitutional rights, a formal Dreuitt made confession. The statement was concluded at 8:30 a.m. He was finally arraigned February 11:15 some 3,1972, a.m., twelve hours after he was taken initially back to Philadelphia.
On March
filed a
motion to sup
his confession. After
press
that motion
denied on
Four
1972.
April 24,
days
that hear
prior
ing, we decided
Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa.
sion was a that We do unnecessary delay. At the agree. de- tective charge investigation testified that occurred at following 11:15 p.m., February 2, as soon as “It I questioning began: this time believe went over the formal statements with the defend- ant what each of the outlining said defendants about involvement and I killing, asked if he or wanted to his side of give story, said Wes, was; he would a state- give ” ment.’
The suppression court, believing the above-re- lated referring two formal statements made individuals who were arrested with *5 state- that Dreuitt’s concluded Baltimore, Dreuitt in Dreu- mean that necessarily officer did ment to the conclusion, In reaching confess. itt had decided to not believe clear that it did made the suppression Dreuitt although that, statement the Commonwealth’s his confession at p.m., confess 11:15 ready to later be- one-half hours some six and not taken until the other two busy questioning were cause the police in As Dreuitt Baltimore. men arrested with who were in its rhetorically, court seemed to ask the suppression confronted with been already “If had Dreuitt opinion, need still would the why police formal statements’ ‘two from other two defendants?” the of the indicates that, examination Our con- the court was this conclusion, reaching which Dreuitt was fused. The formal statements with to talk were not the state- confronted when he agreed him men had been arrested with ments who of the were the statements Rather, they Baltimore. had been arrested other who co-conspirators two crime after the occurred. Thus, soon Philadelphia claim that they was no reason not believe police Dreuitt after he to talk agreed questioning stopped the other order to question co-conspirators go been from who had also returned Baltimore. More- officers involved interrogation over, police that he seemed alert during ques- of Dreuitt testified tired. complained being Although and never tioning the suppression his testi- Dreuitt testified this nor contradict did Dreuitt rebut mony make he had been a full state- been as had confronted with the two ment as soon had obtained before formal statements Cf. Commonwealth 449 Pa. Fogan, his arrest. Since the record makes it 296 A.2d clear this confrontation which produced Dreu it was and there confess, unreason- willingness itt’s able before this it error to ex- delay confrontation, clude the confession. the time it took to argues bring
from Baltimore to should be considered as unreasonable between arrest and delay because this arraignment, apparently period preceded *6 the time when Dreuitt was confronted the formal of who had alleged co-conspirators been previously apprehended How Philadelphia. there is no ever, indication that the process by Dreuitt was returned Philadelphia, being arrested in Baltimore and his to contest waiving right al extradition, unreasonably delayed. Moreover, of is record in Balti though what transpired more, Maryland law a defendant be requires warned of his to free of counsel and right charges of against him—two the same rights guaranteed by Rule of 119 of Pennsylvania Buies Criminal Procedure for defendants arraigned and Dreuitt Pennsylvania, a waiver he been signed had so warned.2 indicating Con we do not believe sequently, it took period take Dreuitt from Baltimore to should be of considered as of period unnecessary de between lay his arrest and Since arraignment. indicated a to confess willingness immediately after his arrival his Philadelphia, confession should not have been as the suppressed subsequent delay. 2 pertinent provides: person statute “No arrested such agent warrant shall be delivered over to the whom the executive authority demanding appointed him shall have to receive him un judge less he shall be first taken forthwith before a of a Court of State, who shall inform of the demand made for his charged, of the crime with surrender which he is and that he right procure legal has the demand and (Maryland counsel. . . .” 41, §25.) Anno. Art. Code 352 remanded further pro- and case
Order reversed herewith. consistent ceedings in the result. concurs
Mr. Chief Justice Jones Dissenting : Mr. Justice Roberts testi that heard The three-judge suppression fact found as a that appellee’s and saw witnesses mony indicate the police initial communication with binding of fact is to confess. This finding willingness Pa. v. Commonwealth Agie, us. Neal, Commonwealth (1972); 290 A.2d the judgment the opinion announcing Nevertheless, indicated Court asserts that when Dreuitt meant actually side of the story,” “give I find this interpretation, that he would confess guilt. unconvincing. from a cold and stale record, gleaned over- used to deduction is And when such questionable *7 an of fact and finding justify court’s turn hearing while and one-half hours six accused’s isolation I un- metal find it chair, completely to a handcuffed acceptable. of common order of the court
I affirm the I dissent. pleas. join Nix and Mr. Justice
Mr. Justice Manderino in this dissenting opinion.
Dissenting Manderino: Mr. Justice of Mr. I Justice join dissenting opinion Rob- additionally note, however, should like to erts. concludes that inaccurately the majority “confused.” The observation suppres- court was does majority opinion, out sion court, pointed indicates one confusion. Their observation not indicate as credible accept of the reasons why they officers. Appellant, v. Columbia Corporation. Investment