*1 473 issues, presented factual irrele that extraneous and Louisiana, vant matters should be avoided. Turner v. 546, (1965); 379 13 Irvin U.S. 85 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 424 Dowd, v. 6 L.Ed.2d 366 U.S. S.Ct. (1961) ; Santiago, A. Commonwealth Hirsch, 2d (1974). Appeals religious A.2d 305 racial or prejudice especially incompatible concept of are with the a fair trial because likelihood that reason reign. dethroned bias and emotion will Judgment of sentence is reversed and new trial granted. Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH of Roy Wayne GRAVER, Appellant.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Oct. 1976. July 8,
Decided *2 appellant. Bethlehem, George Heitczman, for A. Zanakos, Spaziani, Nicholas Atty., Dist. M. H. Charles Atty., appellee. for Asst. Dist. O’BRIEN, ROBERTS,
Before MANDERINO, JJ. NIX and THE COURT
OPINION OF O’BRIEN, Justice. Wayne judge Roy Graver, tried
Appellant, voluntary man- jury of three counts and convicted and filed, post-verdict were slaughter. No motions pellant prison was sentenced to three terms consecutive years. Appellant petitioned subsequently of two to four Northampton County the Court Common Pleas of post-verdict motions, pro be allowed to file nunc tunc. request granted post-verdict The were motions appeal filed and later denied. followed.
Appellant argues court below erred refus- suppress his confession. contends suppressed his confession should have been because effectively failed to show had giving the statement. grant agree We a new trial. pertinent
The facts to the above issue are as follows. At the time incident, appellant awas seventeen- *3 year-old minor. The January homicides occurred on During appellant the days, ques- next five was by police general tioned investigation as of their surrounding January appel- the 16, 1974, homicides. On given lant was warning, his Miranda which he waived. Appellant inculpatory however made no statement. Both appellant and his questioned suspects mother were as connection with police the above ap- homicides. The told pellant and his mother not questioning to discuss their with each following day other. The at 10:00 m., a.
pellant and his mother police were taken to the state bar- p. racks. At m., separated 4:30 appellant, while from his mother, again given was rights, his Miranda which he waived. After approximately one and one-half hours questioning, appellant shooting admitted the vic- three tims.
In Commonwealth
465 Pa.
407, 350
(1975),
this court stated:
“.
.
.
this court has in Commonwealth v. Mc
Cutchen,
had an parent before or counsel or adult ineffectual. rights, his waiver his Miranda fully our (1977), we more articulated wherein we stated: confession standard formulation, the Common- our failure “Under interested was one either the adult wealth establish the adult accused, that of the in the welfare the mi- accused, or that of the was aware justify the consult, would opportunity to nor had an ineffective.” purported was the waiver conclusion that opportunity to consult given appellant As was never waiving his interested, before informed adult with an suppressed. must the statement be believe appellant has failed show The Commonwealth with an interested any opportunity for consultation had rights. waiving Both and informed adult given purportedly warnings were times when the no had waived, appellant alone with the officers and opportunity to with adult. consult January warnings given on both spent occasions, Between these two and 17. help the Com- fact does not time with his mother. This *4 appellant’s monwealth, for does not show that the record to her rights informed of the available mother ever case, be termed mother could not son. the instant supra. adult. See Commonwealth granted.1 Judgment trial of reversed and new sentence J., dissented. C. predates appellant’s our recent cases concern- confession While confessions, any have held that case on direct peal of those decisions. Commonwealth is entitled to the benefit Chaney, (1975). A.2d J., POMEROY, opinion. dissenting filed a JONES, J., former took no C. in the consideration or decision of this case. dissenting. Justice,
Nothing presented that has in been us this case or previously otherwise has my caused tome abandon ex- pressed per requiring view that this se Court’s rule re- versal whenever a has waived his constitutional opportunity without parent or to consult with a other interested adult who himself has first been advised juvenile’s unwise, is unneces- sary unwarranted, any and that the rule event applied should not be retroactively to cases whose trial prior commenced See, to the announcement of the rule. g., e. Commonwealth v. Smith, (1977) (dissenting opinion Pomeroy, J., 804-06 of
joined by Eagen, J.); Lee, C. 406-408, (1977) (dissenting 693-94 opinion J., Pomeroy, joined by Jones, J., Eagen, C. J.); Commonwealth 409-10, (dissenting J., opinion Pomeroy, joned by Jones, J., J.). C. Eagen, is another such again case. I Hence, must dissent.