*1 case remanded Judgment reversed and of sentence trial. for a new part in the considera- J., no
JONES, former C. this case. decision of tion or part took no of this case. or decision A.2d 1282 Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH HARVELL, Appellant. Pennsylvania. Supreme Court Argued April 1977. July
Decided 1977. *2 George Pallastrone, Bachetti, A. Philadel- Rudolph S. phia, appellant. Gold- Fitzpatrick, Atty., H. Steven Emmett Dist.
F. Div., Appeals Hen- Chief, Eric B. blatt, Atty., Asst. Dist. appellee. Philadelphia, for son, O'BRIEN, C. Before *3 MANDERINO, JJ. and NIX THE OF COURT
OPINION O’BRIEN, Justice. February on Harvell, arrested
Appellant, Gordon was robbery the and homicide 1970, with 22, in connection 1971, Holley Philadelphia. 12, On October in Thomas jury judge sitting and by with a appellant tried a was aggravated degree, the first guilty of murder found appellant conspiracy. sentencing, robbery After and the court, appeal this which reversed filed direct to a rea- a The judgments ordered new trial. of sentence and by improper the dis- remarks for the reversal was son 406, Harvell, attorney. trict (1974). 827 A.2d appellant retried a January 6, was 1975,
On guilty jury of mur judge sitting was found with a and robbery conspira aggravated degree, and der of the first On October cy. motions were denied. Post-verdict imprisonment for life to was sentenced degree the murder conviction, of the first a concurrent twenty years’ imprisonment term aggravat- of ten to robbery suspended ed conspiracy and sentence on the charge. appeal This direct followed.1
Appellant argues failing that court in below erred suppress pertinent to agree. his We The confession. surrounding facts this issue are as follows. On Febru- ary 22, 1970, appellant, aged seventeen, at 7:00 was a.m., Lyle arrested his at father’s on in home Street Philadel- phia. At time arrest, detectives in- appellant’s being formed father his son arrested was robbery-homicide with connection of Thomas Hol- ley. to offered the father a ride the Police saying refused, Building, Administration but father transportation that he had his own that he would Building. follow them to Police Administration Appellant then to was taken the Police Administration Building, arriving a.m., placed in an in- 7:30 and was terrogation interrogating room. The officer was told father en route the station. The was officer, nevertheless, immediately proceeded with the in- terrogation. 7:45, appellant At was informed of the rea- son for his arrest and was warned of his constitutional rights. After rights, “waiver” of these police proceeded interrogate. Appellant confessed at 9:46 a.m. noAt time was the father of Harvell either given informed of his son’s or constitutional *4 opportunity the rights prior to discuss those to his son’s confession.
In Chaney, Commonwealth 350 v. 465 Pa. A.2d (1975), 829 this court stated: juvenile showing
“. . that that a . absent a opportunity had an to an interested and consult with appeal aggra- judgments 1. No was taken from of sentence for the Therefore, judgments conspiracy. robbery vated and those re- main. parent before he waived or or counsel informed adult rights, ineffectual. his his will be waiver Miranda his son’s Mi- Appellant’s of father was never informed given opportunity for never an randa and was appellant’s opinion of that the consultations. We are suppressed. be confession must has appellant that The contends Commonwealth agree. juvenile do not the confession issue. We waived appellant first August 6, 1970, filed his On following the aver suppression motion, included which ment: and [appellant] was arrested the
“That at the time interrogation, knew the at the time of his made efforts were [appellant] the minor and no was a legal guardian to by parent or contact his the interroga- person present of the the time have said signing the tion, or the of statement.” filed. re-trial, second motion was Prior to again inad- Appellant his was statement contended involuntary unknowing waiv- missible of an because again trial, appellant chal- rights. er of his At Miranda lenged admissibility Defense coun- statement. arresting con- specifically questioned sel detective cerning opportunity to appellant afford an failure to prior interrogation. The consult his father to the with post-verdict after motions filed defense counsel variety. However, the “boiler-plate” second trial were of prior days motions were filed seven to the decision A.2d Blair, precluded (1975), which non-written post-verdict filed motions were motions. the instant As prior inquiry whether Blair, the determinative opinion below considered the filed court issue. admissibility instant matter discussed minor at the fact that was a confession and *5 opinion therefore, are, of the time of the confession. We pre- adequately case, has instant appellate for review.2 served the issue Judgment case remanded of sentence reversed and a trial. new part or de-
ROBERTS, J., no this cision of case. opinion dissenting
POMEROY, J., in which filed a EAGEN, joined. J.,C.
POMEROY, Justice, dissenting. applica- again register my
I once dissent to the must juvenile per concerning tion of se confessions. rule Chaney, A.2d 829 See Commonwealth v. Pa. joined (dissenting opinion by (1975) JONES, agree J.). I C. J. and And while minors, zealously protect this Court should present I highlights think the of realism case the absence per which approach. characterizes the se arresting immediately upon The record discloses that Harvell, police bring his father to offered pur- offer, station. The father declined portedly transporta- because of availability of other tion, yet never The record arrived the station house. also repeated shows that telephone calls to mother bring offers to her to the were station equally majority’s fruitless. Under the son’s holding, statement must nevertheless be discarded. application exclusionary rule in the case at
bar, moreover, response police activity not a in dis- regard of a rule of they law which knew or should have known, for interrogation the arrest and here involved 2. While predates confession our recent cases concern- ing juvenile confessions, we any have ap- held that case on direct peal is entitled to the benefit of those decisions. Commonwealth Chaney, supra. *6 the rule of announcement place prior to this Court’s A.2d 389, Roane, v. my in Common- dissent progeny. (1974) its See joined (1977), Lee, 401, 368 A.2d v. Pa. wealth remedy the Court JONES, J. J. and C. pro- goal accomplish the imposes ill-suited to here Indeed, the coerced confessions. of minors from tection ju- protective of the were more in the instant case demanded our case law than venile accused’s that time. Hence this dissent. dissenting opinion. J., joins in this
EAGEN, C.
Supreme Court Argued Jan. 1977. July 8,
Decided 1977.