*1 453 our position that Rule 323 is here and not Rule appropriate 308.
In this case the Commonwealth’s answer was filed three before the can be days hearing and from record it determined appellant was to adequately prepared present his There arguments at suppression hearing. fore, hold, we lower court exercised properly 323(e) discretion which it in pursuant has to terms of Rule admitting Commonwealth’s answer as filed.3 Judgments of sentence affirmed.
EAGEN, J.,C. in concurs the result.
Gordon I.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued March 1979. July
Decided 1979. Additionally, appellant incompetent 3. to contends that he was stand trial; inculpatory prior arraignment his product given two statements delay unnecessary were the of an in of Pa.R. violation 130; admitting post-mortem Crim.P. that the lower court erred depicting head; covering slide decedent a sheet all but his prove sanity that the appellant’s legal Commonwealth failed to be- yond doubt; by instructing a reasonable that the lower court erred jury only “McNaughten” insanity; on the that trial standard appointed necessary counsel was late therefore lacked the time prepare for trial. We have reviewed record each of and found these is Appellant’s contentions to be without merit. final contention refusing that the lower court declare when a erred a mistrial testify appellant’s ability witness referred to at trial. by failing waived post-verdict this issue to raise it in his written Hagans, motions. v. Pa. A.2d 412 Commonwealth (1979). *2 granted. and new sentence reversed
Judgment of trial *3 Martin, for Pittsburgh, appellant. Richard H. Eberhardt, Robert L. Colville, Dist. Atty., Robert E. Dist. At Johns, Simpson, Lease Asst. Kathryn Charles W. tys., Pittsburgh, appellee. for NIX, ROBERTS, O’BRIEN, EAGEN, J., and
Before C. LARSEN, JJ. MANDERINO and THE COURT OPINION OF O’BRIEN, Justice. Wade, of murder I. was convicted
Appellant, Gordon Donna strangulation slaying the first for the degree appellant were denied and Post-verdict motions Murphy. appeal This direct imprisonment. was sentenced to life followed. refusing erred in first claims that the trial court
Appellant alleged of the Commonwealth’s discharge him because agree. 1100. We do not with Pa.R.Crim.P. noncompliance on December arrested in Rule 1100 called for day period one hundred eighty scheduled originally on June 1977. Trial was expiring 5, 1977, April commence on 1977. On April continuance, that further alleging application filed an *4 necessary prepare was to testing medical and psychological trial and a new granted was application his defense. The 11, 1977, date of was set. July for an 6, 1977, petitioned the On Commonwealth April the diligence, all time, due alleging despite extension 14, June by try appellant would be unable to Commonwealth 19, 1977, granted below 1977. the court April On 11, at July the trial date setting Commonwealth’s petition, 12, 1977. than September but not later motion 11, 1977, appellant’s was held on hearing On July 14, 1977, sought On Commonwealth suppress. July for ex Mayview psychological have committed to appellant commitment, but ob agreed amination. He committed jected to of his trial. was any postponement period sixty for a not to exceed Mayview Hospital State testing. for further days psychological Commonwealth, 15, 1977, second on filed a July time, set for to extend which was with trial petition granted, 12, 1977, 1977. but not later than October September 12, appellant Prior to on September commencement of trial of an charges moved for a because orally dismissal alleged violation of Rule 1100. The trial court denied motion and the case to trial. proceeded
We believe tried accordance appellant properly with Rule As a of the rule states: portion 1100.
“At for any prior expiration period time trial, commencement of for the Commonwealth attorney order the time for may apply extending to the court for an application commencement of trial. A of such shall be copy upon served the defendant if through attorney, any, the defendant shall also have the to be thereon. right heard Such shall if application granted only be trial cannot be commenced within the due dili- prescribed period despite gence by order such Any granting Commonwealth. application shall specify period the date or within which trial shall be 1100(c)(Emphasis commenced.” Pa.R.Crim.P. added.) case, Commonwealth,
In the instant on filed a April petition time, for extension of all due alleging despite diligence, appellant would not be tried within the 180-day period prescribed Rule 1100. The court below agreed with the Commonwealth and ordered that trial be held on 11, 1977, July but not later than September 1977. Appellant’sdid, trial fact, Thus, commence 12. if September on the court properly granted petition the Commonwealth’s time, extension of compliance was tried in Rule 1100. *5 time, the Commonwealth to extend
In its petition July which was until granted continuance cited appellant’s try appellant unable to 1977, being the reason for 11, as was the continuance After period. the 180-day within within to trial bring appellant impossible it was granted, petition granted below properly so the court days, trial order, court held that In the extension of time. 12, As 1977.” September later than to commence “no the time called for within trial was commenced appellant’s trial, no violation time for we find extending in the order appellant’s rights. Rule 1100 whereby challenges proceedings next tried should be certify
court below refused to He first juvenile. three-pronged. as a attack Appellant’s crime of Act,1 by excluding the Juvenile argues court, juvenile jurisdiction the original murder from the Fourteenth Clause of violates the Protection Equal He further Amendment to the United States Constitution. stan- include act, failing adequate contends murder case be transferred may dards a juvenile as to when Four- under the court, process him due juvenile denies that he argues finally teenth Amendment. Appellant the court to transfer require evidence to presented sufficient no merit in of these any We find the case to court. juvenile arguments. provide: Act of the Juvenile applicable sections 50-303:
“§ other proceeding “If it to the court in a criminal appears child, this act shall murder, than is a that the defendant forth- judge and the shall applicable, become immediately and, appropri- where proceedings, with halt further criminal or to a Court Division ate, Family transfer the case to the hearings, to conduct assigned of the court judge other accusatory pleading together copy with a relating documents, testimony transcripts papers, proceeding court in a criminal the case. If it appears seq., 11 P.S. et 1. No. 333 §§ Act of December P.L. 50-101, seq. (Supp.1978-79). et §§ child, may is a the case murder, that the defendant charging ap- of this act provisions transferred and the similarly be proba- forthwith to the shall be taken The defendant plied. *6 designated by officer or to a of detention place tion guardian, his parent, or released to the custody court him, for to be custodian, responsible person legally or other designated. a time to be before the court at brought otherwise in lieu of a may petition serve accusatory pleading of a filing court directs the act, unless the required by this petition. child is murder the proceeding charging
“If in a criminal murder, the case be may convicted of a crime less than judge or to a transferred to the Court Division Family Act for assigned juvenile hearings disposition.” to conduct 6, 1972, 50-303 of December P.L. P.S. § § (Supp.1978-79). 50-325:
“§ “(a) alleging delinquency After a has been filed petition public a crime or designated based on conduct which is laws, ordinances, of this offense under the local including State, the on its merits hearing petition court before rule and that the offense may applicable that this act is not offense, where appro- should be and transfer the prosecuted, priate, judge or to a of the the trial or criminal division prosecu- court to conduct criminal for assigned proceedings, tion of the offense if:
“(1) age at the years The child was fourteen or more conduct; time of alleged and “(2) A on transfer should be made is hearing whether the act; in held with this and conformity “(3) time, purpose Notice in and writing place, the hearing given parents, guardian, is to the child and his or other days hearing; custodian at least three before and facie case that
“(4) prima The court finds that there is a and the alleged, act delinquent the child committed to believe grounds court finds that there are reasonable treatment, supervision (i) that: the child is not amenable to facilities, through available or rehabilitation as a mental age, capaci- this the court consider determining may or institutional probation record and ty, maturity, previous an institu- child is not committable to reports; (ii) ill; (iii) or mentally tion for the retarded mentally placed that the child be community require interests of the or that the offense one legal discipline under restraint or if years of more than three which would a sentence carry committed as an adult. terminates of this act
“(b) applicability The transfer acts respect delinquent alleged over the child with the petition. that the case be transferred
“(c) may request The child this act may in which event the court order prosecution not applicable. *7 where this act be-
“(d) hearing No shall be conducted determination applicable previous comes because of in a proceeding. court criminal which if “(e) alleges proven Where the conduct petition murder, the offense require would constitute the court shall procedures to be under the criminal law and prosecuted has been transferred from the crimi- except where case pursuant nal court to section 7 of this act.
“(f) The or not to trans- decision of the court to transfer fer the Act of December interlocutory.” case shall be (Supp.1978-79). P.L. 50-325 P.S. § § murder, origi- Since with his case appellant charged nated in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common However, Pleas of filed a Allegheny County. appellant juvenile to transfer his case to court. The timely application application for transfer that: alleged in the juvenile requires,
“1. The defendant’s status as a defendant, general, interests of the his in family society that he be shielded from publicity. The condition psychiatric
“2. defendant’s medical and convicted, require that, custody if he not be confined to he be along given adequate opportunity adults and that for medical and treatment. psychiatric as well as rights preserved, civil be “3. The defendant’s him in adjudication against the use of against the protection subsequent proceedings; against disqualification
“4. defendant be protected That public and private employment.” on the to transfer was hearing application An evidentiary Act. held of the Juvenile pursuant requirements (1) newspaper pub- introduced four exhibits: Appellant case; evaluations of licity (2) on the various psychiatric (3) High records from appellant; appellant’s Schenley School; and (4) appellant’s psychological educational and father, Further, Isaac appellant’s records from Falk School. Wade, and Admin- Allegheny High Vice School Principal Technical Edu- Occupational, istrator of the Vocational and Section, He testified that cation testified his son’sbehalf. as of his he to evaluate various part job, required had been and their juvenile ability institutions the Commonwealth Mr. Wade testi- juvenile problems. to deal with behavioral fied that in was amenable to treat- opinion, appellant ment as a and would better benefit from confine- juvenile than Republic ment in an institution such as Junior George The Com- being placed in an adult correctional institution. court, however, monwealth presented no evidence. refused the to transfer and held that application must be tried as an adult. first murder from the argues by excluding
original court, Juvenile Act de- jurisdiction *8 nies appellant as the Four- equal protection guaranteed by teenth Amendment Constitution. As to the United States the Juvenile Act states:
“ a crime under ‘Delinquent designated act’ means an act State, occurred the law of this or of another state if the act state, law, local ordi- or under Federal or under nances. . . . act’ shall not include ‘Delinquent 6, 1972,P.L. crime of murder . . .” Act of December . 1464, 2, 333, 50-102(2) (Supp.1978-79). No. 11 P.S. § § (Emphasis supplied.)
462
As the
Court stated in Reed v.
Supreme
United States
Reed,
71, 75-6,92
251, 253-254,
404
S.Ct.
“In
has
applying
equal protection]
this Court
[the
recognized that
the Fourteenth Amendment
consistently
does not
to treat different classes
deny
power
States
of
persons
ways.
different
Barbier v.
113
Connolly,
U.S.
27,
357,
(1885);
5
“(b) This act shall be and construed as interpreted effectuate the following purposes:
“(1) preserve possi- To of the whenever unity family care, ble and to for the and wholesome provide protection, mental within physical coming of children development act; the provisions of this interest,
“(2) protection public Consistent with the remove from children acts committing delinquent behavior, there- consequences criminal and to substitute rehabilitation; for a program supervision, care and *9 envi- in a family purposes foregoing To achieve the “(3) par- from the child possible, separating whenever ronment in the interests welfare or for his necessary when only ents safety; public of of provisions which the means through To
“(4) provide parties the in which and enforced and act are executed this other and constitutional and their hearing are assured a fair Id., 1, 11 P.S. enforced.” recognized § legal rights added.) (Emphasis 50-101. § main Juvenile Act’s that the correctly observes
Appellant Appel- offenders. juvenile is the rehabilitation purpose note, however, specifically act also that the lant fails the interest and public of both the provides protection Election Commis- v. Board of In McDonald public safety. 1404, 1408, 22 89 S.Ct. Chicago, sioners of 394 U.S. the court stated: (1969), L.Ed.2d 739 constitutionally to have acted presumed are “Legislatures for ascertain- resorted normally even if source materials silent, and their otherwise for action are ing grounds their grounds if no only aside classifications will be set statutory conceived to them.” justify can be had decided Act, Legislature Juvenile
Under the or an adult murder, by crime of whether committed that exclude originally such a serious nature as juvenile, is of special benefits and murderer from the alleged juvenile an Act forbids Juvenile afforded the act. As the treatment three than longer for a juveniles period incarceration of a life mandates 50-323(a), the Crimes Code years, P.S. § first or either of murder of sentence conviction upon disparity light 1102. In second 18 Pa.C.S.A. degree, § protect while trying sentencing procedures crime of murder excluded the Legislature public safety, not believe We do court. jurisdiction from the believe and further arbitrary the classification objectives relationship bears a rational classification the Juvenile Act. espoused by Juvenile Act denies argues further no assurance because there is
equal protection *10 Appel- will be administered. jurisdictional provision equally significant prosecuto- the statute allows for argues lant a determining charge youthful rial discretion in whether to allow- thus killing,2 offender with either murder or unlawful of either criminal ing jurisdiction a to invoke the prosecutor juvenile or court. stated, however, in Supreme
As the United States
Court
850,
Queenside Hills Co. v.
Saxl,
80, 84-5,
328
66 S.Ct.
U.S.
852, 90
“.
.
. The .
.
.
lack of
(1946):
L.Ed. 1096
of an
is
in the actual existence
equal protection
found
in the mere possibility
not
discrimination,
invidious
there will be like or similar cases which will be treated more
added.)
In
(Citations omitted.)
leniently.”
(Emphasis
discrimination,
is able to
to no actual
stantly, appellant
point
such,
possibilities
his
claim based on
equal protection
and as
Lewis,
305,
v.
Pa.
must fail. See also Commonwealth
443
(1971).
Appellant
argues
Fourteenth
by
him
of law as
process
guaranteed
due
States, 383
set forth in Kent v. United
U.S.
Amendment and
In re
In Kent
(1966).
84
86
16 L.Ed.2d
and
S.Ct.
Gault,
(1967),
527
1, 87
18 L.Ed.2d
387 U.S.
S.Ct.
waiver
juvenile
proceedings
decided that
Supreme Court
(transfer
to the adult court
juvenile
of a case from the
which due
to
system)
critically important
stage
were a
(1) that a
requires
Due
process safeguards
process
attached.
(2) that
juvenile
hearing;
is entitled to a
offender
counsel;
(3) that
juvenile
by
is entitled to representation
(4)
records and
be
access to his social
juvenile
given
offender
behind
to a statement of reasons
juvenile
that the
is entitled
adult court.
transferring
Appellant
the order
the case to
adequate
Act fails to provide
believes that
the Juvenile
a
whether
which a court
is to determine
by
standards
to Juve
with murder should be transferred
juvenile charged
to a
this failure amounts
nile Court.
believes that
standards to
adequate
denial of
process. Finding
due
exist,
argument.
we find no merit in appellant’s
involuntary manslaughter,
Voluntary manslaughter
while
2.
amounting
killings,
murder.
to
do not rise to the level of
unlawful
In Commonwealth
Pyle,
v.
denied his transfer failed to with that comply portion motion States, v. supra, Kent United of the mandate of which requires the court to a of give justifying statement reasons believe, its however, decision. We mis- that has Kent. As perceived portion that of the court stated: “Meaningful the requires review that court reviewing should It review. It should not be to assumptions. remitted must have motivating before it a statement of the reasons course, the waiver a statement of the relevant including, reasons, facts. may It not ‘assume’ that there are adequate nor it been may merely investigation’ assume that ‘full has made. hold the Accordingly, upon we that it is incumbent Juvenile Court to order with state- accompany its waiver ment of the do not reasons or considerations therefor. We read the statute as that this statement must be requiring formal or that it should include conventional necessarily findings of fact. But the statement should be sufficient demonstrate that the of ‘full investi- statutory requirement met; gation’ been the question has the has received Court; careful the consideration of Juvenile and it must set forth the basis order specificity for the with sufficient States, supra, review.” Kent v. United permit meaningful 383 U.S. at at 1057. S.Ct. trial not set written reasons any
While the court did forth time for transfer at refusing for petition made, was in the trial following decision was contained court’s motions: opinion denying appellant’s post-verdict complete. . In case is present
“. . the record evalua- testimony, There is school records and psychiatric all of will have to it appellate tions. court available to the trial court upon information was available finds that the which it based its determination. The Court which has required the written statement purpose not denied accomplished been and the defendant has been rights.” his due process
Further: Application
“. . .At on defendant’s hearing Transfer, evalua- presented psychiatric defense counsel defendant, tions of the school rec- high defendant’s ords, which grade psychological school records included and behavioral the defendant’s testimony data and the who as Voca- Occupational, father the Administrator the Allegheny High tional and Technical Education Section of has dealt who had been sentenced juveniles School state. Further- various institutions around the more, Hearing hearing since the Suppression preceded fully on the transfer the Court was informed application, cognizant to the facts case. The as Court *12 15%years and the record reflected that the defendant was mentally of he had ill or age, designated not been as either retarded, imprisoned could be for more than defendant three as a his crime the victim was a years result of of teenage neighbor friend and the defendant. From it, these and other determined facts available the Court safety community required that the interest and of an that the defendant be restrained and treated as adult.” quotes, In of we do not believe light preceding the court’s process by was denied due any rights the transfer give failure to written reasons denying application at the time the decision was made. next his refusing claims that the court erred
application juvenile for transfer to He believes court. he presented sufficient evidence that he was amenable showing to treatment juvenile as a and that evidence was not contra- Commonwealth, dicted by the presented which no evidence at the hearing.3 Appellant court was thus believes the obligated to his grant application disagree. for transfer. We
In subject Commonwealth v. we held Pyle, supra, process States, due limitations of Kent v. United supra, Gault, and In re supra, a decision whether to an grant application by filed either the Commonwealth or a defend ant is within the hearing judge. sound As discretion this court Estate, stated in Garrett’s 335 Pa. 6 A.2d 858, 860 (1939):
“. . .An abuse of merely of discretion is not an error judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overrid- den or misapplied, or the exercised is judgment manifestly unreasonable, or the or prejudice, result of bias partiality, ill-will, record, as shown the evidence discretion is or (Citations abused.” omitted.) standard, this we
Using do not believe the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s application transfer his case to juvenile court.
As the trial court stated:
“. . .At the hearing on Application defendant’s Transfer, defense counsel presented psychiatric evaluations defendant, records, the defendant’s school high grade school records which included and beha- psychological vioral data and the who testimony of the defendant’s father as the Administrator the Occupational, Vocational and Technical Education Section of has Allegheny High School dealt juveniles who had been sentenced to various juvenile Furthermore, institutions around the state. since the Suppression Hearing preceded hearing on the trans- Commonwealth, course, proof 3. The has no burden of in cases juvenile charged attempting where a with murder to have his or Pyle, her case transferred v. court. Commonwealth supra, n.13. *13 facts fully the Court was informed as application, fer of case. court was and the record cognizant of the The he had years age, reflected was 151/2 of that the defendant retarded, ill the been as either or designated mentally not as years for more than three imprisoned defendant could be friend teenage a result of and victim was his crime the facts From these and other neighbor and of the defendant. that interest and it, available to the Court determined be that safety community the defendant required restrained as an and treated adult.” case,
In the court all the trial considered instant in the Act. Implicit factors called for in 28 of the Juvenile § finding appellant trial court’s refusal to transfer is a as a prove failed to that the benefits of treatment possi- interest and outweighed safety trying society’s We find no abuse as an adult. can bly restraining appellant we not disturb of discretion trial court and thus will by in criminal the court’s should be tried ruling appellant court. erred when
Appellant argues that the court below finally believes it refused confession. suppress knowing that the establish a Commonwealth failed to The intelligent rights. constitutional appellant’s waiver facts are as follows. arrest, old.
At the was years time of his fifteen appellant take and his appellant Police had asked father to appellant’s an interview. Building brother the Public Safety wished suspect; police simply Neither brother was a body. talk to had the victim’s they them as discovered was original Detective Freeman interview Ronald ap- conducted in presence appellant’s father. Since was pellant warnings given prior not a no were suspect, interview, appel- the interview. the course of During the where- lant’s father interview room to ascertain left the out of Mr. abouts brother. While Wade appellant’s room, convinced appellant made a few statements which as a Detective should treated Freeman be suspect. stopped Freeman interview. immediately *14 room in the interview alone appellant left Freeman Freeman Mr. Wade. talk with the hall to went across his son. After rights available Wade informed Mr. rights, son’s understood his Mr. Wade that determining room interview Wade returned Freeman and Mr. last- conversation In a short waiting. was appellant where of Wade, presence in the minutes, Mr. a few ing only Mr. the truth. Freeman, to tell appellant Detective advised Wade then left the room. his consti- appellant then informed
Detective Freeman however, no indication record, contains tutional rights. understood stated that he affirmatively either appellant those waived affirmatively he warnings the Miranda or that not promise Freeman to rights.4 then asked Appellant keep wished to appellant which tell Mr. Wade certain items to make such was unable Freeman said he from his father. relay room to left the interview a The officer then promise. Freeman to Mr. Wade told to his father. appellant’s request in court. would come out that all the facts appellant tell relayed room and returned to the interview Freeman then then admitted Appellant message appellant. Mr. Wade’s a give if he would appellant Freeman asked killing Murphy. tape to use a unwilling was taped confession. out the confes- recorder, told Freeman he would write but in the alone appellant Freeman left longhand. sion in his out a statement interview room and wrote appellant to the crime. confessing own handwriting, to estab- failed the Commonwealth Appellant argues v. Miranda guaranteed by his rights lish that he waived (1966). 694 Arizona, 16 L.Ed.2d 436, 86 384 U.S. S.Ct. Smith, 472 Pa. (1977), A.2d 797 In Commonwealth v. 372 we stated: Butler, - U.S. -, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 60
4. North v. Carolina (1979) compel The United States not a different result. does implicit Supreme interpreted Miranda to allow an in Butler Court rights rights those a defendant understands waiver of where criminal indicate an of conduct which would and then exhibits a course appel implicit evidence that The instant record contains no waiver. rights. his Miranda lant understood and/or waived view, that a waiver requires In our due process it has effectuated when only a offender is youthful signifi- the full comprehended that the minor been shown during him protects panoply rights cance of the the Common- We have insisted interrogation. custodial waiver.” proving knowing wealth bear the burden (Emphasis original.) whether
Here, we need not determine for consultation with an interested afforded an opportunity determine analysis required and informed adult. Such knowing if a defendant is rights by waiver of *15 no indication The instant record contains intelligent. As rights. that waived his appellant effectively applicable showing such the Commonwealth has not met its burden waiver, statement must be appellant’s suppressed. a granted. reversed and new trial
Judgment of sentence MANDER- ROBERTS, J., opinion files a which concurring INO, J., joins.
NIX, J., concurring opinion. files a J., EAGEN, C. concurs in the result.
LARSEN, J., dissents.
ROBERTS, Justice, concurring. the Commonwealth agree majority
I
with the
that because
knowingly
failed to
appellant voluntarily
establish that
inad-
waived his Miranda
statement was
rights, appellant’s
-
Butler,
missible. I
that North Carolina v.
agree also
-,
(1979)
I
of the
disagree,
with the conclusion
court’s
motion to transfer
appellant’s
the trial
denial
court was proper.
his case
jurisdiction
juvenile
appel-
The court
forth its reasons for denying
did not set
471
meaningful
lant’s motion with sufficient
to afford
specificity
should, therefore, re
appellate review of its decision. We
remand, another,
quire that on
and more
certifica
complete
in con
hearing
tion
be held and a new decision rendered
States,
541, 561,
with Kent
formity
v. United
383 U.S.
1045, 1057,
v.
(1966);
Pyle,
S.Ct.
MANDERINO, J., joins in this concurring opinion. NIX, Justice, concurring.
I agree
today’s
a new
majority opinion awarding
trial for the
I
appellant. Unlike the
would rest
majority,
this conclusion upon a
the record fails to
finding
support an effective
juvenile
waiver
Common-
suspect.
wealth v. McCutchen,
(1970).1
463 Pa.
Appellant was years fifteen old when he was interrogated at a police station the murder with which regarding he was later charged. Although he was advised of apparently Miranda rights, this Court has said: administering of Miranda warnings juvenile, to a
[T]he
without
an
providing
opportunity
to con-
*16
sult
mature,
with a
informed individual
primar-
concerned
ily
the interest of
juvenile,
was inadequate to
offset the disadvantage occasioned by his
The new
youth.
rule appreciates that the inexperience of the minor affects
not only his or her
ability
the full implica-
understand
tion and consequences of the predicament but also renders
the judgment inadequate to assess
spectrum
of consid-
eration encompassed in the waiver decision.
It was there-
fore reasoned that the impediment of immaturity can only
be overcome where the record establishes that
the youth
had access to the advice of an
parent, or other
attorney,
my approach
case,
1.
In view of
to this
there is no occasion for me to
applicability
discuss
Supreme
or the soundness of the recent U.S.
Butler, - U.S. -,
Court decision in North Carolina v.
99 S.Ct.
1755,
(1979.)
interested adult and that to the available rights formed as to the constitutional follow might consequences minor and aware of the the election to be made. Smith, v. 492, 498-99, 372 A.2d
Commonwealth
472 Pa.
omitted).
797,
(1977)
800
(footnote
Accord,
Barnes,
v.
555, 394 A.2d
Commonwealth
482 Pa.
Lawson, 478 Pa.
200,
v.
386 A.2d
Commonwealth
(1978);
461
Lee,
v.
314,
A.2d 371
Commonwealth
475 Pa.
380
(1978);
509
Jamison,
(1977); Commonwealth v.
541,
474 Pa.
Commonwealth v. 472 Pa. at (footnote omitted).
In the present appellant’s case the record reveals that father “was not the interested adult envisioned the rule.” The detective elicited confession testi- appellant’s Id. who fied that there was a clear “conflict” between the father and so appellant, great together that “the two wouldn’t come physically except period for a small of time.” The detective further was testified that “it was so obvious that there son, something between the father and the it wasn’t a normal father father relationship and son . . .. [H]is go wouldn’t in the room with the kid. I mean I couldn’t understand it.”
Appellant’s father with appel- was not the same room lant during the was interrogation. The detective forced shuttle back and forth between the room and interrogation the room where father appellant’s throughout ques- tioning. following sequence detective testified to the 7:28, events. At appellant when was advised of constitu- tional rights detective, was not by appellant’s father present. The left appellant detective at 7:39 advised 7:41, father that was a appellant suspect. appellant’s At father returned with the and told to tell detective the truth. This father to his given instruction was son, without any attempt to ascertain his son’s version events and the son ascertaining without in what manner might be this implicated point. the case at by discussing Appellant’s father left his son alone with the again then were he things detective. told the detective there didn’t want his father to know tried to the detective get *18 7:48, the
to tell him. At the detective left promise not to room and father that his son didn’t want appellant’s told him to things. replied saying know certain The father that it all come out in court The detective anyway. would returned 7:51 and his interrogation room at continued 7:54, appellant’s At he left the room and asked questioning. father if the someone, would cover to which appellant up 7:56, father or replied either “no” that he didn’t know. At room, and, dur- interrogation the detective returned to the committing his ing questioning, appellant admitted to orally the the The the room at 8:06 and told murder. detective left father had the detective’s Upon confessed. appellant 8:15, return to he interrogation appellant the room at found writing a on a The detective asked poem piece paper. murder, to appellant him to version of the which write his when he agreed. again The left the room and detective returned, This had written out confession. appellant him. confession was later entered against shows that testimony clearly appellant’s detective’s in- insufficiently appellant’s legal father was interested terests the of consulta- and that was denied kind a a' waiver tion adult that is valid prerequisite an juve- Miranda It is understand how the rights. difficult to who rights safeguarded by nile’s could be an adult properly the juvenile during refused to with the be in same room two was interrogation where between the rapport admo- While it is an obviously always appropriate strained. made informed nition tell the truth to one who has an statement, decision to that was not give question Rather, consider. designed consultation was question of the accused’s advisability participation was is clear that the father interrogation. in a custodial It son the this no to seek from his attempt instance made an required intelligent judg- to make necessary information information, ment he as to this Absent such question. rule clearly provide guidance not equipped envisions.