*1 under been elected Court, previously too had wealth Adams Pleas of of Common 13(a) to the Court Section the retention elec- interpretation The reasonable County. is all that contested election section is that one tion is no reference There judge. in the career of a required judicial to a statewide must be elected the fact that one cannot retained. This Court be so in order to position then find of its own accord and a requirement such impose vio- palpably plainly” “clearly, that Act No. 1978-257 Voters, state- requirement. created judicially lates such election, retention in the wide, “yes”-“no” have recourse do vote since real, basis for their meaningful very and have a as a unknown quantity is not an the retention candidate was statewide or judgeship of whether judge, regardless re- constitutionally criteria fit all the Respondents not. should not Court for a retention election quired for such. candidacy invalidate their us is en- today enactment before Finally, legislative the General prior with the enactments consistent tirely Court. concerning Assembly respon- is therefore constitutional Act No. 1978-257 file retention election. permitted dents should be Pennsylvania COMMONWEALTH WILLIAMS, Appellant. James C. Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of Jan. 1979. Submitted April 1979. Decided Rehearing May Denied *2 Philadelphia, appellant. Louis Lipschitz, *3 Turnoff, Div., Lawler, Chief, William Appeals B. Robert appellee. Philadelphia, NIX, ROBERTS, O’BRIEN, EAGEN, J.,C.
Before LARSEN, JJ. MANDERINO
OPINION LARSEN, Justice. of voluntary was convicted 2, 1976, appellant April
On
crime,
instrument
of an
manslaughter
possession
denied;
motions were
a
trial. Post-verdict
following
jury
imprisonment
to six years
to three
was sentenced
and a concurrent
conviction
manslaughter
voluntary
for the
posses-
conviction for
for the
imprisonment
one to two years
These
followed.1
appeals
of crime.
of an instrument
sion
his motion
denial of
the trial court’s
challenges
Appellant
him
given by
which was
statement
suppress
signed
his arrest. He
hours after
twelve
approximately
the police
judgment
voluntary manslaughter
appealed
of sen-
Appellant
judgment
for the
directly
of sentence
to this
tence
Court.
Court,
Superior
appealed
which certi-
possession
to the
offense
appeal
fied the
to this Court.
statement was obtained in
alleges
incriminating
decision
violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule
and this Court’s
Futch,
389,
(1972)
in
447 Pa.
Before evidence will be
on the
suppressed
(1)
three conditions must be met:
pre-arraignment
delay,
(2)
must be
the evidence must be
unnecessary;
(3)
related to the
reasonably
delay;
evidence must
Commonwealth v. Wil-
to the
prejudicial
defendant.
liams,
569,
(1974).3
inferences 516, 521, Goodwin, 333 v. ings.’ Commonwealth (1975). A.2d 895 the evi- determined that court has
If the suppression admissible, only will consider ‘this Court dence much of the and so witnesses prosecution’s evidence in the context as, read fairly defense evidence for the Common- whole, remains uncontradicted.’ record as a 265, 280, Kichline, 468 Pa. wealth v. 568, 604, Connecticut, 367 U.S.
(1976); see Culombe Frank- (1961) (Opinion L.Ed.2d 1037 S.Ct. furter, J.). 562, 566, A.2d Brown, found as question, the statement surrounding
The facts are as by the record supported court and by suppression m., 30, 1975, appellant 2:17 a. at September follows: On wife, that his Doris them informing telephoned police with, living had been Charles Williams, a man she given at the address The arrived were dead. Lloyd, at the scene with appellant found by appellant them to two by was taken bodies. Appellant two hand. right a laceration on his treatment of for the hospitals appellant hospital, from the second discharge his Following day a. m. of the same approximately arrested at was headquarters to homicide 30) and taken (September who treated of several doctors testimony questioning. Detective Winston and of hospital, appellant hospi- appellant accompanied who Sergeant Gibbons nerv- emotionally upset, tals, appellant establishes period distraught during ous, highly agitated his Miranda was read appellant time. At 8:30 a. condi- However, of his emotional which he waived. because at that time. His condi- not questioned tion who Detective Winston observed continually tion was at 10 a. calming to be down appeared testified that calmed down even cigarettes) he was (when m. *5 lunch, taken to (when given 12:40 m. he was p. more so at pill requested). restroom and a “nerve” which given the to a state had calmed down p. appellant finally At 3 to him. Detective permit question which would again read his which were again appellant Richardson stated: waiving rights, appellant waived. In addition to his thing tell There’s a ready you. I’m I’ll good “When I’m ready to tell but when ready you, behind it and I’m not alert, time, appellant I’m At this was going you.” to tell and one-half normal He talked for one responsive. mentioning about his never personal background, hours interroga- Richardson ended the incident before Detective another p. tion. dinner at m. and Appellant m., Detective Richardson p. “nerve” at 6:30 m. At 7 pill p. if he was to ready re-entered the room and asked talk. to Appellant proceeded give incriminating signed by ment which was recorded and then 9:45 m. was ar- approximately Appellant at 1:40 a. m. raigned that,
The suppression court held
under
these cir
cumstances,
the first seven and one-half hours of
were
emotional,
attributable
to
unstable con
directly
appellant’s
necessary delay.
a
We
agree.
dition and thus constituted
The
preliminary arraignment
required by
Pennsylvania
Procedure
is a
procedure designed
Rules of Criminal
him
charges against
inform the accused of the nature of
counsel, right
and to
the accused’s
to bail
protect
right
See
hearing.
his
to a
right
preliminary
Tingle,
(1973)
and Pa.R.Crim.P.
119).
arraignment
Rule 140
Rule
(formerly
preliminary
if
meaningless
would be reduced to a
ritual
the accused were
time when his condition would
arraigned
signifi
at a
his
of the nature of the
cantly impair
comprehension
charges
Therefore,
and his
of his
we hold that
understanding
rights.
to an
period
impaired
attributable
accused’s
condition, which
him
physical
mental or
condition renders
preliminary
benefiting
protections
from the
incapable of
afford,
such
necessary,
designed to
arraignment
*6
when
whether a state
determining
is to be excluded
period
“unnecessary delay.”
of an
ment was obtained as
result
circumstances,
that,
Superior
the
Court
We note
similar
Brad
Commonwealth v.
has reached
same conclusion.
well,
Pa.Super. 35,
(1974) (period
delay
Having m., was m. when p. from arrest 7:30 a. to from to be the determination enough questioned) stable statement, we the the must examine admissibility the m. p. 3 m. and 7 period p. four-hour remaining statement) give incriminating to the (when appellant began and, not, if to if was delay necessary to determine that reasonably if the was related determine statement Williams, supra. delay. (It conceded of the Williams test, the that third that evidence prong the met.) has been during delay prejudicial, obtained the be assume, we argument, the without decid For sake 4 However, unnecessary. was ing, that the four-hour the we not related to reasonably find that statement was p. at 3 that informed m. delay. Appellant four-hour incident, but would to prefer talk first would about spoke He until information. give police “background” incident, was mentioning never then left p. given dinner. Detective p. alone until 6 m. when he 7 m. and if he p. returned at asked Richardson Cherry, (1974), we In necessary might suggested arraignment delays where the initially willingness suspect cooperate, to in order to indicates a co-suspects permit from or to locate obtain information dictum, however, vicinity. Cherry as had evidence in the This was Johnson, unwilling cooperate. also Commonwealth v. been See resolution, infra, our Given test, need decide second element of the Williams we not whether necessary. four-hour replied The appellant were to talk about the incident. ready these circum incriminating with the statement. Under stances, refused to properly suppress court suppression as a result of appellant’s the statement since it was any m. to talk when and was not in ready, decision at 3 related the four-hour way delay.5 of sentence affirmed. Judgments NIX, J., the result. concurred in J., MAN- ROBERTS, filed a in which dissenting opinion DERINO, J., joins.
ROBERTS, Justice, dissenting. majority appellant’s inculpatory
The concludes that delay ment was not between product unnecessary arraignment, knowingly voluntarily arrest and and was Arizona, with Miranda v. in 384 U.S. compliance (1966). 16 694 I dissent on both S.Ct. L.Ed.2d grounds. that, other than time consistently
This Court has held accused, of the all required processing for administrative See, arraignment between is unnecessary. arrest and Eaddy, g., e. 472 Pa. 372 A.2d Williams, v. Commonwealth (1977); Nonetheless, (1974). concludes that majority today because was in a emotional condition and did very not to the in a coherent respond police questioning initial fashion, the first seven and one half hours of arrest arraignment necessary. majority prem- The Appellant 1) involuntary 5. also contends that the statement was 2) knowing intelligent rights; not the result of a waiver of his that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a 3) voluntary manslaughter; conviction for that trial counsel was charge failing request specific points ineffective for for on certain justification. defenses of We have reviewed the record and find these issues to be without merit. assumption an unwarranted upon ises this condition with a speedy an accused purpose providing there is no condition ren- when his emotional preliminary arraignment “incapable benefitting majority ders him according was de- preliminary arraignment from the protections signed to afford.” At is to preliminary arraignment of a purpose
The very an are At protected. accused insure that judicial is neutral by informed a accused arraignment lodged him and charges against officer of the nature counsel, a preliminary also bail and advised of his rights where, as See Pa.R.Crim.P. 140. hearing. Additionally, here, to a pursuant not arrested the accused has been serves as the forum warrant, the preliminary arraignment provide facts alleged review of the independent where an neutral magis- cause made a detached and probable is Gerstein Eaddy, supra. trate. See 103, 95 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Pugh, 420 U.S. from a. m. until 3:00 reveals that clearly record appellant’s arraignment. did not provide can- Appellant’s right prompt preliminary arraignment to a not it here merely as because compromised were him or a interrogate unable to obtain confession. be, Indeed, accused the more distraught may the more an to insure that arraignment necessary prompt preliminary *8 It are must therefore be rights protected. accused’s one hours of delay that first seven and half concluded were unnecessary. justify any portion has failed
The Commonwealth appel- the entire eleven one half hour and his inculpatory lant’s arrest and statement. obtaining at seven and began p. that During interrogation one warrantless and after police half hours after his arrest and had had “calmed down” become appellant determined coherent,” would tell them police “more told he appellant This was alleged ready. about homicides when
599 arraignment. to a right prompt a waiver of his no sense interview Nevertheless, in the same police kept appellant when, in until 7:00 m. additional four hours room for an was ready” “said he inquiries, appellant response police his statement. began inculpatory the entire there was no purpose It is obvious that to obtain a and one half hour other than eleven Moreover, it is doubt that the incrimina- beyond confession. statement that obtained resulted from ting police eventually See half hour delay. eleven and one Johnson, (1974). Appellant’s This statement was therefore inadmissible into evidence. reversal and a remand for a new ground alone mandates trial. knowingly appellant also concludes majority Miranda, even rights though waived his under
voluntarily rights, they before informed of his shortly had, supervision, without medical administered defendant’s pills,” appellant’s request. “nerve “[T]he state” is a factor which must be physical psychological Miranda. assessing considered in a waiver of under rights Walker, 534, 538, A.2d Pa. Starkes, Commonwealth (1977), quoting 184-85, (1975). Kamisar, See generally, Williams, Massiah, Brewer v. and Miranda: What is Interro- Matter?, gation? When Does it 67 Geo.LJ. On waiver of Miranda record, purported where appellant’s pills” followed his of “nerve in the ingestion presence officers, under the direction of and the record does not pills upon appellant’s ability reveal the effect of the his knowingly, voluntarily relinquish intentionally, Miranda, rights under I would suppress appellant’s ment.
I dissent.
MANDERINO, J., joins dissenting opinion. in this