*1 аrraignment, and that his incriminating statement was made almost thirteen hours after he had first been taken into Prior custody. to his admission he had been interroga- hours, ted for more than and eight had been confronted with results of a polygraph examination which indicated allegedly he had lied in denying involvement in the crime.
Appellant’s statement must be deemed the product unnecessary delay arraignment and should have been suppressed.
Even if a portion the time appellant was in custody attributable to the investigation crime, a differеnt and even assuming arguendo that such period covered be exclud- ed from the period relevant to Futch purposes, aрpellant’s statement must be deemed the product of an unnecessary delay arraignment. Appellant’s incriminating statement given wаs six and one-half hours after questioning about the initiated, instant crime had been and given after only several periods of interrogatiоn and the confrontation with the polygraph results. His statement should have been suppressed accordance with Pa.R.Crim.P. 118 and Com- Futсh, monwealth 447 Pa. A.2d 417 I would reverse the conviction order a new trial. POLICINO, by Linda a minor Albert A. Hartman and Lillian Hartman, parents
R. guardians her and natural and Albert Hartman,
A. Hartman Appellant, and Lillian R. Jeffrey
Alan EHRLICH and Leonard Policino.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Jan.
Decided *2 Packel, Israel Lasky, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Irwin S. appellant. for Bogdanoff, Philadelphia, J. Leonard appellee,
Charles Policino. EAGEN, O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX
Before MANDERINO, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT *3 O’BRIEN, Justice.
This is from order of the of appeal an Court Common Pleas of which Montgomery County, granted appellee’s mo- tion to strike a The judgment. Superior affirmed. Policino, 19, Policino Ehrlich and Pa.Super. filed, A for allowance of petition appeal was this court. granted by
was Policino, in Appellant, Linda was involved an automobile 22, 1969, accident on March while she was a in a passenger car Leonard Policinо. operated by appellee, The Policino vehicle collided with an automobile Alan operated by Jeffrey aсcident, Ehrlich. At the time of the then Linda appellant, Hartman, was unmarried minor. Appellant an and appellee of 1969. April were married 1970, filed suit Ehrlich in appellant-wife against
In of July the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery Ehr- County. lich, who has a of party any joined not been the appeals, defendant, appellee-husband as an additional alleging Mr. or jointly Policino was either liable to his wife. solely 13, 1973, March a found that jury appellee-husband On was $10,000. liable to his wife for Mr. Policino filed solely neither a motion a new trial nоr for judgment n. o. v. 13,1973, On the verdict was reduced to judgment. No appeal was filed.
In of September appellant-wife garnish- instituted proceedings execution, ment with the writ of service, levy and attachment in Erie served County, home of appellee- husband’s compаny, insurance Erie Insurance Exchange. The insurance as company, garnishee, petitioned the court to set aside the writ. In Deсember of Mr. Policino instituted proceedings Montgomery County to strike the as not in accordance with the judgment Pennsylvania inter- spоusal law.1 immunity
In January Montgomery while County Court considering Mr. Policino’s motion to strike the judg- ment, the Court of Common granted Pleas Erie County writ, the insurance set company’s petition to aside the based on No interspousal immunity. appeal was taken from the Erie order.
The Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County or- the judgment 26, 1974, dered stricken on November again on based interspousal immunity. Following affirmance Court, by we granted appellant-wife’s petition for allowance of appeal. 8, 1893, 344, 3,
The Act June P.L. 48 P.S. 111 § § provides:
“Hereafter a married woman be may sue and sued *4 civilly, in all in respects, action, and form of any and with the same effect and results and as an consequences, un- may husband, married but she not sue her person; except divorce, in a a proceeding for or in proceeding protect to and recover her separate her, nor he suе property; may except divorce, in a for or proceeding in a to proceeding protect or recover his separate nor she property; may be arrested or for her imprisoned torts.” 48 P.S. 111. § (Emphasis added.) 8, 1893, 344, 3, ofAct June P.L. § 48 P.S. §
9
557,
Pa.
114
hаs
the
that her husband
waived
argues
next
Appellant
raise
immunity by failing to
the
interspousal
assert
right to
We agree.
in a
fashion.
timely
issue
doеs not
interspousal
immunity
The
defense
Therefore;
it can be
jurisdiction.
matter
subject
involve
Yoest,
113 P.L.J. 376
Mr.
Policino
Dryer
waived.
verdict,
did he file a motion for a
to the
nor
objected
never
filed,
were
No
motions
nor
n. o. v.
judgment
post-verdict
judgment
direct
taken from the
entеred in
appeal
a
believe
in
1973. We
that Mr.
County April,
Montgomery
post-verdict
to file
motions
failing
any
inaction
Policino’s
enterеd on the verdict precludes
appeal
judgment
or to
the
Erie or
of such
either
judgment
collateral attack
any
Broad Top
East
Transit Co. v.
Counties. See
Montgomery
Wells,
(1937);
353,
Order of the strike is reversed аnd the the motion to granting court trial wife-appellant reinstated. in favor of judgment consideration or JONES, J.,C. took no part former dеcision of this case. *5 J.,
ROBERTS, files a concurring and opinion. dissenting J., POMEROY, in the concurs result.
ROBERTS, Justice, concurring and dissenting. I the agree majority with that thе order of should be reversed because Court failed appellee timely to interspousal immunity assert defense of and the Cоurt Common Pleas of Montgomery County therefore should have not considered this defense. The order of the Court of Pleas of Erie is Cоmmon not before us and therefore pass we should not on propriety. its issue Because the of interspousal immunity is not propеrly us, to upon before there no need comment the continuing doctrine, vitality of that or DiGiralomo Apanavage, 454 (1973) Pa. (interspousal immunity). Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH of McCLAIN, Appellant. James Supreme of Pennsylvania. April
Argued Decided Herman, Silberstein, Herman, & Frederick R. Bayer Phila- delphia, for appellant. Fitzpatrick,
F. Emmett Dist. Atty., Goldblatt, Steven H. Chief, Div., Cohen, Denis Asst. Appeals Atty., Dist. appellee. EAGEN, O’BRIEN, J., ROBERTS,
Before C. POM-' EROY, MANDERINO, NIX and JJ.