[26 Pa.B. 2307]
[Continued from previous Web Page] D. PRELIMINARY ARRAIGNMENT
(1) When a defendant has been arrested within Philadelphia County [in a Municipal Court case], with or without a warrant, the defendant shall be afforded a preliminary arraignment by a Municipal Court judge without unnecessary delay. If the defendant was arrested without a warrant pursuant to subsection A(1)(a) or (b), unless the Municipal Court judge makes a determination of probable cause, the defendant shall not be detained.
(2) At the preliminary arraignment, the Municipal Court judge:
(a) shall not question the defendant about the offense(s) charged;
(b) shall give the defendant a copy of the certified complaint;
(c) if the defendant was arrested with a warrant, the issuing authority shall provide the defendant with copies of the warrant and supporting affidavit(s) at the preliminary arraignment, unless the warrant and affidavit(s) are not available at that time, in which event the defendant shall be given copies no later than the first business day after the preliminary arraignment; and
(d) shall also inform the defendant:
(i) of the right to secure counsel of choice and the right to assigned counsel in accordance with Rule 316;
(ii) in a Municipal Court case, of the day, date, hour, and place for trial, which shall not be less than 20 days after the preliminary arraignment unless the [issuing authority] Municipal Court judge fixes an earlier date upon request of the defendant or defense counsel, with the consent of the attorney for the Commonwealth; [and]
(iii) in a case charging a felony, of the date, time, and place of the preliminary hearing, which shall not be less than 3 nor more than 10 days after the preliminary arraignment unless extended for cause or the Municipal Court judge fixes an earlier date upon the request of the defendant or defense counsel with the consent of the complainant and the attorney for the Commonwealth; and
[(iii)] (iv) of the type of release on bail, as provided in Chapter 4000 of these rules, and the conditions of the bail bond.
(3) After the preliminary arraignment, if the defendant is detained, he or she shall be given an immediate and reasonable opportunity to post bail, secure counsel, and notify others of the arrest. Thereafter, if the defendant does not post bail, he or she shall be committed to jail, as provided by law.
E. PRELIMINARY HEARING IN CASES CHARGING A FELONY
(1) In cases charging a felony, the preliminary hearing in Municipal Court shall be conducted as provided in Rule 141 (Preliminary Hearing).
(2) In any case in which the defendant fails to appear for the preliminary hearing, the Municipal Court judge may issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant.
[E.] F. ACCEPTANCE OF BAIL PRIOR TO TRIAL
The Clerk of Quarter Sessions shall accept bail at any time [prior to the Municipal Court trial].
Official Note: Original Rule 6003 adopted June 28, 1974, effective July 1, 1974; amended January 26, 1977, effective April 1, 1977; amended December 14, 1979, effective April 1, 1980; amended July 1, 1980, effective August 1, 1980; amended October 22, 1981, effective January 1, 1982; Comment revised December 11, 1981, effective July 1, 1982; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; amended February 1, 1989, effective July 1, 1989; rescinded August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995. New Rule 6003 adopted August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; amended September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective date extended to April 1, 1996; amended March 22, 1996, effective July 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective date extended to July 1, 1996; amended ______ , 1996, effective ______ , 1996.
Comment [Former rule 6003 was rescinded and replaced by new Rule 6003 in 1994. Although Rule 6003 has been extensively reorganized, only subsections D(1) and D(2)(c) reflect changes in the procedures contained in the former rule.]
The , 1996 amendments make it clear that Rule 6003 covers the preliminary procedures for all non-summary Municipal Court cases, see Rule 6001(A), and cases charging felonies, including the institution of proceedings, the preliminary arraignment, and the preliminary hearing.
See Chapter 100 (Procedure in Court Cases), Parts I (Instituting Proceedings), II (Complaint Procedures), III (Summons and Arrest Warrant Procedures in Court Cases), and IV (Proceedings Before Issuing Authorities) for the Statewide rules governing the preliminary procedures in court cases, including non-summary Municipal Court cases, not otherwise covered by this rule.
The , 1996 amendments to paragraph A(1) align the procedures for instituting cases in Municipal Court with the Statewide procedures in Rule 101 (Means of Instituting Proceedings in Court Cases).
The March 22, 1996 amendments to paragraph A(2) align the procedures for private complaints in non-summary cases in Municipal Court [cases] with the Statewide procedures for private complaints in Rule 106 (Approval of Private Complaints). In all cases where the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the complaint must be submitted to the attorney for the Commonwealth for approval or disapproval.
As used in this rule, ''Municipal Court judge'' includes a bail commissioner acting within the scope of bail commissioner's authority under 42 Pa.C.S. § 1123(A)(5).
* * * * * Under subsection D(3), after the preliminary arraignment, if the defendant is detained, the defendant must be given an immediate and reasonable opportunity to post bail, secure counsel, and notify others of the arrest. Thereafter, if the defendant does not post bail, he or she must be committed to jail, as provided by law.
When a defendant fails to appear for the preliminary hearing, nothing in these rules is intended to preclude a Municipal Court judge from proceeding as provided by present practice or as provided in Rule 143(D).
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Report explaining the provisions of the new rule published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992). Final Report published with the Court's Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).
Final Report explaining the September 13, 1995 amendments published with the Court's Order at 25 Pa.B. 4116 (September 30, 1995).
Final Report explaining the March 22, 1996 amendments published with the Court's Order at 26 Pa.B. 1690 (April 13, 1996).
Supplemental Report explaining the ____ , 1996 amendments published at 26 Pa.B. 2316 (May 18, 1996).
PART II. LOCAL AND MINOR RULES
CHAPTER 9000. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 9024. Notice of Court Proceeding(s) Requiring Defendant's Presence.
[Notice] Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 100 concerning notice of the preliminary hearing, notice of a court proceeding requiring a defendant's presence shall be either:
(a) in writing and served by
(1) personal delivery to the defendant or defendant's attorney; or
(2) leaving a copy for or mailing a copy to the defendant's attorney at the attorney's office; or
(3) sending a copy to the defendant by certified, registered, or first class mail addressed to the defendant's place of residence, business, or confinement; or
(b) given to the defendant orally in open court on the record.
Official Note: Former Rule 9024 adopted October 21, 1983, effective January 1, 1984; amended March 22, 1993, effective as to cases in which the determination of guilt occurs on or after January 1, 1994; renumbered Rule 9025 June 2, 1994, effective September 1, 1994. New Rule 9024 adopted June 2, 1994, effective September 1, 1994; amended ______ , effective ______ .
Comment Some judicial districts use a document called a ''subpoena'' to give a defendant notice of required court appearances. Nothing in this rule is intended to change this practice.
See Rules 112, 140, 142, and 143 for the procedures for service of notice of a preliminary hearing, which are different from the procedures in this rule.
See Rule 9023 for the procedures for serving all written motions and any document for which filing is required.
See Rule 80 for the procedures for service in summary cases.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Report explaining the provisions of new Rule 9024 published at 23 Pa.B. 5008 (October 23, 1993).
Supplemental Report explaining the ______ , 1996 amendments published at 26 Pa.B. 2316 (May 18, 1996).
Supplemental Report
Proposed Amendments to Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 110, 112, 113, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146, 224, 225, 231, 9024, 6000, 6001, and 6003
Procedure When Defendant Fails to Appeal for Preliminary Hearing Background
The Committee's original proposal, which was published for comment at 25 Pa.B. 828 (March 11, 1995), was intended to make it clear that (1) under the present rules, district justices may issue warrants for the arrest of a defendant who has failed to appear for the preliminary hearing, and (2) the warrant procedure is not intended to replace the various local procedures for handling cases in which a defendant fails to appear for the preliminary hearing.
In response to our request for comments about the original proposal, the Committee received correspondence from several individuals, including Nancy M. Sobolevitch, Court Administrator of Pennsylvania; Timothy M. McVay, Esq., an attorney with the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) Judicial Computer Project (JCP); and James G. Morgan Jr., solicitor for the Special Courts Judges Association of Pennsylvania. The correspondents urged the Committee to consider modifying the proposal to mandate a uniform procedure for handling cases in which the defendant has failed to appear for the preliminary hearing. They pointed out that currently, without a Statewide uniform procedure, the practices not only vary from judicial district to judicial district, but also from magisterial district to magisterial district, and occasionally from case to case. They noted that this diversity of practice (1) is confusing to the bench, bar, and defendants; (2) makes it difficult to monitor the cases at both the local and Statewide levels; (3) creates administrative problems at the Statewide level, particularly for purposes of the case statistics; and (4) has resulted in some cases being ''lost'' either at the magisterial district level or in the court of common pleas.
After considering the points raised in the publication correspondence, the Committee reconsidered its original proposal, and was persuaded that the rules should provide one procedure for handling cases in which the defendant fails to appear for the preliminary hearing.
DISCUSSION OF RULE CHANGES
A. Introduction
The Committee debated at length the pros and cons of the various procedures that are being used around the State, including procedures in which:
(1) the case is forwarded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings;
(2) the preliminary hearing is deemed waived, and the case then proceeds as though the hearing had been held;
(3) the preliminary hearing is held in the defendant's absence;
(4) the district justice issues a warrant, and the case remains open at the magisterial district level until the defendant is arrested; or
(5) the district justice combines one or more of the above.
Ultimately, the Committee majority agreed that the procedure most likely to address the points raised by the correspondents and to protect the rights of the defendant would be one in which the case is forwarded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings. We also agreed that the rules would have to make it clear that before a case may be forwarded, the issuing authority must consider whether the defendant received notice of the preliminary hearing and whether there was a good reason which would explain the defendant's failure to appear.
In view of these considerations, we settled on the following scheme, which we believe is a fair and reasonable set of procedures for handling cases in which a defendant fails to appear for the preliminary hearing.
(a) When a defendant fails to appear for the preliminary hearing, the issuing authority is required to make a determination that the defendant had notice of the preliminary hearing.
(b) If the issuing authority determines that the defendant had notice, the issuing authority must wait 10 days before taking any action in order to give the defendant an opportunity to explain why he or she failed to appear.
(c) If the issuing authority determines that the defendant did not have notice, or that the defendant provided good cause to explain his or her failure to appear, the issuing authority must continue the hearing to a date certain and send notice of the new date and time of the hearing.
(d) If the issuing authority determines that the defendant had notice, absent a showing of good cause by the defendant within the ten-day period, the district justice must forward the case to the court of common pleas for further proceedings.
B. Rule 143 (Disposition of Case at Preliminary Hearing)
Although a number of rules must be amended to accommodate the new procedure outlined above, the Committee agreed to incorporate the requirement that the issuing authority must forward the case to the court of common pleas for further proceedings into Rule 143 (Disposition of Case at Preliminary Hearing).1
The new procedure is contained in paragraph (D), which begins by prohibiting the issuing authority from issuing a warrant for the arrest of the defendant.2 The Committee is recommending this prohibition because, having agreed that when a defendant fails to appear for the preliminary hearing, the case will move forward to the court of common pleas, we did not want to build into the process a warrant procedure which would invariably delay these cases at the magisterial district level. In addition, the prohibition will eliminate the problem of monitoring these warrants, which, under present practice, frequently remain outstanding even after the case is forwarded to the court of common pleas. Rule 113, which currently authorizes an issuing authority to issue a warrant for a defendant who fails to appear for the preliminary hearing when the case is instituted by summons, would also be amended to delete the warrant procedure.
Rule 143(D)(1) requires that the issuing authority determine whether the defendant received notice of the preliminary hearing. See Section C below for the discussion of the related rule changes concerning the new notice provisions. Subparagraphs (1)(a) through (1)(c) set forth the methods of providing notice to the defendant, including ''through defendant's attorney of record.'' The Committee agreed that this method of providing notice should be recognized in the rules since it occurs on a regular basis, particularly when the attorney is privately retained.
If the issuing authority determines that the defendant received notice, paragraph (D)(2) requires that the issuing authority wait ten days after the date scheduled for the preliminary hearing before taking any further action. This ten-day waiting period affords the defendant an opportunity to explain why he or she failed to appear. We recognize that occasionally there are legitimate reasons why a defendant fails to appear, such as being involved in an accident on the way to court or a sudden illness, and we did not want to unfairly penalize these defendants. However, the burden is on the defendant or the defendant's attorney, to contact the district justice and provide the ''good cause,'' and this must be done within the ten-day time limit. Absent the defendant providing good cause, the issuing authority is directed to forward the case to the court of common pleas for further proceedings.
Paragraph D(2)(a)--(c) set forth the procedures the issuing authority must follow after determining that the defendant received notice and did not provide good cause for his or her failure to appear. Subparagraph (2)(a) requires that the issuing authority indicate on the transcript that the defendant failed to appear and that the defendant failed to provide good cause explaining the failure to appear. This will provide a record of the issuing authority's findings concerning the defendant's failure to appear when the case is forwarded.
Subparagraph (2)(b) requires the issuing authority to make a probable cause determination if one has not been previously made. This requirement has been added to address the Committee's concerns about being forwarded to the court of common pleas without a probable cause determination having been made by a judicial officer, which frequently occurs in those cases in which a defendant is to appear for a preliminary hearing pursuant to a summons.
Subparagraph (2)(c) sets forth the requirement that the issuing authority forward the case to the court of common pleas for further proceedings. The Committee considered whether the rules should elaborate on ''further proceedings.'' We concluded that the rules should not directly define ''further proceedings,'' nor should they address specific issues, such as whether a common pleas court judge could remand the case for a preliminary hearing or conduct the preliminary hearing. However, we agreed that Rule 146 (Return of Transcript and Original Papers), Rule 224 (Withdrawal of Charges by Attorney for the Commonwealth), and Rule 225 (Information: Filing, Contents, Function) should be amended to make it clear that a case which has been forwarded pursuant to Rule 143(D) is to proceed under these rules in the same manner as a case that is held for court following a preliminary hearing. See Section D below for the discussion of these amendments.
Paragraph (D)(3) sets forth the procedures that the issuing authority must follow if he or she finds that the defendant did not receive notice or finds that there was good cause explaining the defendant's failure to appear. The issuing authority must continue the preliminary hearing to a specific date and time, and give notice as provided in Rule 142 (Continuance of A Preliminary Hearing). See Section C.2 below for a discussion of the amendments to Rule 142.
Paragraph (D)(4) addresses the Committee's concern that, in those cases in which no attorney for the Commonwealth is present at the preliminary hearing, the attorney for the Commonwealth would not be aware that a case was forwarded to the court of common pleas or was continued. Paragraph (D)(4) remedies this problem by requiring that the issuing authority notify the attorney for the Commonwealth that the defendant failed to appear and indicate on the notice whether the case was forwarded or continued. This paragraph also provides for notice to ''any other designated court official'' to accommodate local administrative practices concerning the processing of court cases forwarded by the district justice.
C. Rule Changes Related to Notice Issues
1. Notice of the Preliminary Hearing: Rules 110, 112, 140, and 9024
In developing the new procedures for handling failures to appear, the Committee was particularly concerned about how to ensure that the defendant receives notice of the preliminary hearing, or notice of the new date and time when a preliminary hearing is continued, and spent a great deal of time working on this issue.
Notice of the date and time of a preliminary hearing, as provided in the present rules, is given to a defendant in one of two ways.3 When a defendant appears for a preliminary arraignment, notice of the date and time for the preliminary hearing is given to the defendant in person. See Rule 140(E)(2). When the case is begun by summons, the summons sets forth the date and time for the preliminary hearing, see Rule 110, and is served by certified mail, return receipt requested, see Rule 112.
(a) Notice In Summons: Rule 112 (Service of Summons: Proof of Service)
The rules do not address how a district justice is to determine whether the defendant actually received a summons that was mailed, and the Committee agreed that the rules should provide guidance in this area. In deciding how to best accomplish this, we looked to the Rules of Civil Procedure to see how this matter was handled in civil cases. Pa.R.Civ.P. 405 (Return of Service) provides, inter alia, that proof of service by mail
shall include a return receipt signed by the defendant or, if the defendant has refused to accept mail service and the plaintiff thereafter has served the defendant by ordinary mail,
(1) the returned letter with the notation that the defendant refused to accept delivery, and
(2) an affidavit that the letter was mailed by ordinary mail and was not returned within fifteen days after mailing.
The Committee agreed that a provision comparable to this, but modified for criminal practice, would allay the members' concerns about service by mail, and propose the following amendments to Rule 112 (Service of Summons):
1. The title would be amended to include ''proof of service.''
2. The present text of the rule would become paragraph (A), and would be amended to require service of the summons by both first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested.
3. New paragraph (B), modeled on the procedures in Civil Rule 405(c), sets forth what constitutes proof of service of a summons by mail.
(b) Oral and Written Notice at Preliminary Arraignment: Rule 140 (Preliminary Arraignment)
The Committee is proposing amendments to Rule 140 which require that the notice of the preliminary hearing is to be given to the defendant at the preliminary arraignment both orally and in writing. We agreed that adding the requirement that the notice of the preliminary hearing be in writing would increase the likelihood that a defendant would remember the information he or she received at the preliminary arraignment.
(c) Rule 9024 (Notice of Court Proceeding(s) Requiring Defendant's Presence)
Recognizing that the requirements for notice in Rule 9024 are different from the proposed requirements in Rules 110, 112, and 140 for notice of the preliminary hearing, the Committee agreed that Rule 9024 should be amended to make it clear that Rule 9024 does not apply to notice of preliminary hearings.
2. Notice of Consequences of Failing to Appear for Preliminary Hearing: Rules 110 and 140
The Committee agreed that, with the implementation of the new procedure under Rule 143(D), it is essential that a defendant receives notice of the consequences of his or her failure to appear for the preliminary hearing. We also agreed that notice of the consequences should be given to the defendant when the defendant receives notice of the preliminary hearing. To accomplish this, we are proposing that Rule 140(E)(2) be amended to require that the issuing authority give notice to the defendant that:
failure to appear for the preliminary hearing will result in the case being forwarded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings, unless, within 10 days after the date scheduled for the preliminary hearing, the defendant provides the issuing authority with good cause explaining his or her failure to appear. Paragraph (E)(2)(b).
Rule 110 would require that the summons include the same language. See Rule 110(B)(3).
4. Notice of Continuance: Rule 142 (Continuance of A Preliminary Hearing)
Another notice issue arises when a preliminary hearing is continued. Our review of Rule 142 revealed that the rule does not provide for notice of the new date and time set for the preliminary hearing, a procedural gap the Committee agreed should be filled. Therefore, we are proposing that Rule 142 be amended to require that the issuing authority give written notice of the new date and time to the defendant, or to defendant's attorney of record, and to the attorney for the Commonwealth. See Rule 142(B)(1). In addition, the rule requires that service of the notice on the defendant either be given in person or by both first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested. See Paragraph (B)(2). Finally, paragraph (B)(3), modeled on the Rule 9024 provisions for service on counsel, provides for service on the defendant's attorney and on the attorney for the Commonwealth either by personal delivery or by leaving a copy for or mailing a copy to the attorney at the attorney's office.
The Comment, based on the provisions in Rule 112(B), explains that, when the notice of the continuance is mailed to the defendant, proof of service by mail includes (1) a return receipt signed by the defendant, or, (2) if the certified mail is returned for whatever reason, the returned notice with the notation that the certified mail was undelivered and evidence that the first class mailing of the summons was not returned to the issuing authority within 15 days after mailing.
D. Related Amendments
1. Rules 146, 224, and 225
The procedures in Rule 146 (Return of Transcript and Original Papers), Rule 224 (Withdrawal of Charges by Attorney for the Commonwealth), and Rule 225 (Information: Filing, Contents, Function) are triggered when a defendant is held for court after a preliminary hearing. With the addition of the requirement that the issuing authority forward a case to the court of common pleas for further proceedings when a defendant fails to appear for the preliminary hearing, the Committee agreed that these rules should be amended to include this new provision. Therefore, the phrase ''after a case is forwarded to the court of common pleas when a defendant has failed to appear for the preliminary hearing'' has been added to Rules 146(a), 224(a), and 225(a) after the ''held for court'' language.
In addition to the above changes, Rule 146(b) is being amended to require that, in cases in which the defendant has failed to appear for the preliminary hearing, the issuing authority must transmit the transcript at the same time he or she forwards the case to the court of common pleas for further proceedings.
Finally, Rule 146(a) and the Comment have been amended to reflect that there are rules, other than Rules 26 and 142, which require that certain information be included in the transcript to make a record of the proceedings before the district justice.
2. Rule 231 (Presentation of Information without Preliminary Hearing)
Rule 231 sets forth the procedures for filing an information without a preliminary hearing. Paragraph (a) limits this procedure to cases in which the preliminary hearing can not be held for good cause. Aware that a defendant's failure to appear for a preliminary hearing, without more, has been construed in caselaw as not being sufficient ''good cause'' for filing an information without a preliminary hearing, see Commonwealth v. Costello, 448 A.2d 38 (Pa. Super. 1982), the Committee was concerned that, without some clarification, some judges or district attorneys would interpret this caselaw as preventing a case from moving once it was forwarded to the court of common pleas pursuant to Rule 143(D). We agreed that Rule 231 should be amended to specifically provide that in cases forwarded to the court of common pleas pursuant to Rule 143(D), the attorney for the Commonwealth is permitted to file an information without the preliminary hearing. See Rule 231(c).
E. Cases in the Philadelphia Municipal Court
As the Committee worked on the proposed new procedures for handling cases in which the defendant fails to appear for the preliminary hearing, several members voiced concerns about the impact these changes would have on the Philadelphia Municipal Court. These members pointed out that there are different considerations when the case is in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. Specifically, only cases involving felonies have preliminary hearings in Philadelphia; the Municipal Court is the only court forwarding felony cases to the court of common pleas; and the Municipal Court's administrative and monitoring systems are different and separate from the Statewide district justice computer system. In view of these differences, the Committee was persuaded that, in Philadelphia cases in which a defendant fails to appear for a preliminary hearing, the Philadelphia Municipal Court could continue to proceed under its local practice, including the issuing of bench warrants. We also wanted to give that court the option to proceed under the new procedures in Rule 143(D).
The Committee concluded that the best way to accomplish these changes was to amend Rule 6003 (Procedure in Non-Summary Cases in Municipal Court) to specifically cover both preliminary hearings and cases in which the defendant fails to appear for the preliminary hearing. The new provision would permit Municipal Court judges to continue to issue arrest warrants for a defendant who fails to appear for the preliminary hearing. However, because the scope of Chapter 6000 is limited in present Rule 6000 (Scope of Rules) to Municipal Court cases,4 we were concerned that merely adding the preliminary hearing/failure to appear procedures to Rule 6003 was technically inaccurate. To correct this problem, the Committee is proposing amendments to Rules 6000, 6001, and 6003 which broaden the scope of Chapter 6000 to encompass not only Municipal Court cases, but also the preliminary procedures in cases charging felonies, including preliminary arraignments and preliminary hearings. These amendments also make it clear that, for cases in the Philadelphia Municipal Court, any procedure which is governed by a Statewide Rule of Criminal Procedure but not specifically covered in Chapter 6000 is governed by the relevant Statewide rule. See Rule 6000(b).
The amendments to Rule 6003 provide that the preliminary hearing must be conducted as provided in Rule 141 (Preliminary Hearing), and make it clear that Municipal Court judges may issue warrants for the arrest of a defendant who fails to appear for the preliminary hearing. The Comment explains that, in cases in which the defendant fails to appear for the preliminary hearing, the Municipal Court judge may either continue to follow present Municipal Court practice or follow the new Rule 143(D) procedures. See Rule 6003.E.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 96-802. Filed for public inspection May 17, 1996, 9:00 a.m.] _______
1 In addition, Rule 141 will be amended to make it clear that Rule 141 only applies to the procedures governing the preliminary hearing itself.
2 This prohibition does not apply to cases in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. See Section E below.
3 Although not specifically provided for in either Rule 112 or 140, notice of a preliminary hearing may also be given to a defendant through the defendant's attorney of record. See Rule 143(D)(1)(c).
4 Rule 6001 (Disposition of Criminal Cases--Philadelphia Municipal Court) defines a Municipal Court case as ''any misdemeanor under the Crimes Code or other statutory criminal offense for which no prison term may be imposed or which is punishable by a term of imprisonment of not more than five (5) years, including any indictable offense other than a summary offense, under the Motor Vehicle laws, shall be a Municipal Court case.''
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
