[30 Pa.B. 2211]
[Continued from previous Web Page]
CHAPTER 6. TRIAL PROCEDURES IN COURT CASES
PART A. General Provisions Rule 600. Prompt Trial.
* * * * *
Comment * * * * * For purposes of determining the time for commencement of trial, paragraph (C) contains the periods which must be excluded from that calculation. For periods of delay that result from the filing and litigation of omnibus pretrial motions for relief or other motions, see Commonwealth v. Hill and Commonwealth v. Cornell, 736 A.2d 578 (Pa. 1999).
Under paragraph (C)(3)(a), in addition to any other circumstances precluding the availability of the defendant or the defendant's attorney, the defendant should be deemed unavailable for the period of time during which the defendant contested extradition, or a responding jurisdiction delayed or refused to grant extradition; or during which the defendant was physically incapacitated or mentally incompetent to proceed; or during which the defendant was absent under compulsory process requiring his or her appearance elsewhere in connection with other judicial proceedings.
* * * * * Official Note: Rule 600 [Adopted] adopted June 8, 1973, effective prospectively as set forth in paragraphs (A)(1) and (A)(2) of this rule; paragraph (E) amended December 9, 1974, effective immediately; paragraph (E) re-amended June 28, 1976, effective July 1, 1976; amended October 22, 1981, effective January 1, 1982. (The amendment to paragraph (C)(3)(b) excluding defense-requested continuances was specifically made effective as to continuances requested on or after January 1, 1982.) Amended December 31, 1987, effective immediately; amended September 30, 1988, effective immediately; amended September 3, 1993, effective January 1, 1994; Comment revised September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective date extended to April 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective date extended to July 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 600 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Report explaining the September 3, 1993 amendments published with the Court's Order at 23 Pa.B. 4492 (September 25, 1993).
Final Report explaining the September 13, 1995 Comment revision published with Court's Order at 25 Pa.B. 4116 (September 30, 1995).
Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the April 20, 2000 Comment revision concerning Commonwealth v. Hill and Commonwealth v. Cornell published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 2219 (May 6, 2000).
FINAL REPORT26
Proposed New Pa.R.Crim.P. 300,
amendments to Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 21 and 4015, and
the revision of the Comments to Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 25 and 110027
PROCEDURES IN CASES INVOLVING MULTIPLE CHARGES ARISING FROM A SINGLE CRIMINAL EPISODE OCCURRING IN MORE THAN ONE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT On April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Court adopted new Rule of Criminal Procedure 300 (Transfer of Proceedings), amended Rules 21 (Venue) and 4015 (Receipt for Deposit; Return of Deposit), and approved the revision of the Comments to Rules 25 (Objections to Venue) and 1100 (Prompt Trial). These rule changes provide uniform procedures for the institution or transfer of proceedings in cases in which there are multiple charges in more than one judicial district, or multiple charges in more than one magisterial district within one judicial district, arising from a single criminal episode. The new procedures are necessary to implement the holding in Commonwealth v. McPhail, 692 A. 2d 139, 144 (Pa. 1997), that ''the place of trial, whether within or without the county where the alleged crime occurred, is a matter of venue, not jurisdiction,'' and therefore, under 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, when all the charges are within the jurisdiction of a single court, and must be joined in a single trial, the trial in one judicial district of some of the charges arising from a single criminal episode is a bar to the trial in another judicial district of the other charges arising from the same criminal episode.
I. Background
Following the Court's decision in Commonwealth v. McPhail, 692 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1997), the Committee received several inquiries concerning the procedures for handling McPhail-type cases, specifically whether the various judicial districts should be using Rule 312 (Motion for Change of Venue or Change of Venire),28 or some other mechanism to move cases from one judicial district to another for trial. In view of these inquiries, the Committee examined the existing Criminal Rules, and procedures in other jurisdictions governing change of venue and transfer of cases. We first looked at Rule 312, and, noting that the Rule 312 ''change of venue to have a fair trial'' concept has been in the rules since 1964, the consensus was that it would be confusing to the bench and bar to expand Rule 312 to include McPhail procedures. Looking at the rest of the rules, we concluded that the existing rules do not accommodate McPhail-type cases, and, in fact, may cause confusion in a McPhail context. See, e.g., Rule 21, which governs venue between magisterial districts. In view of our conclusions, the Committee agreed that the Criminal Rules should be amended to provide specific procedures addressing McPhail, and that we should approach the issue from the perspective of a transfer of proceedings that would be separate and distinct from a Rule 312 change of venue.
II. Discussion
As we discussed how to address the McPhail situation, the Committee recognized that there are several stages within the process that would be implicated:
(1) cases in which charges have not yet been filed;
(2) cases in which charges have been filed in more than one judicial district, but no preliminary hearing has been held;
(3) cases in which the charges have been filed in more than one judicial district, and the charges have been held for court;
(4) cases in which the charges arose in more than one judicial district, were filed in one judicial district, and it is determined before the preliminary hearing that the charges should have been filed in a different judicial district; and
(5) cases in which the charges arose in more than one judicial district, were filed in one judicial district, and it is determined after the preliminary hearing that the charges should have been filed in a different judicial district.
We also considered that comparable issues could come up in the context of multiple offenses stemming from a single criminal episode arising within one judicial district, but in more than one magisterial district, and that the rules should address this scenario as well. In view of these considerations, the Committee agreed that there should be a new rule, Rule 300, to provide the procedures to govern McPhail-type cases after the charges are held for court, and that Rule 21 should be amended to govern McPhail-type cases prior to the preliminary hearing.
A. Pa.R.Crim.P. 21 (Venue)
One of the Committee's considerations concerning Commonwealth v. McPhail, supra, is that the case alters what has been generally accepted as the scope of venue set forth in Rule 21 (Venue). In view of this consideration, we agreed that cases falling within the parameters of McPhail, that is, cases in which there are multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode that are alleged to have been committed in more than one judicial district, should be included within the exceptions to the general venue rule that ''all criminal proceedings shall be brought before the issuing authority for the magisterial district in which the offense is alleged to have occurred,'' as set forth in new paragraph (A) (Venue). Under paragraph (A)(3), it is expected when the law enforcement officers or the attorneys for the Commonwealth in the respective judicial districts are aware that there are multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode, all the charges should be filed before one issuing authority in any of the judicial districts in which the charges occurred. Similarly, paragraph (A)(2) has been added to recognize, as another exception to the general venue rule, the comparable situation in which there are multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode that occur in more than one magisterial district but within the same judicial district.
The second change to Rule 21 is the addition of paragraph (B) (Transfer of Proceedings). This paragraph establishes the procedures for the transfer of proceedings in McPhail-type cases at any time following the filing of charges, but prior to the completion of the preliminary hearing, and was developed following the Committee's consideration of the publication responses. Although we agreed that it is preferable, in the first instance, if all the charges are filed in one judicial district, or in one magisterial district, the Committee recognized that there will be cases in which the police institute the proceedings, and the attorney(s) for the Commonwealth are not involved in the initial decision about where the charges are filed. In these cases, once the attorney(s) for the Commonwealth becomes aware of the police officers' choice, the Committee agreed that the attorney(s) for the Commonwealth, as part of his or her charging function, should be able to have the case transferred to a different judicial district or magisterial district. Rule 21 therefore includes the procedures to accomplish this transfer.
New paragraph (B)(1) provides for the transfer of the proceedings in the four different situations in which such a transfer would be deemed necessary by the attorney(s) for the Commonwealth:
(1) when the charges are filed in more than one judicial district;
(2) when the charges are filed in one judicial district;
(3) when the charges are filed in more than one magisterial district; or
(4) when the charges are filed in one magisterial district.
For a transfer to occur in cases falling within either (1) or (2), subparagraphs (B)(1)(a)(i) and (ii) require the attorneys for the Commonwealth of the respective judicial districts to file with the issuing authority a written agreement indicating the judicial district and magisterial district to which the case should be transferred. For a transfer to occur in cases falling within either (3) or (4), subparagraphs (B)(1)(b)(i) and (ii) require the attorney for the Commonwealth of the judicial district to select the magisterial district to which the case should be transferred. Paragraph (B)(2) requires the issuing authority promptly to transmit a certified copy of all docket entries, all original papers, a copy of the bail bond and any bail deposits, and a bill for uncollected costs to the issuing authority in the transfer magisterial district.
The Comment has been revised to include a citation to Commonwealth v. McPhail, and to provide guidance concerning in which judicial district or magisterial district the proceedings should be brought. The fourth paragraph explains that the decision should be based upon the convenience to the defendant and witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice. The Comment also includes:
(1) a cross-reference to Rule 25 for the procedures to challenge a Rule 21(B) transfer;
(2) a cross-reference to Rule 151 to make it clear that the attorney for the Commonwealth may withdraw the charges as provided in Rule 151;29 and
(3) a cross-reference to Rule 4015 for the authorization to forward the bail deposit, as well as any bail-related costs.
B. New Rule 300 (Transfer of Proceedings)30
New Rule 300 provides the procedures after the charges are held for court in McPhail-type cases
(1) for transferring proceedings that have been instituted in more than one judicial district to one judicial district; or
(2) for transferring proceedings that have been instituted in one judicial district to another judicial district.
See paragraph (A), which sets forth the scope of Rule 300.
Paragraph (B) sets forth the procedures for determining to which judicial district the proceedings should be transferred. The Committee agreed that, in many cases, the determination of the transfer judicial district will be by agreement of the parties, that is, the defendant and the attorneys for the Commonwealth. In these cases, the parties should prepare a written agreement that is filed in the judicial district(s) in which the charges are pending. See paragraph (B)(1).
The Committee also recognized there may be cases in which the attorneys for the Commonwealth will have reached an agreement without seeking input from the defendant, or the defendant and the attorneys for the Commonwealth will not be able to reach an agreement concerning the judicial district in which the case should be heard. In these cases, paragraph (B)(2) provides that the attorneys for the Commonwealth must file a written agreement with the clerk of courts in the judicial district(s) in which the charges are pending. In addition, the rule requires that the agreement be served on the defendant or defendant's attorney, and that the defendant have an opportunity to object to the transfer or to the judicial district selected for the trial.
Paragraphs (C) and (D) provide that the court must promptly order the transfer of the proceedings. Although the Committee agreed that it is within the attorney for the Commonwealth's charging function to decide in which judicial district the charges should be tried, we were concerned that, without an order from the court, the clerk of courts would not transfer the proceedings. Accordingly, the rule provides for the court's order, but the order is not subject to the discretion of the court.
In cases involving the agreement of the attorneys for the Commonwealth, the court is required to wait ten days before ordering the transfer to allow for the defendant's objection, if any. See paragraph (D)(1). When a defendant files an objection, paragraph (D)(2) requires the court to promptly dispose of the objection, and if the objection is denied, immediately order the transfer.
Once an order transferring a proceeding is issued, paragraph (E) directs the clerk of courts of the transferring judicial district(s) to promptly transmit to the clerk of courts of the transfer judicial district all of the following:
(1) a certified copy of all docket entries;
(2) all the original papers filed in the proceeding in the clerk's judicial district;
(3) a copy of the bail bond and any deposits in satisfaction of a monetary condition of bail; and
(4) a bill of the costs that have accrued but have not been collected prior to transfer.
One issue that caused some difficulties for the Committee relates to bail. Several members were concerned that, although paragraph (E) provides that any bail deposits be transmitted to the transfer judicial district, the defendant could be assessed two sets of bail-related costs if the case is instituted in one judicial district and transferred to another judicial district. Agreeing that the defendant should not be assessed these dual costs, the Committee has included as the last paragraph of the Comment an explanation that bail-related costs collected before a proceeding is transferred are not to remain in the transferring judicial district. A new paragraph also has been added to Rule 4015 (Receipt for Deposit; Return of Deposit) requiring that the deposit and all bail-related costs be forwarded to the transfer judicial district. See Rule 4015(E).
Paragraph (F) sets forth the procedures after the case is transferred, noting that the case is to proceed in the same manner as if the proceeding had been instituted in the transfer judicial district. If the case is transferred before an information has been filed, then the charges are to be joined in the same information. See paragraph (F)(1). If the case is transferred after an information has been filed, then the case is to proceed pursuant to Rule 1127, and the informations should be joined for trial.31 See paragraph (F)(2). Paragraph (F)(3) makes it clear that the results of any pretrial proceedings completed in the transferring judicial district are binding on the transfer judicial district. This point is emphasized in the second to last paragraph of the Comment, with a citation to Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995), concerning the coordinate jurisdiction rule and the law of the case doctrine. The last provision of paragraph (F) directs that costs that have not been collected previously are to be collected in the transfer judicial district.
Finally, when the defendant in the case is in custody in a transferring judicial district, paragraph (G) requires that the order transferring the case include a provision for the delivery of the defendant to the custody of the sheriff of the transfer judicial district.
The Committee has included an extensive Comment as an aid to the bench, bar, clerks of courts, and police officers in applying the new procedures. The first three paragraphs of the Comment explain the need for the new rule, and the inter-relationship between Rule 21 and Rule 300. The first paragraph of the Comment also cautions police officers and prosecutors to be vigilant about instituting proceedings and proceeding to trial in cases in which there are multi-judicial district charges arising from a single criminal episode.
The Comment explains that, in determining the judicial district to which the proceedings are to be transferred, ''the parties must consider in which judicial district it would be in the interests of justice to have the case proceed, based upon the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.'' It is further explained that the decision to transfer should be made at the earliest possible time, so that as many of the pretrial proceedings as possible may be conducted in the transfer judicial district. The Comment also explains that the ''court,'' upon receiving an agreement, is to issue a transfer order. ''Court'' is defined as including the president judge, or the judge assigned to handle miscellaneous motions, or the judge assigned to handle the case, whichever applies in the given judicial district.
Lastly, the Comment includes the following cross-references:
(1) Rule 21(A) concerning venue between magisterial districts;
(2) Rules 105, 228, and 1127 concerning joinder of offenses;32
(3) Rule 313 concerning nolle prosequi33 to make it clear that the attorney for the Commonwealth may proceed pursuant to Rule 313 rather than Rule 300;
(4) Rule 4015 for the procedures to forward the bail deposit, and any bail-related costs to the transfer judicial district; and
(5) Rule 9022 (Filing),34 which requires the clerk of courts to docket the agreement and promptly transmit it to such persons as may be designated by the court, to ensure that the clerks of courts understand that Rule 9022 applies in Rule 300 cases.
C. Additional Correlative Changes
(1) Rule 25 (Objections to Venue)
When the Committee agreed that Rule 300(B)(2) should include a provision for the defendant to object to the transfer of the proceedings, we also considered whether it was necessary to include a comparable provision in Rule 21(B). We concluded that this was unnecessary in view of Rule 25. However, some members were concerned, because Rule 25 had been adopted before the addition of the Rule 21(B) transfer provisions, there might be some confusion about the applicability of Rule 25 to a Rule 21(B) transfer. To reduce the likelihood of such confusion, the Committee has added a clarifying statement to the Rule 25 Comment.
(2) Rule 1100 (Prompt Trial)
The final consideration for the Committee concerned the impact of the McPhail procedures on Rule 1100. The Committee noted that, although a defendant's objection to a McPhail transfer is a pretrial motion, these challenges are unique from other omnibus pretrial motions in that the determination of the issue may result in changing the county of prosecution. The members agreed that this unique posture provided justification for different treatment of these challenges within the context of Rule 1100. However, because there continue to be problems with these cases, suggesting a continuing need for rules to provide guidance to the bench and bar about how to proceed, the Committee agreed that we should undertake an in depth review of Rule 1100. Rather than delay the McPhail proposal, we agreed to consider Rule 1100 separately. In the interim, the Committee has included in the Rule 1100 Comment the following cross-reference to recent cases that address pretrial motions in the context of Rule 1100:
For periods of delay that result from the filing and litigation of omnibus pretrial motions for relief or other motions, see Commonwealth v. Hill and Commonwealth v. Cornell, 736 A.2d 578 (Pa. 1999).
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 00-734. Filed for public inspection May 5, 2000, 9:00 a.m.] _______
26 The Committee's Final Reports should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the Committee's explanatory Final Reports.
27 New Rule 300 will be renumbered Rule 555 and placed in new Part (D)(1) (Transfer of Multi-Venue Cases), Rule 21 will be renumbered Rule 130, Rule 25 will be renumbered Rule 134, Rule 1100 will be renumbered Rule 600, and Rule 4015 will be renumbered Rule 535, all as part of the renumbering and reorganization of the Rules of Criminal Procedure that the Court adopted on March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.
28 Rule 312 will be renumbered Rule 584 as part of the renumbering and reorganization of the Rules of Criminal Procedure the Court adopted on March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.
29 Rule 151 will be renumbered Rule 551 as part of the renumbering and reorganization of the Rules of Criminal Procedure the Court adopted on March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.
30 The Committee recommended numbering the new rule Rule 300, both because the number is available within Chapter 300 (Pretrial Procedures), and because these transfers could occur at any time after a case is held for court and before any of the other pretrial procedures take place. For the same reasons, Rule 300 will be in a separate part within the reorganization, new Part (D)(1) (Transfer of Multi-Venue Cases), and renumbered Rule 555.
31 Rule 1127 will be renumbered Rule 582 as part of the renumbering and reorganization of the Rules of Criminal Procedure the Court adopted on March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.
32 Rules 105, 228, and 1127 will be renumbered Rules 505, 563, and 582 respectively as part of the renumbering and reorganization of the Rules of Criminal Procedure that the Court adopted on March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.
33 Rule 313 will be renumbered Rule 585 as part of the renumbering and reorganization of the Rules of Criminal Procedure that the Court adopted on March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.
34 Rule 9022 will be renumbered Rule 576 as part of the renumbering and reorganization of the Rules of Criminal Procedure that the Court adopted on March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.
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.
