THE COURTS
Title 234--RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
[234 PA. CODE CH. 1]
Order Amending Rule 131; No. 279 Criminal Procedural Rules; Doc. No. 2
[32 Pa.B. 1630] The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee has prepared a Final Report explaining the amendments to Rule of Criminal Procedure 131 (Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority). The amendments provide that the president judge of a judicial district may establish procedures for summary trials to be held a centralized location within the judicial district. The Final Report follows the Court's Order.
Order Per Curiam:
Now, this 12th day of March, 2002, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published before adoption at 30 Pa.B. 1362 (March 11, 2000), and in the Atlantic Reporter (Second Series Advance Sheets, Vol. 745), and a Final Report to be published with this Order:
It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rule of Criminal Procedure 131 is amended in the following form.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. 103(b), and shall be effective July 1, 2002.
Annex A
TITLE 234. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 1. SCOPE OF RULES, CONSTRUCTION AND DEFINITIONS, LOCAL RULES
PART C. Venue, Location, and Recording of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority Rule 131. Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority.
(A) An issuing authority within the magisterial district for which he is elected or appointed shall have jurisdiction and authority at any time other than during his established office hours to receive complaints, issue warrants, hold preliminary arraignments, fix and take bail and issue commitments to jail at his residence within the magisterial district, but all hearings and trials before such issuing authority shall be held publicly at his established office, or at another location, within or without the magisterial district, designated by the [President] president judge, unless an emergency exists or the number of persons lawfully assembled and entitled to be present is too great to be accommodated in such place, in which event the hearing or trial may be adjourned as quickly as may be, to a suitable place, within the magisterial district.
(B) [The] When local conditions require, the [President Judge shall, where local conditions require,] president judge may establish procedures [whereby, in all or certain classes of cases,] for preliminary hearings or summary trials, in all cases or in certain classes of cases, [may] to be held at a central place or places within the [Judicial District] judicial district at certain specified times. The procedures established shall provide either for the transfer of the case or the transfer of the issuing authority to the designated central place as the needs of justice and efficient administration require. [When the defendant or his counsel and the attorney for the Commonwealth agree, the preliminary hearing shall be held at the established office of the issuing authority who received the complaint.]
Comment * * * * * This rule allows the [President Judge] president judge of a [Judicial District] judicial district the discretion to determine what classes of cases require centralized preliminary hearings or summary trials, and requires [him] the president judge, or the president judge's designee, to establish a schedule of central places within the Commonwealth to conduct such hearings or summary trials, and the hours [thereof] for the hearings or trials at the central locations.
Ideally, this rule should minimize the inconvenience to defense counsel and the attorney for the Commonwealth by eliminating the necessity of travel at various unpredictable times to many different locations throughout the [Judicial District] judicial district for the purpose of attending preliminary hearings or summary trials. [However, where it is convenient to hold the preliminary hearing in the magisterial district where the case arose, the rule allows the party to so stipulate.] Finally, this rule allows preliminary hearings or summary trials for jailed defendants to be held at a location close to the place of detention.
Official Note: Formerly Rule 156, paragraph (a) adopted January 16, 1970, effective immediately; [Paragraph] paragraph (a) amended and paragraph (b) adopted November 22, 1971, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 22 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; renumbered Rule 131 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended March 12, 2002, effective July 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the March 12, 2002 amendments concerning centralized courts for summary trials published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 1630 (March 30, 2002).
FINAL REPORT1
Amendments to Pa.R.Crim.P. 131
CENTRALIZED COURTS FOR SUMMARY TRIALS On March 12, 2002, effective July 1, 2002, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Court amended Rule of Criminal Procedure 131 (Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority) to provide that the president judge of a judicial district may establish procedures for summary trials to be held at a centralized location within the judicial district.
As part of its ongoing review of the Criminal Rules, the Committee has been reviewing the provisions of Rule 131.2 In considering correspondence we received concerning another proposal regarding Rule 1313 and the locations from which an issuing authority may conduct business, some members noted that the language in Rule 131(A) and (B) may be perceived as inconsistent, and pointed out that if a district justice has jurisdiction to conduct hearings and summary trials in their regular business office, the same should apply if the president judge has established a centralized court.
After considering this concept, the Committee agreed that the same reasons for creating a centralized court for preliminary hearings applies to summary trials. These reasons include: 1) minimizing the inconvenience to counsel, particularly the public defenders and attorneys for the Commonwealth, by eliminating the travel to many locations throughout the judicial district; and 2) allowing summary trials for imprisoned defendants to be held at a location close to the place of detention.
The Committee published a Report explaining the proposed Rule 131 amendments concerning centralized courts for summary trials.4 We received a number of publication responses from district justices expressing concerns about the propriety of these changes, particularly as it would impact the ''community based'' system of justice the minor courts now provide.
After a reviewing all the responses to the publication concerning centralized courts for summary trials, the Committee reaffirmed its proposal, and its conclusion that the decision whether there should be centralized courts should be left with the president judge who is in the best position to assess the needs of the judicial district. Furthermore, experience with the provision for centralized courts for preliminary hearings has shown that president judges have not exercised their discretion lightly. In view of this, the Committee expects that the president judges, in exercising their discretion under the rule, will weigh the concerns of the district justices and balance them against the need in the judicial district for establishing centralized courts for summary trials. However, sensitive to the concerns of the district justices to the amendments, the Committee, at three subsequent meetings, reexamined the changes and the reasons supporting them. The Committee each time reaffirmed the earlier decision to go forward with the proposal, because the decision whether to have centralized courts should rest with the president judge.
Accordingly, Rule 131(B) has been amended to provide that a president judge, in his or her discretion, may establish centralized courts for summary trials. These changes do not mandate that centralized courts be established for summary trials, but are discretionary, providing each president judge with the option to establish a centralized court for summary trials when the need outweighs the inconvenience to the parties, police, and public.
Paragraph (B) also has been amended by the deletion of the provision for the defendant and the Commonwealth to agree to have the preliminary hearing in the issuing authority's office. The Committee agreed that if the president judge has decided that it is important to set up a central location(s) for preliminary hearings, then the parties should not be able to circumvent that decision, and also concluded that this provision applies to summary trials. The Comment has been revised to conform to this change.
Finally, correlative to these changes, the Comment has been revised to make it clear that the president judge's order moving proceedings could be a standing order rather than being a separate order in each case to accommodate, for example, conducting proceedings in a state prison located in a magisterial district.
______1 The Committee's Final Reports should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the Committee's explanatory Final Reports.
2 The Committee's consideration of Rule 131 took place prior to the April 1, 2001 effective date of the Court's reorganization and renumbering of the Criminal Rules, hence the Reports referenced in this Final Report refer to Rule 22, the former number of Rule 131.
3 See 29 Pa.B. 2664 (May 22, 1999).
4 See 30 Pa.B. 1362 (March 11, 2001).
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 02-488. Filed for public inspection March 29, 2002, 9:00 a.m.]
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.
