THE COURTS
Title 234--RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I. GENERAL
[234 PA. CODE CH. 20]
Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority
[29 Pa.B. 2664]
Introduction The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee is planning to recommend that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania amend Rule of Criminal Procedure 22 (Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority). This amendment would reorganize Rule 22 to clarify the locations from which an issuing authority may conduct business and hold hearings, and make other correlative changes and editorial corrections. This proposal has not been submitted for review by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The following explanatory Report highlights the Committee's considerations in formulating this proposal. Please note that the Committee's 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 explanatory Reports.
The text of the proposed Rule 22 amendment precedes the Report.
We request that interested persons submit suggestions, comments, or objections concerning this proposal to the Committee through counsel, Anne T. Panfil, Chief Staff Counsel, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, P. O. Box 1325, Doylestown, PA 18901 no later than Wednesday, June 23, 1999.
By The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee:
FRANCIS BARRY MACARTHY,
Chair
Annex A
TITLE 234. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I. GENERAL
CHAPTER 20. ISSUING AUTHORITIES: VENUE, LOCATIONS, AND RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS Rule 22. Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority.
[a)] (A) An issuing authority within the magisterial district for which [he] the issuing authority is elected or appointed shall have jurisdiction and authority at [any time other than during his established office hours] all times 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 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], and hold hearings and trials.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (A)(2), all preliminary arraignments shall be held in the issuing authority's established office, a night court, or some other facility designated by the president judge, or the president judge's designee.
(2) Preliminary arraignments may be conducted using advanced communication technology pursuant to Rule 140. The preliminary arraignment in these cases may be conducted from any site designated by the president judge, or the president judge's designee.
(3) All hearings and trials before the issuing authority shall be held publicly at the issuing authority's established office, unless, for reasons of emergency, security, size, or some other justification, the president judge, or the president judge's designee, directs that the hearing or trial be held in another more suitable location within the judicial district.
(4) The issuing authority may receive complaints, issue warrants, fix and take bail, and issue commitments to jail from any location within the judicial district.
[(b) The President Judge] (B) When local conditions require, the president judge shall [, where local conditions require,] establish procedures [whereby, in all or certain classes of cases,] for preliminary hearings in all cases, or in certain classes of cases, [may] to be held at a central place or places within the [Judicial] judicial [District] 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.]
Official Note: Formerly Rule 156, paragraph [(a)] (A) adopted January 16, 1970, effective immediately; [Paragraph] paragraph [(a)] (A) amended and paragraph [(b)] (B) adopted November 22, 1971, effective immediately; renumbered as Rule 22 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended ______, 1999, effective ______, 1999.
Comment: The 1999 amendments to paragraph (A) divided the paragraph into subparagraphs to more clearly distinguish between the locations for the different types of proceedings and business that an issuing authority conducts.
See Rule 140 and Comment for the procedures governing the use of advanced communication technology in preliminary arraignments.
Paragraph [(b)] (B) of this rule is intended to facilitate compliance with the requirement that defendants be represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 US 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999 (1970).
This rule allows the [President] president [Judge] judge of a [Judicial] judicial [District]district the discretion to determine what classes of cases require centralized preliminary hearings, and requires [him] the president judge, or the president judge's designee, to establish a schedule of central places to conduct such hearings and the hours [thereof] for the hearings 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] judicial [District] district for the purpose of attending preliminary hearings. [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 for jailed defendants to be held at a location close to the place of detention.
* * * * * Committee Explanatory Reports
Report explaining the proposed amendments published at 29 Pa.B. 2665 (May 22, 1999).
REPORT
Proposed Amendment of Pa.R.Crim.P. 22
Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority The Committee is proposing a number of changes to Rule 22 (Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority) that update and reorganize the rule, and clarify the locations from which an issuing authority may conduct business and hold hearings and trials.
The Committee undertook a review of the Rule 22 provisions after receiving several inquiries concerning the location of preliminary arraignments in general, and when the preliminary arraignments are conducted using advanced communication technology in particular. Some of the inquiries were triggered by a few newspaper articles reporting on the recent installation of new audio/video equipment in Cumberland County district justices' offices, and in some of their homes, for the purpose of conducting preliminary arraignments.
Looking at Rule 22(A), which provides that issuing authorities 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 . . .''1 (emphasis added), the members discussed the propriety of performing administrative functions or conducting other business in the issuing authorities' homes. Although the members recognized that there may be unusual or emergency circumstances when it might be necessary to conduct business from home, such as for the purpose of issuing a warrant, the consensus was that in most circumstances the issuing authorities should perform administrative functions and conduct business from their official business offices. In view of these considerations, the Committee reasoned that it did not want to prohibit the practice altogether, but that Rule 22 should not encourage it. We concluded, therefore, that Rule 22 should be amended to address these considerations. We also agreed that Rule 22(A) in its present form is confusing and should be revamped to present the various procedures covered by the rule in a more orderly fashion.
Discussion of Amendments
(1) Paragraph (A)
Present paragraph (A) would be amended to make it clear that an issuing authority has jurisdiction and authority at all times to perform the administrative functions listed and to hold hearings and trials. The remainder of the paragraph would be deleted, and the content of the deleted portion would be reorganized into subparagraphs.
Paragraph (A)(1) makes it clear that, unless the issuing authority is using advanced communication technology as provided in (A)(2), the issuing authority is to conduct preliminary arraignments at the issuing authority's established office, or an established night court, or some other judicial facility that may be designated by the president judge, or the president judge's designee.
Paragraph (A)(2) is new, and acknowledges that advanced communication technology may be used to conduct preliminary arraignments pursuant to Rule 140 (Preliminary Arraignment)2 . In these cases, the Committee agreed that, because of the expense of and other considerations related to the installation of the equipment that is needed to use advanced communication technology, the location of the preliminary arraignments conducted using advanced communication technology must be determined by the president judge, or the president judge's designee.
Paragraph (A)(3) establishes the locations for all other hearings and trials, and is taken from the second half of present paragraph (A). Ordinarily, all hearings and trials are to be conducted in the issuing authority's established office. The provision recognizes that there may be reasons to move the hearing or trial to a different location, such as when more security is needed, and in these cases, the president judge, or the president judge's designee, must direct that the hearing or trial be relocated to a more suitable location.
The Committee, in discussing the president judge's responsibility to designate locations for the various hearings, agreed that the president judge could designate another judge or other court official to make these determinations in his or her place. We, therefore, have added ''the president judge's designee'' in paragraphs (A)(1), (2), and (3). We are not making the same recommendation in paragraph (B) because we believe the establishment of central courts should remain with the president judge only.
Paragraph (A)(4) incorporates what was formerly the focus of the first part of paragraph (A), and permits the issuing authority to receive complaints, issue warrants, fix and take bail, and issue commitments to jail from any location within the judicial district. The Committee agreed that the issuing authority could determine the location of these purely administrative functions without the intervention of the president judge.
(2) Paragraph (B)
The wording of paragraph (B) would be tightened up. The only substantive change is the removal 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) as provided in paragraph (B), then the parties should not be able to circumvent that decision.
(3) Correlative and Editorial Changes
As we were working on Rule 22, the Committee agreed that the following correlative and editorial changes should be made.
(a) The Committee agreed that the reference to ''magisterial district'' in the last line of present paragraph (A) concerning the available sites for the relocation of hearings or trials should be changed to ''judicial district'' when the provision is moved to paragraph (A)(3) to provide the president judge, or the president judge's designee, wider latitude in selecting an appropriate relocation site.
(b) The rule has been made gender neutral in conformity with the other Criminal Rules.
(c) The capitalization within the rule has been corrected to align the rule with the other Criminal Rules.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 99-816. Filed for public inspection May 21, 1999, 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.
