Com. v. Cooper
Decision Date | 21 June 1974 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert COOPER, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
The appellant was convicted following a nonjury trial of aggravated robbery, and thereafter sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months to 5 years. In this appeal he alleges that the court denied him his basic constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel when it announced its verdict prior to giving counsel an opportunity to present his closing argument.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the following colloquy took place:
'THE COURT: Any other witnesses?
MR. STANSHINE (defense counsel): No, Your Honor. The defense rests.
Thereafter, defense counsel moved for a mistrial which was denied. The court then vacated its judgment, so as to permit closing argument, noting for the record: (N/T 80)
Argument was heard the following morning; and, thereafter, the appellant was pronounced guilty.
The absolute right to counsel proclaimed in Douglas v. California,372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963), includes the right to have counsel make a closing argument prior to the verdict. This right to summation prior to verdict is a well established legal concept in Pennsylvania which dates back nearly a hundred years. Stewart v. Commonwealth, 117 Pa. 378, 11 A. 370 (1887). United States ex rel. Wilcox v. Pennsylvania, 273 F.Supp. 923, 924 (E.D.Pa.1967), Quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 309 Pa. 515, 521, 164 A. 726, 728 (1933). The right to summation, which is recognized as an essential element of the right to full and effective representation by counsel, Commonwealth v. Gambrell, 450 Pa. 290, 301 A.2d 596 (1973), is equally applicable to nonjury trials, Commonwealth v. McNair, 208 Pa.Super. 369, 222 A.2d 599 (1966), and is recognized, whether the trial is jury or nonjury, as an important substantive right.
However absolute this substantive right may be, it still must be viewed through a glass tempered with the experience of nonjury trials and colored by the facts of the case. Argument in a nonjury case is frequently a right not asserted because of the simplicity of the case or because of the experience and knowledge of the trial judge. Where argument is made it is almost always less formal than in a jury case. It is often in the nature of a discussion with the court rather than one-sided argument.
The case before us shows no intent by the court to foreclose to the appellant his right to be heard by counsel prior to verdict. It indicates at most a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Miranda
...416 A.2d 94 (1979). But see People v. Daniels, 51 Ill.App.3d 545, 548, 9 Ill.Dec. 574, 366 N.E.2d 1085 (1977); Commonwealth v. Cooper, 229 Pa.Super.Ct. 52, 55, 323 A.2d 255 (1974). Unlike such cases as United States v. Spears, 671 F.2d 991, 994-995 (7th Cir.1982), Lee v. State, 175 Ind.App.......
-
U.S. v. Martinez
...has developed with respect to the ability of the court to cure the error when an objection is made. Compare Commonwealth v. Cooper, 229 Pa.Super. 52, 323 A.2d 255 (1974) (finding no error where counsel was allowed to argue after objecting and court remained objective) with M.E.F. v. State, ......
-
State v. Tereau
...argument and, in the other, defendant declined the offer to withdraw the finding and permit closing argument. Commonwealth v. Cooper, 229 Pa.Super. 52, 323 A.2d 255 (1974), and Long v. City of Opelika, 37 Ala.App. 200, 66 So.2d 126, certiorari denied, 259 Ala. 164, 66 So.2d 130 (1953). Reje......