Com. v. Moore

• Decision Date: 28 June 1971
• Citation: 279 A.2d 146,444 Pa. 24
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Nathaniel MOORE, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 146

279 A.2d 146

444 Pa. 24

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Nathaniel MOORE, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 28, 1971.

A. Martin Herring, Rudolph S. Pallastrone, Philadelphia, for appellant

Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., James D. Crawford, Deputy Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY and BARBIERI, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BELL, Chief Justice.

A jury found appellant, Nathaniel Moore, guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Charles Tovsky, the deceased victim, was the proprietor of a grocery store in Philadelphia. At approximately 1:00 P.M. on January 3, 1968, he was robbed by two men, both armed with guns. During the robbery, decedent drew a gun from under the counter, but before he could use it was shot through the head by one of the robbers. He died shortly thereafter as the result of this wound.

The Commonwealth produced two eyewitnesses to the crime, but neither was able to identify appellant. Another Commonwealth witness testified that she had seen the appellant and his confederate receive guns from a man who had allegedly planned the robbery. She further testified that later that day she saw the three men together and the man alleged to have planned the robbery asked appellant what had gone wrong. However, this witness failed to connect this conversation directly to or with the robbery and murder of Tovsky.

In the last analysis, the conviction can be sustained only if defendant's confession was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made and was legally and Constitutionally admissible.

Pursuant to a Federal fugitive-felon warrant, ¹ four FBI agents went to The home of appellant's uncle in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. After announcing their purpose, appellant's uncle gave them permission to search his home. At this point, appellant's uncle told them that appellant was hiding in the basement. Two of the agents entered the basement, guns drawn, and told the appellant to come out. He did not, so the agents searched the basement and finally discovered appellant hiding under a sofa. The agents then searched and handcuffed appellant. They informed him that he was being arrested for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution on a charge of murder, and proceeded to give him the required Miranda warnings.

Appellant was then taken to FBI headquarters in Pittsburgh, where he was detained for an hour while he was being photographed and fingerprinted. He was there given a written form containing a statement of his Constitutional rights, which he signed. Appellant was then removed to the office of the United States Marshal, who took him into custody and gave him a hearing before a United States Commissioner. Finally, appellant was incarcerated as a Federal prisoner in the Allegheny County jail. No interrogation was conducted by any FBI agents at any time.

The next day, appellant was taken into custody and placed under arrest by two Philadelphia detectives, who transferred him to Pittsburgh Police Headquarters. They began to interview appellant at 11:55 A.M. Appellant was informed that he was wanted for the robbery and murder of Charles Tovsky. No questions were asked of appellant until he had been given the requisite Miranda warnings, which procedure took ten full minutes. The warnings and waiver were first read to appellant from the standard police card; the card was then handed to appellant, who first read it to himself, and then read it aloud, and then he signed it on both sides.

The preliminary interrogation lasted only twenty-five minutes, during which time appellant orally gave a full confession of his participation in the robbery and killing. Appellant's verbal confession was then typed; appellant then read it in its entirety and then signed the ten-page original and two carbon copies. Later that evening, appellant was returned to Philadelphia by plane and taken to the Police Administration Building for arraignment.

Appellant subsequently filed a motion to suppress his confession for the reasons: (1) the confession was obtained during a period of unnecessary delay between the time he was arrested and the time he was arraigned, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) and (b); (2) the confession was obtained during a period of unnecessary delay in preliminarily arraigning the appellant before a Justice of the Peace or other Judicial officer in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Act of April 20, 1869, P.L. 1187, Section 1, 53 P.S. § 16300; and (3) the confession was an involuntary statement when viewed in the totality of the circumstances surrounding his interrogation. The motion was dismissed by the Court after a full suppression hearing, during which he was represented by counsel.

Appellant contends that his arrest and interrogation were 'a joint undertaking' of Federal and State authorities so that Federal standards and rules of evidence should apply. He asserts, we repeat, as the relevant Federal standards (1) Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) and (b), which requires that an arrested person be taken before the nearest available Commissioner 'without unnecessary delay' for the purpose of being advised of his Constitutional rights; and (2) the Mallory-McNabb Doctrine, ² which would exclude any confession obtained from an accused during a period of 'unnecessary delay' under the above mentioned Rule 5. Even assuming that Federal standards are applicable, we are unable to find any 'unnecessary delay' in bringing appellant for a hearing before a United States Commissioner. Appellant was arrested at his uncle's home at 12:02 P.M. and brought before a United States Commissioner by 1:12 P.M. Furthermore, appellant was not questioned at any time by the FBI agents concerning his participation in any crime. Under these circumstances, this contention is obviously devoid of any merit.

Alternatively, appellant argues that if Federal standards are inapplicable, his confession should still be excluded as violative of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Act of April 20, 1869, P.L. 1187, Section 1, 53 P.S. § 16300.

Section 1 of the Act of April 20, 1869, supra, provides: 'In all cases of arrest made by any police officer or constable of the city of Philadelphia upon any of the streets or highways of any of the cities of this commonwealth, it shall be the duty of the police officer or constable making such arrest to take the person arrested for a hearing to the office of the alderman or magistrate nearest to the place where said arrest has been made, except when the person shall be arrested for intoxication * * *.' This statute has been interpreted as being designed 'to prevent a...