Com. v. Williams

• Citation: 455 Pa. 569,319 A.2d 419
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Hugh Sinclair WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 25 March 1974
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 419

319 A.2d 419

455 Pa. 569

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Hugh Sinclair WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 25, 1974.

Rehearing Denied May 30, 1974.

[455 Pa. 570] Thomas B. Rutter, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty., Milton M. Stein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., James T. Ranney, Louis A. Perez, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., David Richman, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

Appellant Hugh Sinclair Williams moved pretrial to suppress oral and written statements implicating him in the murder of a Philadelphia policeman. The motion was denied and a jury found appellant guilty. Post-trial motions were denied and consecutive sentences imposed. ¹ We reverse and remand for a new trial. ²

Police arrested Williams without a warrant on August 29, 1970, at approximately 8:30 p.m. Appellant was taken to the Police Administration Building and questioning began. ³ Initially appellant denied involvement in the murder. At 3:30 a.m., according to the police account, appellant made an incriminating statement.

Nevertheless, the police continued interrogation intermittently for seventeen additional hours as they endeavored to have Williams supplement his original admissions. During this period the police checked the accuracy of appellant's confession. A formal written statement was begun at 8:30 p.m., twenty-four hours after arrest, and signed at 9:55 p.m. Appellant was arraigned at 11:30 p.m.

Williams raises several issues concerning his interrogation and various allegedly erroneous rulings by the trial judge. ⁴ We need address only one: Did the delay between arrest and arraignment violate Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 118? ^*

Rule 118, 19 P.S.Appendix provides, inter alia, that '(w)hen a defendant has been arrested without a warrant, he shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the proper issuing authority where a complaint shall be filed against him.' We have delineated a three-part test to be used when inquiring into an alleged violation of rule 118. The delay must be unnecessary; evidence that is prejudicial must be obtained; and the incriminating evidence must be reasonably related to the delay. Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972); accord, Commonwealth v. Dixon, 454 Pa. 444, 311 A.2d 613 (1973); Commonwealth v. Wayman, 454 Pa. 79, 309 A.2d 784 (1973); Commonwealth v. Dutton, 453 Pa. 547, 307 A.2d 238 (1973); Commonwealth v. Tingle, 451 Pa. 241, 301 A.2d 701 (1973); Commonwealth v. Jones, 449 Pa. 619, 294 A.2d 889 (1972); see Geiger Appeal, 454 Pa. 51, 309 A.2d 559 (1973); Commonwealth v. Peters, 453 Pa. 615, 306 A.2d 901 (1973).

Here, that the evidence obtained during the delay was prejudicial is not questioned. The confession constituted the most telling element of the Commonwealth's case against Williams. Compare Commonwealth v. Futch, supra, at 393--397, 290 A.2d at 419--421.

Furthermore, we conclude that the twenty-seven hour delay in arraigning appellant was unnecessary. This Court has held pre-arraignment delay unnecessary unless required to administratively process an accused. Commonwealth v. Dixon, supra at 447, 311 A.2d at 614; see Commonwealth v. Futch, supra; Commonwealth v. Tingle, supra.

The Commonwealth has not advanced administrative considerations to excuse the twenty-seven hour delay in arraignment. Rather, we are urged to justify this delay on the ground that it was necessary because police needed to corroborate appellant's statement and apprehend other participants in the crime. ⁵

It must be emphasized that prearraignment delay will always be unnecessary unless justified by administrative processing--fingerprinting, photographing, and the like. Here no doubt about probable cause to arrest or to charge existed. We hold that a delay, otherwise 'unnecessary' as this Court has defined that term, may not be excused because police utilize the delay to corroborate an accused's statement.

Rather than making the delay 'necessary' the Commonwealth's corroboration argument supplies the final prerequisite to reversal when rule 118 has been violated, that is, it establishes a reasonable relation of the confession to the delay. ⁶ Here, by the Commonwealth's admission, the delay in arraignment resulted from police desire to corroborate Williams' story. This need to corroborate can only indicate that the interrogating officers were not satisfied with the initial statement given. This lack of satisfaction with the accused's initial admission provides the reasonable relation of the confession to the unnecessary delay. See Commonwealth v. Tingle, supra.

In Tingle, the accused was in police custody for twenty-one and one-half hours prior to arraignment. Six hours after arrest, Tingle gave an incriminating statement. However, the police did not find the statement adequate and thus continued interrogation for an additional fifteen hours. This Court viewed the facts surrounding Tingle's statement and concluded that the confession was related to the unnecessary and prejudicial delay. See id. at 246--247, 301 A.2d at 703--704.

We hold that the unnecessary delay in appellant's arraignment violated rule 118 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The judgment of sentence is reversed and a new trial granted.

JONES, C.J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

EAGEN and POMEROY, JJ., dissent.

1 Sentences imposed upon appellant were life imprisonment for murder, five to ten years imprisonment for assault and battery with intent to murder, and five to ten years imprisonment for possession of explosives.

2 This...