 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Bowman12/15/2003
l procedure do not automatically warrant suppression of the evidence," a lesser sanction than dismissal. Id., at 402 (citations omitted).
17 Our courts have regularly refused to dismiss prosecutions and discharge defendants based on technical violations of the criminal procedural rules in the absence of a demonstration of prejudice. See, e.g. Commonwealth v. Anders, 725 A.2d 170 (Pa. 1999) (interpreting former Rule 1405; discharge only where the defendant can demonstrate that the delay in sentencing resulted in prejudice); Commonwealth v. Revtai, 532 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1987) (interpreting former Rule 130(d); no dismissal of charges in the absence of prejudice to the defendant); Commonwealth v. Schimelfenig, 522 A.2d 605 (Pa. Super. 1987), Commonwealth v. Young, 465 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. 1983) (interpreting former Rule 130(a); no discharge where defendant failed to show prejudice by delay in arraignment); Commonwealth v. Tavianini, 462 A.2d 272 (Pa. Super. 1983) (interpreting former Rule 55; dismissal unwarranted for failure to fix trial date within time limitations); Commonwealth v. Lee, 440 A.2d 574 (Pa. Super. 1982) (interpreting former Rule 62; absent showing of prejudice, no dismissal for delay between time of arraignment and trial); Commonwealth v. Andrews, 426 A.2d 1160 (Pa. Super. 1981) (interpreting former Rule 303; no discharge for delay between the filing of information and arraignment absent showing of prejudice); Commonwealth v. Brogan, 411 A.2d 248 (Pa. Super. 1979) (interpreting former Rule 57; absent showing of prejudice, discharge not mandated for delay in setting date for trial); Commonwealth v. DeCosey, 371 A.2d 905 (Pa. Super. 1977) (interpreting former Rule 140(f)(1); discharge not warranted for delay in conducting preliminary hearing where defendant was not incarcerated, failed to timely object and failed to show prejudice). Here, as in the above-listed cases, there was no egregious act of the Commonwealth and Bowman suffered no prejudice from the technical violation of Rule 544(a).
III. CONCLUSION
18 In the instant case, approval of the attorney for the Commonwealth for reinstituting the charges against Bowman is implicit in the presence of counsel at the preliminary hearings. Furthermore, the trial court acted improperly when it dismissed charges against Bowman with prejudice without a showing of demonstrable prejudice against Bowman.
19 Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|