Title 234--RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE[234 PA. CODE CH. 20]
; No. 264; Criminal Procedural Rules Doc. No. 2Order Amending Rule 211 [30 Pa.B. 5135] Order Per Curiam:
Now, this 19th day of September, 2000, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been submitted without publication in the interests of justice pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. 103(a)(3), and a Final Report to be published with this Order;
It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rule of Criminal Procedure 21 is amended in the following form.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. 103(b), and shall be effective January 1, 2001.
Annex A TITLE 234. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 20. ISSUING AUTHORITIES: VENUE, LOCATIONS, AND RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS Rule 21. Venue; Transfer of Proceedings.
[(a)] (A) Venue
All criminal proceedings in summary and court cases shall be brought before the issuing authority for the magisterial district in which the offense is alleged to have occurred or before an issuing authority on temporary assignment to serve such magisterial district, subject, however, to the following exceptions:
(1) A criminal proceeding may be brought before any issuing authority of any magisterial district within the judicial district whenever the particular place within the judicial district [where] in which the offense is alleged to have occurred is unknown.
* * * * * (b) Transfer of Proceedings In Court Cases
* * * * * Official Note: Formerly Rule 154, adopted January 16, 1970, effective immediately; section (a)(3) adopted July 1, 1970, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 21 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended July 1, 1980, effective August 1, 1980; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; renumbered Rule 130 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000; amended September 19, 2000, effective January 1, 2001.
Comment * * * * * Paragraph (A)(3), which is an exception to the general rule governing venue, was added in 2000 in view of Commonwealth v. McPhail, 692 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1997), in which the Court held that ''all charges stemming from a single criminal episode'' must be joined in a single trial ''despite the fact that some of the charges arose in a different county.'' Accordingly, when charges arising from a single criminal episode occur in more than one judicial district, the magisterial district in which the proceeding on all the charges is brought, i.e., the one with venue, may be any one of the magisterial districts in which the charges occurred. See Commonwealth v. Geyer, 687 A.2d 815 (Pa. 1996) (the compulsory joinder rule and 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 apply when two or more summary offenses arise from a single criminal episode.)
* * * * * The decision of in which magisterial district in paragraph [(a)] (A)(2) or in which judicial district in paragraph [(a)] (A)(3) the proceedings are to be brought is to be made initially by the law enforcement officers or attorneys for the Commonwealth. In making the decision, the law enforcement officers or attorneys for the Commonwealth must consider in which magisterial district under paragraph [(a)] (A)(2) or in which judicial district under paragraph [(a)] (A)(3) it would be in the interests of justice to have the case proceed, based upon the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.
See Rule 25 (Objections to Venue)2 for the procedures to challenge a transfer of proceedings under this rule.
See Rule 151 for the procedures to withdraw the prosecution.3
See Chapter 4000 concerning bail.4
Committee Explanatory Reports: Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the April 20, 2000 amendments concerning multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 2219 (May 6, 2000).
Final Report explaining the September 19, 2000 amendments clarifying the application of the rule to both summary and court cases published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 5135 (October 7, 2000).
FINAL REPORT5 Proposed amendments to Pa.R.Crim.P. 216
Application of McPhail To Summary Cases7 On September 19, 2000, effective January 1, 2001, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Court amended Rule of Criminal Procedure 21 (Venue; Transfer of Proceedings) to make it clear that the rule applies to both summary and court cases, including those summary cases in which multiple offenses are part of a single criminal episode occurring in more than one judicial district.
I. Background
Shortly after the Court adopted new Rule 300 (Transfer of Proceedings) and the correlative changes to Rules 21, 25 (Objections to Venue), 1100 (Prompt Trial), and 4015 (Receipt for Deposit; Return of Deposit)8 (the ''McPhail Recommendation) on April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000,9 the Committee received an inquiry from the AOPC Judicial Computer Project (JCP) Staff Attorney, David Price, concerning the application of the Rule 21(A) changes to summary cases.10 Mr. Price raised the question because Rule 21 is a rule that only applies to cases before issuing authorities, originally addressed venue between magisterial districts, and on its face, did not limit the applicability of new paragraphs (A)(2) and (3) to court cases. Clarification of this issue was necessary for purposes of the district justice computer system, which is being updated to accommodate the Rule 21 McPhail changes.
II. Discussion
When the original McPhail proposal was developed, the Committee had directed its attention to the narrow question of how to implement McPhail, which involved a court case; the Committee had not considered the procedures in the context of summary cases. After considering the matter in response to the JCP's inquiry, we concluded the Court's reasoning in McPhail seemed equally applicable to summary cases. The Committee based this conclusion on the case law concerning the jurisdiction of the minor judiciary, including Commonwealth v. Geyer, 687 A.2d 815 (Pa. 1996). In Geyer, the Court applied the compulsory joinder rule and 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 to summary offenses, and noted with regard to summary offenses that ''no defendant should be subjected to unnecessary successive prosecutions of any kind. Further, the interests of judicial economy are served by relieving the court system of repetitious litigation of any nature.''
Agreeing that the Rule 21(A) McPhail changes should apply to summary cases, and, that as written, Rule 21 may be ambiguous and confusing for the bench and bar, the Committee considered various means to clarify the rule. The Committee recommended as the simplest solution the following changes that were adopted by the Court:11
(1) the first line of the introductory paragraph in Rule 21(A) has been amended by adding ''in summary and court cases'' after ''All criminal proceedings;''
(2) ''in court cases'' has been added at the end of the title to paragraph (B); and
(3) the following language cross-referencing Commonwealth v. Geyer has been added at the end of the second paragraph of the Comment:
See Commonwealth v. Geyer, 687 A.2d 815 (Pa. 1996) (the compulsory joinder rule and 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 apply when two or more summary offenses arise from a single criminal episode.)
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 00-1714. Filed for public inspection October 6, 2000, 9:00 a.m.] _______
