# Commonwealth v. Thompson

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · March 13, 1981 · 285 Pa. Super. 155

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9711517

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. David Charles THOMPSON, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 13, 1981
- **Citations:** 285 Pa. Super. 155; 426 A.2d 1188; 1981 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2294
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Watkins
- **Judges:** Cercone, Watkins, Hoffman
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9711517

## Opinion text

WATKINS, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent.
The majority holds that the court erred in granting the Commonwealth an extension of time in which to bring the defendant to trial finding that the Commonwealth did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it exercised due diligence.
The application for the extension of time, filed by the Commonwealth on July 14, 1975, was timely since the 180 day period mandated by Pa. R. Crim. Pro. 1100, did not expire until July 27, 1975. Commonwealth v. Brown, 251 Pa.Super. 179 , 380 A.2d 436 (1977). I would hold that the Commonwealth had fulfilled its burden of due diligence when it explained that two key Commonwealth witnesses were “unavailable” for the trial due to their presence at the seashore during the summer when they were outside the subpoena power of the court. Therefore, I would hold that the court below acted properly when it granted the Commonwealth the extension of time it had requested.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9711517. Public record. Not legal advice.