Opinion

Commonwealth v. Bruno

  • 435 Pa. 200
  • 255 A.2d 519
  • 1969 Pa. LEXIS 710
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jun 27, 1969
Status
Published
Author
Cohen
On the bench
O'Beien, Bell, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy
Cited by
23 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.3%

concluding in pre-Barker case without discussion of threshold factor that “the federal constitutional guarantee of a speedy criminal trial does not require that an incompetent accused be tried”

How later courts described this case

  • concluding in pre-Barker case without discussion of threshold factor that “the federal constitutional guarantee of a speedy criminal trial does not require that an incompetent accused be tried”
  • "Appellant also submits that his commitment to Farview State Hospital for an indefinite period violates his constitutional right to a 'speedy trial.’ All the authorities our research has uncovered indicate that the federal constitutional guarantee of a speedy criminal trial does not require that an incompetent accused be tried.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Dissenting Opinion by

Mb. Justice Cohen:

When an accused is adjudged incompetent a procedure should be established whereby the incompetent defendant might demand a speedy trial as required by both Federal and State Constitutions.

I recognize that this may require the appointment of a guardian to act on behalf of the incompetent defendant and the establishment of procedures so that the decision to stand trial can be made intelligently, either by the incompetent defendant or some one acting on his behalf. The Commonwealth, when proper *214 ly requested, should not be permitted to refuse to proceed with trial because of a defendant’s incompetency and thereby deny defendant a right that is constitutionally guaranteed.

Just as in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S. Ct. 1045 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1966), where it was indicated that the juvenile “receives the worst of both worlds: that he gets neither the protections accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment, postulated for children”; so, the incompetent receives neither the constitutional protections due him nor proper, confinement. I would use this litigation as a vehicle to enunciate the constitutional rights of incompetent defendants.

I dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.