Commonwealth v. Baylis

384 A.2d 1185, 477 Pa. 472, 1978 Pa. LEXIS 925

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 23, 1978
• Docket: 400 and 494
• Status: Published

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Arthur Baylis, was convicted by a jury of murder of the third degree, possessing an instrument of crime, and possessing a prohibited offensive weapon. Post-verdict motions were denied, and appellant was sentenced to five-to-twenty years for the murder conviction and one-to-two years on the weapons conviction. This appeal followed.¹

The facts are as follows. On December 6, 1974, Wayne Wingfield, the victim, was shot and killed as he was leaving a State Liquor Store at 46th Street and Lancaster Avenue in Philadelphia. Two of three eyewitnesses identified appellant as the person who shot the victim.

Appellant was arrested some six months later, on June 15, 1975, at 10:30 p. m. Appellant, who was seventeen years old, was taken to the Police Administration Building and was given his constitutional rights, which he waived. However, he was never given the opportunity to consult with an interested adult before waiving his rights. Following the waiver, appellant gave an inculpatory statement.

Appellant raises one issue on this appeal. He argues that the suppression court erred in holding that his confession was admissible. He believes that since he was a minor at the time of interrogation, failure to provide an opportunity for consultation with an interested adult vitiates his waiver of constitutional rights. As an alleged ineffective waiver was involved, appellant claims the statement should have been suppressed on the basis of our decision in Commonwealth v. McCutchen, 463 Pa. 90, 343 A.2d 669 (1975).

We need not, however, reach the merits of appellant’s claim. Pa.R.Crim.P. 323(d) provides:

“The application shall state specifically the evidence sought to be suppressed, the specific constitutional grounds rendering the evidence inadmissible, and shall state with particularity the facts and events in support thereof.” (Emphasis added.)

In appellant’s application to suppress, he argued that his waiver of Miranda rights was ineffective. While he did advance “specific constitutional grounds rendering the evidence inadmissible,” he failed to “state with particularity” the fact that he was a minor who did not have the opportunity for consultation with an interested adult. Further, the suppression motion in this case was filed two months after our decision in McCutchen, yet nowhere in the suppression motion is either the case or its holding cited. Under these circumstances, we believe the issue is waived.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

O’BRIEN, J., files a dissenting opinion in which ROBERTS, J., joins. MANDERINO, J., files a dissenting opinion.

1 . Appellant filed a direct appeal to our court on the homicide conviction. He appealed the weapon’s conviction to Superior Court, which certified that appeal to this court on May 25, 1976.