Commonwealth v. Baird

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered whether notice of a criminal proceeding provided to defense counsel constitutes reasonable notice to the defendant for purposes of determining unavailability under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600. The court held that, absent exceptional circumstances, notice to defense counsel is attributable to the defendant, and affirmed the Superior Court's decision that the period during which the defendant failed to appear was excludable from the Rule 600 calculation. The court also concluded that the Commonwealth's diligence in locating the defendant need not be assessed when the defendant had notice and willfully failed to appear.

Holdings

1. Absent exceptional circumstances, notice to defense counsel constitutes reasonable notice to the defendant for purposes of determining the defendant's unavailability under Rule 600.
2. When a defendant on bail has reasonable notice of a required court appearance and willfully fails to appear, the resulting period of unavailability is excludable under Rule 600, and the Commonwealth need not separately establish due diligence in apprehending the defendant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether notice to defense counsel of a judicial proceeding constitutes reasonable notice to the defendant for purposes of determining the defendant's unavailability under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600.
2. Whether, when defense counsel has notice of a proceeding and the defendant fails to appear, the Commonwealth must establish due diligence in attempting to locate the defendant before the resulting delay may be excluded under Rule 600.

Disposition

affirmed