Opinion
CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET NO. 522
08-03-2020
IN RE: ORDER AMENDING RULES 115 AND 1012 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 2020, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal not having been published before adoption in the interests of justice and efficient administration, 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 Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 115 and 1012 are amended, in the attached form.
This ORDER shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective October 1, 2020. Additions to the rules are shown in bold and are underlined. Deletions from the rules are shown in bold and brackets.
FINAL REPORT
The Committee's Final Reports should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also, note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the Committee's explanatory Final Reports.
Amendments to Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 115 and 1012
REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPTS
On August 3, 2020, effective October 1, 2020, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Court amended Rules 115 (Recording and Transcribing Court Proceedings) and 1012 (Recording and Transcribing Municipal Court Proceedings; Admissibility of Testimony at Trial De Novo) to correct the reference to the procedures for requesting transcripts that are now contained in Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 4007.
On August 12, 2016, the Uniform Rules Governing Court Reporting and Transcripts contained in the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration, Pa.Rs.J.A. 4001-4016 were amended. The Committee identified two Rules of Criminal Procedure that were impacted by these amendments. Foremost was Rule 115(B), which provides for the motions to transcribe court proceedings and has been superseded by Pa.R.J.A. 4007 (Requests for Transcripts).
Rule 115 (originally Rule 9030) was promulgated in 1981, following the repeal, under JARA, of statutory provisions regarding the transcribing of court proceedings. The stated purpose of the rule was to provide a mechanism for recording, transcription, and correction at the trial court level "before or in the absence of an appeal, and to control the amount of transcription in criminal cases." The concern at the time was that the Appellate Rules provided only for the transcription of testimony for appeal.
See 11 Pa.B. 396 (January 24, 1981). --------
With the amendment to Pa.R.J.A. 4007, there is no longer a requirement for a formal motion to request a transcript but rather the request procedure contained in Pa.R.J.A. 4007 would apply. Therefore, paragraph (B) of Rule 115 has been amended to reflect this change. Additionally, the language in the Comment to Rule 115 regarding the use of the terms "record" and "transcript" has been modified for consistency.
Paragraph (C) of Rule 115 permitted correction or modification of the record prior to appeal, as provided by Pa.R.A.P. 1926. Effective October 1, 2019, Pa.R.A.P. 1922(c) was amended to allow the court and the parties to correct or supplement the transcript after an appeal has been taken. Accordingly, Rule 115(C) has been amended to permit correction of transcripts pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1922(c), together with permitted correction or modification of the record pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1926, prior to appeal. Additional revisions have also been incorporated to add consistency and improve the readability of the rules.
The other Rule of Criminal Procedure implicated was Rule 1012 that governs transcripts in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. Rule 1012 provides that Rule 115 shall apply to the recording and transcribing of Municipal Court case proceedings. Since Rule 115(A), regarding recording of proceedings, remains unchanged, the Committee concluded that the cross-reference to that rule should remain in Rule 1012. An additional cross-reference to Pa.R.J.A. 4007 has been added to Rule 1012 to direct readers to the procedures for requesting transcripts. RULE 115. RECORDING AND TRANSCRIBING COURT PROCEEDINGS. (A) In court cases, after a defendant has been held for court, proceedings in open court shall be recorded. (B) [Upon the motion of any party, upon its own motion, or as required by law, the court shall determine and designate those portions of the record, if any, that are to be transcribed.] The transcript shall be requested in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 4007. (C) At any time before an appeal is taken the [court may correct or modify the record] transcript may be corrected , and the record may be corrected or modified, in the same manner as is provided by Rule s 1922(c) and 1926 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
COMMENT: Some form of record or transcript is necessary to permit meaningful consideration of claims of error and an adequate effective appellate review. See, e.g., Pa.Rs.A.P. 1922, 1923, 1924; Commonwealth v. Fields, 387 A.2d 83 (Pa. 1978); Commonwealth v. Shields, 383 A.2d 844 (Pa. 1978). No substantive change in law is intended by this rule, rather it is intended to provide a mechanism to insure appropriate recording and transcribing of court proceedings. For repeal of statutory provisions on this subject, see Judiciary Act Repealer Act § 2(a); 42 P.S. §§ 20002(a) (897), (944). The rule is intended also to apply to proceedings that occur after the action that is the functional equivalent of holding a defendant for court in those cases in which it is permissible to proceed without a preliminary hearing and, therefore, without specifically holding the defendant for court. See Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 541, 550(D), 561, 565, 1010. In addition, the rule is intended to apply to de novo proceedings in the common pleas courts on appeals in summary cases. For application of the rule to proceedings in the Philadelphia Municipal Court, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 1012(A). The rule is not intended to preclude adoption of local rules of court providing that arraignment need not be recorded, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 571, nor it is intended to modify any 5 Rules of Criminal Procedure that specifically prohibit the recording or transcribing of all or part of a proceeding. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 313. In addition, the rule is not meant to preclude the use of recording devices for the preservation of testimony under Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 500 and 501. [Paragraph (B) of the rule is intended to authorize courts to require transcription of only such portions of the record, if any, as are needed to review claims of error.] Paragraph (B) is not intended to preclude the court from ordering a transcript in the absence of a request. Paragraph (C) provides a method for correcting [and modifying] transcripts and correcting or modifying the record before appeal by incorporating Pa.R.A.P. 1922(c) and Pa.R.A.P. 1926, which otherwise [applies] apply only after an appeal has been taken. [It is intended that the same standards and procedures apply both before and after appeal.] NOTE: Rule 9030 adopted April 24, 1981, effective July 1, 1981; Comment revised March 22, 1989, effective July 1, 1989; renumbered Rule 115 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001[.] ; amended August 3, 2020, effective October 1, 2020. * * * * * * 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 August 3, 2020 amendment regarding requests for transcripts pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No. 4007 published with the Court's Order at 50 Pa.B. ( , 2020). 6 RULE 1012. RECORDING AND TRANSCRIBING MUNICIPAL COURT PROCEEDINGS; ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONY AT TRIAL DE NOVO. (A) Rule 115 and Pa.R.J.A. No. 4007, relating to the recording and transcribing of court proceedings, shall apply to Municipal Court case proceedings after the preliminary arraignment or, when a defendant appears pursuant to a summons, after the defendant's first appearance. (B) No testimony produced at the Municipal Court trial or at any pretrial hearing in the Municipal Court shall be admissible at the trial de novo except in those cases in which the defendant was represented by counsel and had the opportunity to cross examine, and the witness afterwards dies, or is out of the jurisdiction so that the witness cannot be effectively served with a subpoena, or cannot be found, or becomes incompetent to testify for any legally sufficient reason properly proven. NOTE: Rule 6012 adopted December 30, 1968, effective January 1, 1969; amended April 24, 1981, effective July 1, 1981; renumbered Rule 1012 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001[.] ; amended August 3, 2020, effective October 1, 2020. * * * * * * 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 August 3, 2020 amendment regarding requests for transcripts pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No. 4007 published with the Court's Order at 50 Pa.B. ( , 2020).