Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 8/17/1999

Commonwealth v. Hill

Citations

  • 736 A.2d 578
  • 558 Pa. 238
  • 1999 Pa. LEXIS 2381

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the a defendant is only “unavailable” for purposes of a Rule 600 analysis if the defendant’s pretrial motion “delay[s] the commencement of trial[]”
  • holding that the Commonwealth was duly diligent and the delay in starting trial was beyond the Commonwealth’s control where co-defendant filed “an inordinate number of pretrial motions”
  • holding that the Commonwealth exercised due diligence when it initially scheduled trial within the time requirements of Rule 600, but trial was delayed by actions of the defendant beyond the Commonwealth’s control
  • holding that even where aRule 600 violation has occurred, amotion to dismiss the charges should be denied if the Commonwealth 24 exercised due diligence and the circumstances occasioning the postponement were beyond the control of the Commonwealth
  • concluding that the Commonwealth did not violate Rule 600 where the trial - 10 - J-S53043-15 had been listed well before the run date, and the delay was a result of the defendant’s filing “an inordinate number of pretrial motions.”
  • noting that Rule 600 “was designed to encourage both the prosecution and the judiciary to act promptly in criminal cases and to establish an objective time limit for their guidance”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

45 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

57 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.