Commonwealth v. Smith, 450 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Commonwealth v. Smith, 450 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
93 citation events (39 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Com. v. Moser, O. (pasuperct, 2025-11-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Moser, O. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2025 · confidence medium
Williams, 312 A.2d at 599-600 (rejecting request for per se prophylactic rule requiring relief whenever Rule 1101 (predecessor to Rule 620) is violated; if other evidence proves waiver was knowing and voluntary, purpose of Rule is served); Smith, 450 A.2d at 974 (written waiver form “must be accorded prima facie validity”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Gregory, R.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · confidence medium
A written colloquy can supplement the oral colloquy, Commonwealth v. Morrison, 878 A.2d 102, 108-09 (Pa. Super. 2005), and the written colloquy “must be accorded prima facie validity,” Commonwealth v. Smith, 450 A.2d 973, 974 (Pa. 1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Tres, D.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · confidence medium
See Commonwealth v. McCauley, 797 A.2d 920, 922 (Pa. Super. 2001) ("where ... a guilty plea colloquy was conducted, during which it J became evident that the defendant understood the nature of the charges against him, the voluntariness of the plea is established"); Commonwealth v. Smith, 450 A.2d 973, 974 (Pa. 1982) (a written colloquy is prima facie evidence that defendant was aware of his rights); Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517 , ·523 (Pa. Super. 2003) C'[a defendant] may not later assert grounds for withdrawing the plea which contradict the statements he made at his plea colloquy");…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Kinsley, J.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · confidence medium
See Commonwealth v. McCauley, 797 A.2d 920, 922 (Pa. Super. 2001) ("where ... a guilty plea colloquy was conducted, during which it became evident that the defendant understood the nature of the charges against him, the voluntariness of the plea is established"); Commonwealth v. Smith, 450 A.2d 973, 974 (Pa. 1982) (a written colloquy is prima facie evidence that defendant was aware of his rights); Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d517, 523 (Pa. Super. 2003) ("[a defendant] may not later assert grounds for 9 withdrawing the plea which contradict the statements he made at his plea colloquy"): Com…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Longo, J. (3×) also: Cited "see"
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2017 · confidence medium
Williams, 312 A.2d at 599-600 (rejecting request for per se prophylactic rule requiring relief whenever Rule 1101 (predecessor to Rule 620) is violated; if other evidence proves waiver was knowing and voluntary, purpose of Rule is served); Smith, 450 A.2d at 974 (written waiver form “must be accorded prima facie validity”). -7- J.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Michaud (3×) also: Cited "see"
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams, 312 A.2d at 599-600 (rejecting request for per se prophylactic rule requiring relief whenever Rule 1101 (predecessor to Rule 620) is violated; if other evidence proves waiver was knowing and voluntary, purpose of Rule is served); Smith, 450 A.2d at 974 (written waiver form “must be accorded pri-ma facie validity”).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Mallory (3×) also: Cited "see"
Pa. · 2008 · confidence medium
Williams, 312 A.2d at 599-600 (rejecting request for per se prophylactic rule requiring relief whenever Rule 1101 (predecessor to Rule 620) is violated; if other evidence proves waiver was knowing and voluntary, purpose of Rule is served); Smith, 450 A.2d at 974 (written waiver form “must be accorded prima facie validity”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. O'Donnell
Pa. · 1999 · confidence medium
The Superior Court in DeGeorge had relied on this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Morin, 477 Pa. 80 , 383 A.2d 832 (1978), which held that a reversal and remand for a new trial was the only remedy where the colloquy was inadequate under Rule 1101. 6 This Court in DeGeorge , however, rejected the per se approach mandated by Morin and recognized that later opinions of this Court “permit the consideration of circumstances outside the content of the of-record colloquy in determining the .validity of the waiver.” DeGeorge, 506 Pa. at 448-49 , 485 A.2d at 1091 (citing Commonwealth v. Antho…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Ponder
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1984 · confidence medium
Appellant’s first contention is that his “waiver of jury trial was not a knowing and intelligent waiver of his jury trial rights since at no time was there any mention of how he would participate in the selection of the jury nor was there any mention of his absolute right to challenges for cause or preemptory [sic] challenges.” There is no merit in this argument. 1 In Commonwealth v. Smith, 498 Pa. 661, 663 , 450 A.2d 973, 973-974 (1982), the Supreme Court addressed the adequacy of a jury-trial-waiver colloquy as follows: “Our Rules of Criminal Procedure require a trial judge to ascert…
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. King, V. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2023 · signal: accord · confidence high
“The essential ingredients, basic to the concept of a jury trial, are the requirements that the jury be chosen from members of the community (a jury of one’s peers), that the verdict be unanimous, and that the accused be allowed to participate in the selection of the jury panel.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 454 Pa. 368 , 312 A.2d 597, 600 (Pa. 1973); accord Commonwealth v. Smith, 498 Pa. 661 , 450 A.2d 973, 974 (Pa. 1982).
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Ciuro, J. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2023 · signal: accord · confidence high
“The essential ingredients, basic to the concept of a jury trial, are the requirements that the jury be chosen from members of the community (a jury of one’s peers), that the verdict be unanimous, and that the accused be allowed to participate in the selection of the jury panel.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 454 Pa. 368 , 312 A.2d 597, 600 (Pa. 1973); accord Commonwealth v. Smith, 498 Pa. 661 , 450 A.2d 973, 974 (Pa. 1982).
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Davis, J. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2022 · signal: accord · confidence high
“The essential ingredients, basic to the concept of a jury trial, are the requirements that the jury be chosen from members of the community (a jury of one’s peers), that the verdict be unanimous, and that the accused be allowed to participate in the selection of the jury panel.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 454 Pa. 368 , 312 A.2d 597, 600 (Pa. 1973); accord Commonwealth v. Smith, 498 Pa. 661 , 450 A.2d 973, 974 (Pa. 1982).
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Sutton, D.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 701 (citing Commonwealth v. Smith, 450 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1982) (explaining that, notwithstanding any defect in the oral colloquy, the written colloquy, the validity of which the defendant did not challenge, “reflected the defendant’s full awareness of the essentials of a jury trial”).
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Birdsong (4×)
Pa. · 2011 · signal: accord · confidence high
“The[ ] essential ingredients, basic to the concept of a jury trial, are the requirements that the jury be chosen from members of the community (a jury of one’s peers), that the verdict be unanimous, and that the accused be allowed to participate in the selection of the jury panel.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 454 Pa. 368 , 312 A.2d 597, 600 (1973); accord Commonwealth v. Smith, 498 Pa. 661 , 450 A.2d 973, 974 (1982). * * A waiver colloquy is a procedural device; it is not a constitutional end or a constitutional “right.” Citizens can waive their fundamental rights in the absence of a …
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. DeGeorge (4×)
Pa. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Smith, 498 Pa. 661 , 450 A.2d 973 (1982); cf. Commonwealth v. Schultz, 505 Pa. 188, 194-195 , 477 A.2d 1328, 1331 (1984) (Nix, C.J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198 , 316 A.2d 77 (1974). [5] I concede that Commonwealth v. Morin, 477 Pa. 80 , 383 A.2d 832 (1978), should be overruled.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Rodriguez, L.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Commonwealth v. Bishop, 645 A.2d 274, 277 (Pa. Super. 1994) (noting that it is clear an appellant may not obtain post-conviction relief by claiming that he lied during his waiver colloquy); see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 450 A.2d 973, 974 (Pa. 1982) (noting that a signed jury waiver form -9- J-S74034-16 must be accorded prima facie validity).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Flanagan (4×)
Pa. · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Smith, 498 Pa. 661 , 450 A.2d 973 (on direct appeal, notwithstanding that record colloquy omitted explanation of requirement of jury unanimity and defendant’s right to participate in jury selection, written form signed by defendant included neglected requirements and cured otherwise defective colloquy).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Allen (4×)
Pa. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Commonwealth v. Smith, 498 Pa. 661 , 450 A.2d 973 (1982) (in the context of a direct appeal, notwithstanding that record colloquy omitted an explanation of the requirement of jury unanimity and defendant’s right to participate in jury selection, this Court found that a written form signed by the defendant included the neglected requirements and cured the defective colloquy); Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 498 Pa. 342 , 446 A.2d 591 (1982) (in context of direct appeal, this Court held that knowledge by the defendant of the nature and consequences of a plea of guilty may be found from the t…
examined Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Carson (4×)
Pa. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
Commonwealth v. Williams, 454 Pa. 368 , 312 A.2d 597 (1973); see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 498 Pa. 661 , 450 A.2d 973 (1982); Commonwealth v. Greene, 483 Pa. 195 , 394 A.2d 978 (1978); Commonwealth v. Morin, 477 Pa. 80 , 383 A.2d 832 (1978); Commonwealth v. Boyd, 461 Pa. 17 , 334 A.2d 610 (1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner,
v.
Carl Melvin SMITH, Jr.
74 E.D. Allocatur Docket 1982.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Oct 5, 1982.
450 A.2d 973
1982 Pa. LEXIS 571
Ronald T. Williamson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Norristown, for petitioner., Hubert David Yollin, Abington, for respondent.
O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson.
Cited by 36 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

The Commonwealth seeks allowance of appeal from an order of the Superior Court granting respondent a new trial on burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and related charges. Respondent was found guilty of the charges by a court sitting without a jury. The Superior Court granted relief on the[*663] ground that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to object to a defective jury-trial-waiver colloquy.

Our Rules of Criminal Procedure require a trial judge to ascertain whether a defendant’s waiver of the right to trial by jury “is a knowing and intelligent waiver, and such colloquy shall appear on the record.” Pa.R.Crim.Proc. 1101. For the waiver to be “knowing and intelligent,” the defendant must know “the essential ingredients of a jury trial”—

“the requirements that the jury be chosen from members of the community (a jury of one’s peers), that the verdict be unanimous, and that the accused be allowed to participate in the selection of the jury panel.”

Commonwealth v. Williams, 454 Pa. 368, 373, 312 A.2d 597, 600 (1973).

The record is clear that respondent’s understanding of these “essential ingredients” is not reflected in the on-the-record colloquy mandated by Pa.R.Crim.Proc. 1101. Although the judge explored respondent’s understanding of the fact that “a jury would consist of twelve people who would be selected and sworn from a larger panel of jurors from all over [the county],” he did not explore respondent’s understanding of either the fact that the jury’s verdict would have to be unanimous or the fact that respondent could participate in jury selection.

Despite the deficient colloquy, the record also is clear that, at the close of the colloquy, respondent signed a written form which states that respondent “fully understand^]” the ingredients of a jury trial, including the unanimity and defendant-participation requirements which were not explained in the colloquy. This form was also signed by respondent’s counsel and by the trial judge who had conducted the colloquy.

Although the Superior Court acknowledged that respondent had signed the form reflecting respondent’s full understanding of the right to a jury trial, the Superior Court[*664] felt obliged to order a new trial under this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Morin, 477 Pa. 80, 383 A.2d 832 (1978). There, a new trial was granted on a record that contained nothing other than a colloquy which was manifestly defective under the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.Proc. 1101. Thus “the only conclusion possible [was] that [the defendant’s] previous counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of the validity of the jury trial waiver.” 477 Pa. at 86, 383 A.2d at 832.

Here, although the colloquy did not include an explanation of the unanimity and defendant-participation requirements, the written form signed by respondent, his counsel, and the court states that respondent was indeed fully aware of these requirements. This form must be accorded prima facie validity. Cf. Commonwealth v. Myrick, 468 Pa. 155, 161, 360 A.2d 598, 601 (1976) (either colloquy or signed statement reflecting defendant’s waiver of rights pursuant to Pa.R. Crim.Proc. 1100 “would by themselves be sufficient record indication that the waiver was, prima facie, informed and voluntary”).

From the record, including the brief of respondent filed with the Superior Court, it is clear that respondent has in no respect questioned the validity of the signed waiver form. Therefore, we must conclude on the basis of the present record that respondent was aware of his rights, and that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to defects in the colloquy. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Rice, 456 Pa. 90, 318 A.2d 705 (1974) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue baseless claim). *

Petition for allowance of appeal granted. Order of the Superior Court vacated, 297 Pa.Super. 63, 443 A.2d 299, and record remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*

The Superior Court did not consider other claims in support of a new trial which had been presented by respondent. Thus our disposition does not affect respondent’s right to renew these other claims in further proceedings before the Superior Court.