Ordinarily offenses or defendants charged in separate indictments or informations will be tried separately. Under the scheme set forth in this rule, it can be assumed that offenses charged in the same indictment or information will be tried together. See Rule 563. Similarly, offenses or defendants will be tried together if written notice is served pursuant to paragraph (B)(1) of this rule. In these situations, the court may order separate trials either when the standards in paragraph (A) are not met or pursuant to Rule 583. Absent joinder in the same indictment or information or absent written notice pursuant to paragraph (B)(1), a motion for consolidation is required under paragraph (B)(2). A party may oppose such a motion either on the ground that the standards in paragraph (A) are not met, or pursuant to Rule 583.
Paragraph (A)(1)(a) is based upon Commonwealth v. Morris, 493 Pa. 164, 425 A.2d 715 (1981). Paragraph (A)(1)(b) is based upon statutory and case law that, ordinarily, if all offenses arising from the same criminal episode or transaction are not tried together, subsequent prosecution on any such offense not already tried may be barred. See the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § § 109—110; Commonwealth v. Campana, 452 Pa. 233, 304 A.2d 432 (1973), vacated and remanded, 414 U. S. 808 (1973), addendum opinion on remand, 455 Pa. 622, 314 A.2d 854 (1974); Commonwealth v. Tarver, 467 Pa. 401, 357 A.2d 539 (1976). The court has also held that a defendant’s failure to move for consolidation does not ordinarily constitute a waiver of an objection to a subsequent, separate trial of any such offense. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Stewart, 493 Pa. 24, 425 A.2d 346 (1981).
See Rule 571 concerning arraignment procedures.
Although most references to indictments and indicting grand juries were deleted from these rules in 1993 since the indicting grand jury was abolished in all counties (see PA. CONST. art. I, § 10 and 42 Pa.C.S. § 8931(b)), the reference was retained in paragraphs (A) and (B) of this rule because there may be some cases still pending that were instituted under the former indicting grand jury rules prior to the abolition of the indicting grand jury in 1993. These references to ‘‘indictment’’ do not apply in the context of an indicting grand jury convened pursuant to the new indicting grand jury procedures adopted in 2012 in which an information would be filed after a grand jury indicts a defendant. See Rules 103 and 556.11.
Rule 1127 adopted December 11, 1981, effective July 1, 1982; amended August 12, 1993, effective September 1, 1993; amended August 14, 1995, effective January 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 582 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002; Comment revised June 21, 2012, effective in 180 days.
Report explaining the August 12, 1993 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 3826 (July 25, 1992).
Final Report explaining the August 14, 1995 changes published with the Court’s Order at 25 Pa.B. 3471 (August 26, 1995).
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 May 10, 2002 amendments to paragraph (B) published with the Court’s Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
Final Report explaining the June 21, 2012 revision of the last paragraph of the Comment concerning the abolition of the indicting grand jury published with the Court’s Order at 42 Pa.B. 4153 (July 7, 2012).
