475 Pa. 17 - Commonwealth v. Dixon

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably State v. Falby (1982), Commonwealth v. Travaglia (1983)

47 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

NIX, Justice,

¶1dissenting.

¶2In my judgment, the conclusion reached by the majority is the result of an over-reliance on the sequence of events surrounding the interrogation of the appellant. The ulti*26mate effect of this over-reliance is the exaltation of form over substance. I therefore dissent.

¶3In Commonwealth v. Richman, 458 Pa. 167, 320 A.2d 351 (1974), this Court stated that a valid waiver of Miranda1rights requires the suspect to have an awareness of the general nature of the subject matter giving rise to the interrogation. However, I do not believe that the Richmanreasoning forces the result reached by the majority. My reading of the facts in the instant case leads me to conclude that appellant did have this awareness prior to her actual participation in the custodial interrogation process. The facts show that after appellant was advised of her Miranda rights and signed the waiver form and before she actually responded to custodial interrogation, the police immediately indicated that the questioning would pertain to her son’s death.

¶4A period of approximately ten minutes elapsed before appellant responded and immediately confessed.2 Thus appellant was acutely aware of the subject of the interrogation before and at the time she confessed.

¶5The signing of the waiver form only evidences a suspect’s willingness to participate in the interrogation, however, the actual waiver occurs when the person begins to respond to the police inquiries. At the time appellant responded, she had been given Miranda warnings and knew the subject matter of the inquiry. The fact that the warnings preceded the explanation of the subject of the inquiry, under these facts, is of no moment. I would affirm the judgment.

¶6. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

¶7. The majority does not and this writer need not consider the emotional state of mind of appellant immediately prior to her confession. In any event, it is likely that appellant’s emotional reaction would have been the same even if the police had prefaced the Mirandawarnings by informing appellant that her son was the subject of the interrogation.