COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT WALKER
No. 1249 WDA 2006 2008 PA Super 182 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/7/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered June 27, 2006,Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County,Criminal Division, at No. 3750 C 04.
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, and SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Appellant, Robert Walker, appeals from the order entered on June 27, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County that denied his omnibus pre-trial motion to dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy. Upon review, we affirm.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Showing posts with label Omnibus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Omnibus. Show all posts
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Superior Court 6/04/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHRISTOPHER M. COLLINS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. CHRISTOPHER M. COLLINS
No. 1437 MDA 2006 2008 PA Super 124 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/4/2008
Appeal from the Order entered July 11, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal at No(s): CP-14-CR-0000635-2006
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, PANELLA, DONOHUE and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
This is an appeal from the order entered by the Honorable Bradley P. Lunsford, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Pennsylvania, granting Appellee’s Omnibus Pre-trial Motion to Suppress Evidence. At issue is whether a police officer’s safety check of passengers in a vehicle parked legally, after sundown, at a roadside location constitutes a mere encounter or an investigative detention. We find that given the totality of the circumstances, there was a mere encounter. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
No. 1437 MDA 2006 2008 PA Super 124 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/4/2008
Appeal from the Order entered July 11, 2006 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal at No(s): CP-14-CR-0000635-2006
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, BENDER, BOWES, GANTMAN, PANELLA, DONOHUE and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
This is an appeal from the order entered by the Honorable Bradley P. Lunsford, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Pennsylvania, granting Appellee’s Omnibus Pre-trial Motion to Suppress Evidence. At issue is whether a police officer’s safety check of passengers in a vehicle parked legally, after sundown, at a roadside location constitutes a mere encounter or an investigative detention. We find that given the totality of the circumstances, there was a mere encounter. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here
Monday, March 3, 2008
Superior Court 3/3/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN PAUL BAKER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. BRIAN PAUL BAKER
No. 2311 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 27 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the Order entered August 24, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-02-CR-0002577 of 2006.
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the Order granting suppression of all evidence derived from the search warrant due to the Commonwealth’s decision not to produce the confidential informant whose information was related in the affidavit of probable cause. After careful review, we reverse.
" If we were to conclude that the instant evidence was sufficient to satisfy the threshold burden articulated in Bonasorte, every suspect subject to a search warrant under analogous circumstances would be able to assert that a controlled buy with a CI never occurred and thereby request production of the CI knowing the Commonwealth’s reluctance to expose its confidential informants, thereby hoping that the Commonwealth either withdraws the charge or suffers suppression so as to protect its witness from possible harm.
As this Court has repeatedly noted, there is an important “public interest in protecting the free flow of information” in furtherance of effective law enforcement. See Bonasorte, supra, 486 A.2d at 1372 (discussing the seminal balancing test of Roviaro v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53 (1957)). Without any good faith basis for believing that the informant’s identity would have been helpful to the defense, there are no grounds for production of the CI. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Appellee had met his burden that the affiant included intentional misstatements in the affidavit of probable cause. "
No. 2311 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 27 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/3/2008
Appeal from the Order entered August 24, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at No. CP-02-CR-0002577 of 2006.
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the Order granting suppression of all evidence derived from the search warrant due to the Commonwealth’s decision not to produce the confidential informant whose information was related in the affidavit of probable cause. After careful review, we reverse.
" If we were to conclude that the instant evidence was sufficient to satisfy the threshold burden articulated in Bonasorte, every suspect subject to a search warrant under analogous circumstances would be able to assert that a controlled buy with a CI never occurred and thereby request production of the CI knowing the Commonwealth’s reluctance to expose its confidential informants, thereby hoping that the Commonwealth either withdraws the charge or suffers suppression so as to protect its witness from possible harm.
As this Court has repeatedly noted, there is an important “public interest in protecting the free flow of information” in furtherance of effective law enforcement. See Bonasorte, supra, 486 A.2d at 1372 (discussing the seminal balancing test of Roviaro v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53 (1957)). Without any good faith basis for believing that the informant’s identity would have been helpful to the defense, there are no grounds for production of the CI. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Appellee had met his burden that the affiant included intentional misstatements in the affidavit of probable cause. "
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Superior Court 2/19/2008 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMEY S. HENRY
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMEY S. HENRY
No. 1449 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 20 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 2/19/2008
Appeal from the Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-65-CR-0005210-2006
Before: PANELLA, SHOGAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
The Commonwealth appeals as of right from the August 1, 2007, Order granting Jamey S. Henry’s omnibus pre-trial suppression motion
No. 1449 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 20 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 2/19/2008
Appeal from the Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-65-CR-0005210-2006
Before: PANELLA, SHOGAN and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
The Commonwealth appeals as of right from the August 1, 2007, Order granting Jamey S. Henry’s omnibus pre-trial suppression motion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
