Commonwealth v. Crenshaw

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Crenshaw

379 A.2d 1305, 475 Pa. 106, 1977 Pa. LEXIS 868

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 7, 1977

Docket274, 413

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 379 A.2d 1305 (Commonwealth v. Crenshaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Crenshaw, 379 A.2d 1305, 475 Pa. 106, 1977 Pa. LEXIS 868 (Pa. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of murder of the third degree, robbery, conspiracy and possession of an instrument of crime in a non-jury trial. The sole issue raised on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the inculpatory statement of appellant, a 17 year old youth, which he gave to the police without being afforded an opportunity to consult with an attorney or other interested adult. The facts disclosed by the record are not in dispute and substantiate this claim. Accordingly, the statement should have been excluded. Commonwealth v. Smith, 472 Pa. 492, 372 A.2d 797 (1977); Commonwealth v. Gaskins, 471 Pa. 238, 369 A.2d 1285 (1977); Commonwealth v. McCutchen, 463 Pa. 90, 343 A.2d 669 (1975).

Judgment of sentence is reversed and a new trial is ordered.

EAGEN, C. J., and POMEROY, J., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of murder of the third degree, robbery, conspiracy and possession of an instrument of crime in a non-jury trial. The sole issue raised on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the inculpatory statement of appellant, a 17 year old youth, which he gave to the police without being afforded an opportunity to consult with an attorney or other interested adult. The facts disclosed by the record are not in dispute and substantiate this claim. Accordingly, the statement should have been excluded. Commonwealth v. Smith, 472 Pa. 492, 372 A.2d 797 (1977); Commonwealth v. Gaskins, 471 Pa. 238, 369 A.2d 1285 (1977); Commonwealth v. McCutchen, 463 Pa. 90, 343 A.2d 669 (1975).

Judgment of sentence is reversed and a new trial is ordered.

EAGEN, C. J., and POMEROY, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

379 A.2d 1305, 475 Pa. 106, 1977 Pa. LEXIS 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-crenshaw-pa-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack