Commonwealth v. Lukach, J.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Lukach, J.

170 A.3d 1064

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 22, 2017

Docket313 MAL 2017 (Granted)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 A.3d 1064 (Commonwealth v. Lukach, J.) 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. Lukach, J., 170 A.3d 1064 (Pa. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

a. As a matter of first impression, did the Pennsylvania Superior Court err in holding that a suspect that is subject to custodial interrogation clearly and unambiguously invokes his right to remain silent under the standard articulated in Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct. 2250 (2010), where he makes a statement that he does not wish to talk, but, qualifies that statement with a statement of “I don’t know” and a general assertion of innocence?

b. Did the Pennsylvania Superior Court commit an error of law when it applied the wrong legal standard in affirming suppression of the physical evidence found as the “fruits” of [rjespondent’s confession where there was only a violation of the prophylactic rules of Miranda and the confession was not a product of coercion?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

a. As a matter of first impression, did the Pennsylvania Superior Court err in holding that a suspect that is subject to custodial interrogation clearly and unambiguously invokes his right to remain silent under the standard articulated in Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct. 2250 (2010), where he makes a statement that he does not wish to talk, but, qualifies that statement with a statement of “I don’t know” and a general assertion of innocence?

b. Did the Pennsylvania Superior Court commit an error of law when it applied the wrong legal standard in affirming suppression of the physical evidence found as the “fruits” of [rjespondent’s confession where there was only a violation of the prophylactic rules of Miranda and the confession was not a product of coercion?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.3d 1064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-lukach-j-pa-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack