Commonwealth v. Reis

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Reis

195 A.2d 287, 202 Pa. Super. 159, 1963 Pa. Super. LEXIS 524

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 27, 1963

DocketAppeal, No. 400

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 195 A.2d 287 (Commonwealth v. Reis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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. Reis, 195 A.2d 287, 202 Pa. Super. 159, 1963 Pa. Super. LEXIS 524 (Pa. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal taken by the district attorney from an order entered by the Court of Quarter Sessions of Schuylkill County which dismissed, without prejudice, a petition filed by the defendant to suppress evidence. The court below invited the defendant to raise her objection again at trial of the case.

On August 25, 1960, defendant was indicted by the grand jury on charges of burglary and larceny. The case was attached for trial on September 19, 1961. The jury could not reach a verdict, and on October 18, 1961, it was discharged and a mistrial was declared. At the trial the prosecution introduced in evidence against the defendant, over her objection, incriminatory statements made by two of her alleged confederates in the crime. They were introduced under the doctrine of “admission by silence” or “tacit admissions.” Both statements were read to defendant by police officers after they had taken her into custody. The Commonwealth witnesses testified she made no denial to the incriminatory material in these statements but remained silent.

On December 31, 1962, before the case attached for retrial, defendant filed a petition to suppress the evidence. The evidence sought to be suppressed was the tacit admissions. A motion to dismiss defendant’s petition was filed by the district attorney. A hearing was held on the petition and answer on February 25, [161]*1611963. On September 4, 1963, tbe court below filed an opinion denying the prayer of the petitioner that the evidence be suppressed. Even though the warrant and arrest may have been irregular, a defendant by his acts waives such irregularities by entering bail or recognizance. Com. v. Hill, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 388, 393, 71 A. 2d 812. However, because of the long delay in this case, we have reviewed the principal issue raised in the petition to suppress the evidence and found it without merit. The evidence objected to is admissible. Com. v. Vallone, 347 Pa. 419, 421, 32 A. 2d 889; Com. v. Bolish, 381 Pa. 500, 522, 523, 113 A. 2d 464; Com. ex rel. Stevens v. Myers, 398 Pa. 23, 25, 156 A. 2d 527; Com. v. Johnson, 365 Pa. 303, 318, 74 A. 2d 144.

There being no basis for the suppression of evidence, a retrial should be had without further delay.

The part of the order of the court below denying the petition to suppress the evidence is affirmed. The remainder of the order is reversed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal taken by the district attorney from an order entered by the Court of Quarter Sessions of Schuylkill County which dismissed, without prejudice, a petition filed by the defendant to suppress evidence. The court below invited the defendant to raise her objection again at trial of the case.

On August 25, 1960, defendant was indicted by the grand jury on charges of burglary and larceny. The case was attached for trial on September 19, 1961. The jury could not reach a verdict, and on October 18, 1961, it was discharged and a mistrial was declared. At the trial the prosecution introduced in evidence against the defendant, over her objection, incriminatory statements made by two of her alleged confederates in the crime. They were introduced under the doctrine of “admission by silence” or “tacit admissions.” Both statements were read to defendant by police officers after they had taken her into custody. The Commonwealth witnesses testified she made no denial to the incriminatory material in these statements but remained silent.

On December 31, 1962, before the case attached for retrial, defendant filed a petition to suppress the evidence. The evidence sought to be suppressed was the tacit admissions. A motion to dismiss defendant’s petition was filed by the district attorney. A hearing was held on the petition and answer on February 25, [161]*1611963. On September 4, 1963, tbe court below filed an opinion denying the prayer of the petitioner that the evidence be suppressed. Even though the warrant and arrest may have been irregular, a defendant by his acts waives such irregularities by entering bail or recognizance. Com. v. Hill, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 388, 393, 71 A. 2d 812. However, because of the long delay in this case, we have reviewed the principal issue raised in the petition to suppress the evidence and found it without merit. The evidence objected to is admissible. Com. v. Vallone, 347 Pa. 419, 421, 32 A. 2d 889; Com. v. Bolish, 381 Pa. 500, 522, 523, 113 A. 2d 464; Com. ex rel. Stevens v. Myers, 398 Pa. 23, 25, 156 A. 2d 527; Com. v. Johnson, 365 Pa. 303, 318, 74 A. 2d 144.

There being no basis for the suppression of evidence, a retrial should be had without further delay.

The part of the order of the court below denying the petition to suppress the evidence is affirmed. The remainder of the order is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.2d 287, 202 Pa. Super. 159, 1963 Pa. Super. LEXIS 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-reis-pasuperct-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack