Commonwealth v. Stephens

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Stephens

320 A.2d 845, 456 Pa. 370, 1974 Pa. LEXIS 536

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 24, 1974

DocketAppeal, No. 345

StatusPublished

This text of 320 A.2d 845 (Commonwealth v. Stephens) 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. Stephens, 320 A.2d 845, 456 Pa. 370, 1974 Pa. LEXIS 536 (Pa. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The appellant, Michael Stephens, was convicted in a nonjury trial, of larceny. Prior to trial, appellant’s application to suppress evidence was denied. Post-verdict motions were denied and the judgment of sentence was affirmed per curiam on appeal to the Superior Court. Commonwealth v. Stephens, 220 Pa. Superior Ct. 743, 286 A.2d 408 (1971).

The only issue raised is whether the arresting police officer had the constitutionally required probable cause to arrest the appellant. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Pa. Const. art. I, § 8.

Mr. Chief Justice Jones, Mr. Justice Eagen, and Mr. Justice Pomeroy are of the opinion that the order of the Superior Court and the judgment of sentence should be affirmed. Mr. Justice O’Brien, Mr. Justice Roberts, and Mr. Justice Manderino are of the opinion that the order of the Superior Court and the judgment of sentence should be reversed.

The members of this Court being equally divided, the order of the Superior Court and the judgment of sentence of the trial court are not disturbed and remain in effect.

Mr. Justice Nix took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The appellant, Michael Stephens, was convicted in a nonjury trial, of larceny. Prior to trial, appellant’s application to suppress evidence was denied. Post-verdict motions were denied and the judgment of sentence was affirmed per curiam on appeal to the Superior Court. Commonwealth v. Stephens, 220 Pa. Superior Ct. 743, 286 A.2d 408 (1971).

The only issue raised is whether the arresting police officer had the constitutionally required probable cause to arrest the appellant. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Pa. Const. art. I, § 8.

Mr. Chief Justice Jones, Mr. Justice Eagen, and Mr. Justice Pomeroy are of the opinion that the order of the Superior Court and the judgment of sentence should be affirmed. Mr. Justice O’Brien, Mr. Justice Roberts, and Mr. Justice Manderino are of the opinion that the order of the Superior Court and the judgment of sentence should be reversed.

The members of this Court being equally divided, the order of the Superior Court and the judgment of sentence of the trial court are not disturbed and remain in effect.

Mr. Justice Nix took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 A.2d 845, 456 Pa. 370, 1974 Pa. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-stephens-pa-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack