Com. v. Lark

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtBefore NIX; LARSEN; NIX; HUTCHINSON; NIX
Citation477 A.2d 857,505 Pa. 126
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert LARK, Appellant.
Decision Date07 June 1984

Page 857

477 A.2d 857
505 Pa. 126
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Robert LARK, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued April 9, 1984.
Decided June 7, 1984.

Page 858

[505 Pa. 128] William R. Solvibile (Court-appointed), Philadelphia, for appellant.

Robert B. Lawler, Chief, Appeals Div., Steven Cooperstein, Asst. Dist. Attys., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.

OPINION

LARSEN, Justice.

Appellant Robert Lark, was arrested on January 9, 1980, and charged with robbery, theft, assault, recklessly endangering[505 Pa. 129] another person, possessing instruments of crime generally and various other weapons offenses in connection with an armed robbery that took place on December 28, 1979. Appellant's motion to suppress physical evidence that had been discovered at the scene of his arrest, statements that he had made to the police after his arrest, and his identification by the complaining witness, was denied. Appellant was subsequently convicted by a jury of robbery and possessing instruments of crime generally. Post-verdict motions were denied and appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of ten to twenty years for robbery and two and one-half to five years for the

Page 859

weapons offense. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed. Commonwealth v. Lark, --- Pa.Super. ---, 462 A.2d 1329 (1983). We granted appellant's petition for allowance of appeal and we now affirm.

The only issue in this case is whether the lower courts erred in concluding that appellant's oral statements to the police were admissible against him at trial. Our standard for reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress is well-defined.

Our responsibility on review is "to determine whether the record supports the factual findings of the court below and the legitimacy of the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those findings." ... In making this determination, this Court will consider only the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses and so much of the evidence for the defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted.

Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 265, 279, 361 A.2d 282, 290 (1976) (citations omitted).

Viewed in this light, the record reveals the following facts. 1 On the day of his arrest, appellant was wanted by [505 Pa. 130] the police for robbery and murder. Based on an informant's tip that appellant was going to commit another robbery, the police set up a surveillance team around the site of the proposed robbery. Appellant did show up, but before he could be arrested he realized that he was being watched and attempted to flee. After a half-hour long chase appellant entered a private residence and took hostages. He then telephoned an attorney, Lewis Small, who went to the scene and assisted appellant in surrendering. Appellant was taken to an interrogation room in the Police Administration Building where he conferred privately with Mr. Small for approximately twenty minutes. Mr. Small then left, informing the police on his way out that appellant did not wish to make a statement.

Two detectives then went in to obtain standard background information, to inform appellant of the charges against him, 2 and to warn him of his constitutional rights. After reading appellant his rights, the detectives asked appellant seven questions in order to ascertain whether he did, in fact, understand his rights. According to the testimony of Detective Lawrence Gerrard, this questioning of appellant proceeded as follows:

[505 Pa. 131] I asked him first:

"Do you understand that you have a right to keep quiet, and do not have to say anything at all?" He responded, "Sure do." I asked him, "Do you understand that anything you say can and will be used against you?" He responded, "Yes."

I asked him, "Do you want to remain silent?" He responded, "No. I'll talk to you about anything but I ain't talking about any murders."

I asked him, "Do you understand that you have a right to talk with a lawyer

Page 860

before we ask you any questions?" He said, "Yeah."

Number five, "Do you understand that if you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, and you want one, we will not ask you any questions until a lawyer is appointed for you free of charge?" To this he responded, "Yeah."

"Do you want either to talk with a lawyer at this time, or to have a lawyer with you while we ask you questions?" To this he responded, "I already talked to a lawyer and I ain't sure if I'm going to use him or not. He might not be as crack as I thought. I know what I'm doing."

I asked him number seven, "Are you willing to answer questions of your own free will, without force or fear, and without any threats or promises having been made to you?" He responded, "Sure, ask all you want. But I ain't giving no written statement."

After appellant had expressed a willingness to talk, the detectives interviewed him for approximately three and one-half hours, during which time he was twice offered a meal, was allowed to use the restroom facilities and was given water. According to the detectives, a "lengthy and rambling conversation between [the detectives] and [appellant] took place." Appellant bragged continually about "how he would beat every case that ever went through the system. That he had robbed the zoo and successfully beat it in court and he eventually would beat everything here because he quoted Rule 1100 and different court decisions." [505 Pa. 132] During the conversation, appellant admitted committing the robbery which is the subject of this case.

Appellant testified at the suppression hearing that he had been arrested many times before, that he was very familiar with the system, and that he knew how...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • S.J., In Interest of
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 19, 1998
    ...Slaton, 530 Pa. 207, 208, 608 A.2d 5, 5 (1992); Commonwealth v. James, 506 Pa. 526, 533, 486 A.2d 376, 379 (1985); Commonwealth v. Lark, 505 Pa. 126, 129, 477 A.2d 857, 859 In the instant case, the trial court made the following findings of fact. At approximately 6:40 p.m. on March 29, 1994......
  • Commonwealth v. Sierra
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • January 6, 1999
    ...Slaton, 530 Pa. 207, 208, 608 A.2d 5, 5 (1992); Commonwealth v. James, 506 Pa. 526, 533, 486 A.2d 376, 379 (1985); Commonwealth v. Lark, 505 Pa. 126, 129, 477 A.2d 857, 859 In the instant case, the trial court made the following findings of fact, which are uncontested by the parties. Appell......
  • Holloway v. Horn, CIVIL ACTION No. 00-CV-1757, CAPITAL CASE (E.D. Pa. 8/27/2001)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • August 27, 2001
    ...of the evidence for the defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted." Commonwealth v. Lark, 477 A.2d 857, 859 (Pa. 1984) (quoting Commonwealth v. Kichline, 361 A.2d 282, 290 (1976) (citations 73. Detective Gilbert testified that he read the follow......
  • Hall v. Beard
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • October 22, 2014
    ...counsel during custodial interrogations based on Miranda. 467 Pa. at 368–369, 357 A.2d at 137.Petitioner also cited Commonwealth v. Lark, 505 Pa. 126, 477 A.2d 857 (1984), which discussed Miranda rights in the context of a custodial interrogation. The case addressed a defendant's right to r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT