Com. v. Williams
| Decision Date | 01 December 1975 |
| Citation | 237 Pa.Super. 324,352 A.2d 67 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Mark W. WILLIAMS and Suzanne F. Williams, Appellants. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Waters, Fleer, Cooper & Gallager, Jean B. Green, Donald J. Martin, Norristown, for appellants.
James F. Marsh, Dist. Atty., Stroudsburg, for appellee.
Before WATKINS, President Judge and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.
On September 5, 1974, two search warrants were issued for the search of appellants' home and for the search of the grounds surrounding their home. Pursuant to these warrants, evidence was seized which the Commonwealth proposed to introduce at the trial of appellants. An application to suppress the evidence was filed and on January 10, 1975, a suppression hearing was held. The Commonwealth agreed with appellants' contention that the warrants were defective and consequently the fruits of the search were inadmissible, but nevertheless the lower court denied the motion to suppress. Appellant then petitioned this court for allowance of an appeal from the interlocutory order pursuant to Section 501(b) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act. 1 Such petition was granted and a supersedeas was issued staying the proceedings in the court below.
Appellants contend here, as they did in the court below, that the warrants in question were defective because the supporting affidavits contained no jurat, seal or signature of the issuing authority. Appellants do not claim that the officer was not properly sworn 2 but simply that the failure of the magistrate to note such swearing on the affidavit caused the warrant to be defective. In light of our recent decision in Commonwealth v. McAfee, 230 Pa.Super. 336, 326 A.2d 522 (1974) we must agree. In McAfee, it was assumed that the officer was properly sworn and that, as here, the magistrate merely neglected to note that fact on the face of the warrant affidavit through inadvertence. This inadvertence was held to render the warrant defective. There are no facts or circumstances in the instant case which would call for a different result.
Since the Commonwealth states that in the absence of the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrants in question it would be unable to proceed with its case the appellant must be discharged.
Order of the lower court reversed and appellant discharged.
1 Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, art. V, § 501. 17 P.S. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Angel, 15-1830
...an oath occurred would "render the constitutionally provided safeguard meaningless." Id. at 523 ; see also Commonwealth v. Williams , 237 Pa.Super. 324, 352 A.2d 67, 68 (1975).There is contrary authority. A number of states have declined to hold search warrants defective for lack of oath or......
-
State v. Surowiecki
...240 Mo.App. 1208, 1213, 227 S.W.2d 106 (1950); People v. Coburn, 85 Misc.2d 673, 380 N.Y.S.2d 944 (1976); Commonwealth v. Williams, 237 Pa.Super. 324, 352 A.2d 67 (1975); State v. Cochrane, 84 S.D. 527, 173 N.W.2d 495 (1970); 4 Wharton, Criminal Law & Procedure § In State v. Almori, 3 Conn.......
-
People v. Hentkowski, Docket No. 84210
...v. Flemming, 240 Mo.App. 1208, 1213; 227 S.W.2d 106 (1950); People v. Coburn, 85 Misc.2d 673, 380 N.Y.S.2d 944 (1976); Commonwealth v. Williams, 237 Pa.Super 324; 352 A.2d 67 (1975); State v. Cochrane, 84 S.D. 527; 173 N.W.2d 495 (1970); 4 Wharton, Criminal Law & Procedure Sec. 1551." Surow......
-
State v. Nunn
...that held that a jurat or other written record that an affiant was under oath is constitutionally required. Commonwealth v. Williams, 237 Pa.Super. 324, 352 A.2d 67 (1975); Commonwealth v. McAfee, 230 Pa.Super. 336, 326 A.2d 522 (1974). The Pennsylvania court reasoned that such a requiremen......