Commonwealth v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 24 June 1966 |
| Citation | 422 Pa. 134,221 A.2d 115 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Larry Martin FISHER. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
W. Richard Eshelman, Dist. Atty., Reading, for appellant.
Peter F. Cianci, Reading, for appellee.
Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Larry Martin Fisher was arrested in Berks County on the charge of murdering his grandmother. Upon his request and averment of indigency, counsel was appointed by the court to represent him. An action in habeas corpus was instituted which the lower court dismissed. On appeal, we affirmed: Com. ex rel. Fisher v. Stitzel, 418 Pa. 356, 211 A.2d 457 (1965).
After his indictment for the crime of murder, counsel, on Fisher's behalf, filed pre-trial motions in the court below to suppress evidence of certain incriminating statements Fisher had made to the police. From the testimony submitted to these motions, it developed that during the preliminary stages of the then unsolved crime, Fisher orally stated to an investigating police officer, 'I killed my grandmother.' As a result, he was interrogated on two subsequent occasions by the police during which he gave and signed two typed recorded statements admitting having beaten and strangled his grandmother and causing her untimely death.
The lower court ordered the evidence of the two written statements suppressed, but denied the motion to suppress the evidence of the oral admission given, as before related, during the early stages of the investigation. From the court's order, both Fisher and the Commonwealth appealed.
Fisher's appeal was subsequently quashed by this Court. The defendant in a criminal case may not appeal from a pretrial order denying his motion for the suppression of evidence. Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304 (1963).
A motion to quash the Commonwealth's appeal has also been filed. It will be denied. The Commonwealth has the right to appeal from a pre-trial order suppressing evidence where it appears that it will be substantially handicapped in the prosecution of the case, because it cannot present all of its available evidence. Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, supra. See also Commonwealth v. Warfield, 418 Pa. 301, 211 A.2d 452 (1965). However, the order of suppression will be affirmed.
At the time the written statements involved were obtained, Fisher was in the custody of the police and, admittedly, was then the suspected killer. It is also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Deren
... ... appeals from orders suppressing confessions (as distinguished ... from orders suppressing real evidence). Commonwealth v. Rowe, ... 445 Pa. 454, 282 A.2d 319 (1971); Commonwealth v. Taper, 434 ... Pa. 71, 253 A.2d 90 (1969); Commonwealth v. Fisher, 422 Pa ... 134, 221 A.2d 115 (1966); Commonwealth v. Smith, 212 ... Pa.Super. 403, 244 A.2d 787 (1968) (appeal quashed where ... suppressed statement did not amount to a confession). Cf ... Commonwealth v. Whitehouse, 222 Pa.Super. 127, 130, 292 A.2d ... 469, 470 (1972) (allocatur refused, ... ...
-
Com. v. Manduchi
...available evidence: Com. v. Taper, 434 Pa. 71, 253 A.2d 90 (1969); Com. v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304 (1963); Com. v. Fisher, 422 Pa. 134, 136, 221 A.2d 115 (1966).2 The Supreme Court's reversal in Dial only pertained to one (No. 235) of three bills, and therefore, the discussion by ......
-
Commonwealth v. Ware
... ... 216 ... [50 Pa. D. & C.2d 59] ... We therefore must determine whether an order of suppression ... is for this purpose a final or interlocutory order ... While it is true that this order was an appealable one ... (Gaskins Case, 430 Pa. 298, 244 A.2d 662 (1968); ... Commonwealth v. Fisher, 422 Pa. 134, 221 A.2d 115 ... (1966); Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 ... A.2d 304, cert. denied 375 U.S. 910 (1963)), in our judgment ... it is not final within the contemplation of the rule ... restricting the amendment of orders and decrees after the ... term. The Act of June 1, ... ...
-
Com. v. Washington
...the right to counsel at the time the statement was obtained, now covered by Rule 324. The sequel to this litigation, Commonwealth v. Fisher, 422 Pa. 134, 221 A.2d 115 (1966), by its citation of Miranda would indicate that a Rule 324 type claim was involved. It could therefore be argued that......