In re L.J.

• Decision Date: 30 October 2013
• Docket Number: J-71-2013,No. 28 EAP 2010,28 EAP 2010
• Parties: IN THE INTEREST OF: L.J. APPEAL OF L.J.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: L.J.
APPEAL OF L.J.

J-71-2013
No. 28 EAP 2010

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

ARGUED: March 8, 2011
RESUBMITTED: August 19, 2013
DECIDED: October 30, 2013

[MO: Baer, J.]
Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court entered on October 26, 2009 at No. 639 EDA 2008 Affirming the Adjudication Entered on January 25, 2008 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Family Division, at Petition No. 0034807-09, J. No. 343916-03.
DISSENTING OPINION

MR. JUSTICE McCAFFERY

I respectfully dissent from the majority's holding that, in general, a reviewing court considering a challenge to a pretrial ruling should restrict its scope of review to evidence adduced at the suppression hearing. Rather, I would adopt the jurisprudence developed by many federal and state appellate courts and hold that, when reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, an appellate court may rely upon evidence adduced both at a suppression hearing and at trial. Accordingly I would affirm the order of the Superior Court upholding Appellant's adjudication of delinquency. Because the majority remands to the juvenile court for a new suppression hearing, I dissent.

Both federal and state appellate courts frequently cite Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), as seminal authority for an expansive scope of review of the denial of suppression motions. In Carroll, the High Court stated:

Page 2

If the evidence given on the trial was sufficient, as we think it was, to sustain the introduction of the ... evidence, it is immaterial that there was an inadequacy of evidence when application was made for its return. A conviction on adequate and admissible evidence should not be set aside on such a ground. The whole matter was gone into at the trial, so no right of the defendants was infringed.

Id. at 162.

In accord with numerous federal courts that have treated this issue, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has summarized:

We are not restricted to reviewing the record as it stood at the time the district court took its decision on the suppression motion. Relying on Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543, T.D. 3686 (1925), our sister circuits have taken the view that, if facts presented at trial support the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, the appellate court may consider them. See, e.g., United States v. $557,933.89, More or Less, in U.S. Funds, 287 F.3d 66, 83 (2^d Cir. 2002); United States v. Bradford, 78 F.3d 1216, 1222 (7^th Cir. 1996); United States v. Han, 74 F.3d 537, 539 (4^th Cir. 1996); United States v. Villabona-Garnica, 63 F.3d 1051, 1055 (11^th Cir. 1995); United States v. Martin, 982 F.2d 1236, 1241 n.2 (8^th Cir. 1993); United States v. Perkins, 994 F.2d 1184, 1188 (6^th Cir. 1993); United States v. Corral, 970 F.2d 719, 723 (10^th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hicks, 298 U.S. App. D.C. 225, 978 F.2d

...