appellant contended that the trial testimony of two witnesses should have been suppressed as the fruit of a confession held illegal at a pre-trial suppression hearing, and the court held that the issue was waived because appellant did not object at trial to the admission of the testimony of the witnesses.
How later courts described this case
- appellant contended that the trial testimony of two witnesses should have been suppressed as the fruit of a confession held illegal at a pre-trial suppression hearing, and the court held that the issue was waived because appellant did not object at trial to the admission of the testimony of the witnesses.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*560
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted after a trial by jury of murder of the second degree, burglary and robbery. He contends that the trial testimony of two witnesses should have been suppressed as the fruit of a confession held illegal at a pre-trial suppression hearing. Appellant, however, did not object at trial to the admission of the testimony of the witnesses. Consequently, the issue has been waived. See e. g.,
Commonwealth
v.
Sparrow,
471 Pa. 490 , 370 A.2d 712 (1977);
Commonwealth v. Brown,
467 Pa. 512 , 359 A.2d 393 (1976).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.