# Commonwealth v. Tann

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 27, 1983 · 500 Pa. 593

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636307

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Paul TANN, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 27, 1983
- **Citations:** 500 Pa. 593; 459 A.2d 322; 1983 Pa. LEXIS 504
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636307

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that there was improper bolstering when two attorneys for Commonwealth witnesses took the stand and testified that their clients had agreed to tell the truth at trial
- holding no legitimate expectation of privacy in apartment where defendant was only occasional visitor to apartment, had no possessory or proprietary interest in it, and had been present for only 10-15 minutes prior to search
- finding improper bolstering where a Commonwealth witness’s lawyer assured the jury that the -witness had agreed to testify truthfully
- finding improper bolstering where a Commonwealth witness's lawyer assured the jury that the witness had agreed to testify truthfully

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree that appellant is entitled to a new trial on the ground that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the testimony of the attorneys of wit *605 nesses for the Commonwealth regarding their clients’ waivers of the privilege against self incrimination. However, in rejecting appellant’s suppression claim, the majority unnecessarily holds that the challenged evidence was lawfully seized as having been in plain view. Appellant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the home where he was arrested, and thus the search in no respect violated, or could have violated, appellant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. See Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 , 101 S.Ct. 1642 , 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981); Commonwealth v. Stanley, 498 Pa. 326, 339 , 446 A.2d 583, 589 (1982) (Roberts, J., joined by Flaherty, J., concurring).
NIX, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636307. Public record. Not legal advice.