reiterating the “‘fundamental’” point that “‘an accused must suffer jeopardy before he can suffer double jeopardy’”
How later courts described this case
- reiterating the “‘fundamental’” point that “‘an accused must suffer jeopardy before he can suffer double jeopardy’”
- it is “ ‘fundamental’ ” that “ ‘an accused must suffer jeopardy before he can suffer double jeopardy,’ ” and “ ‘[wjithout risk of a determination of guilt, jeopardy does not attach, and neither an appeal nor further prosecution constitutes double jeopardy.’ ”
- district attorney’s decision not to prosecute case after trial court granted suppression of evidence based on exclusionary rule was not an acquittal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WIEAND, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority’s determination that a Commonwealth nol pros of criminal charges is not an acquittal of the defendant on such charges. See: Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 293 Pa. 218 , 142 A. 213 (1928). For purposes of applying the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, I would agree also with the trial court that the sale of marijuana on March 9, 1987 and the possession of cocaine and marijuana discovered upon execution of a search warrant for appellant’s residence on March 10, 1987 were not part of the same criminal episode.