# Commonwealth v. Louden

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 11, 1994 · 536 Pa. 180

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700294

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Larry E. LOUDEN, Appellee; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Helen LOUDEN, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 11, 1994
- **Citations:** 536 Pa. 180; 638 A.2d 953; 1994 Pa. LEXIS 50
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy
- **Cited by:** 20 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/9700294

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5984 and 5985 unconstitutional because they raise subjective fears of child witness above the rights of a defendant to confront his accuser face to face
- applying constitutional standard, ie., reasonable expectation of privacy, to decide whether suppression proper under repealed Section 5721

## Opinion text

FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I dissent from Part A of the opinion of the court which holds that 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5984(a) and 5985(a) are unconstitutional under Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Nix, which I joined, and in my dissenting opinion, joined by the chief justice, in Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 527 Pa. 472, 481-92 , 594 A.2d 281, 285-90 (1991). Furthermore, I believe it is improper to review the constitutionality of a statute which was not implicated in the case, viz. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5985(a), inasmuch as no live closed-circuit testimony was presented at trial. Although the logic seems to apply equally to both statutory provisions, it is unnecessary and improper to address the latter statute, and I believe any statement about it is dictum.
I concur with, and join, Part B of the majority opinion which reverses the trial court’s suppression of the tape-recordings made by Ms. Wolfe. I think the Loudens could have no reasonable expectation that their unreasonably loud conversations and obscene language, clearly audible in their neighbors’ home, would be protected from such interception.
NIX, C.J., joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9700294. Public record. Not legal advice.