holding Commonwealth's appeal from suppression order is proper when Commonwealth certifies in good faith that suppression order substantially handicaps prosecution
How later courts described this case
- holding Commonwealth's appeal from suppression order is proper when Commonwealth certifies in good faith that suppression order substantially handicaps prosecution
- holding an order suppressing evidence is appealable only when it is apparent from the record that the order terminates or substantially handicaps the prosecution
- noting that “the formal purpose of the Superior Court is to maintain and effectuate the decisional law of this [Supreme] Court as faithfully as possible.”
- Commonwealth has an absolute right of appeal to the Superior Court to test the validity of a pretrial suppression order when the Commonwealth certifies in good faith that the suppression order terminates or substantially handicaps its prosecution.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result. The record shows that the suppression of this evidence substantially impaired the Commonwealth’s case. Moreover, the suppression court was wrong in holding that this evidence had to be excluded. Unfortunately, the majority has made the same mistake as Superior Court in dealing, in a massive dictum, with the question of what might happen if it did not plainly appear that the suppression substantially impaired the Commonwealth’s case. Under Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56 , 190 A.2d 304 (1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 910 , 84 S.Ct. 204 , 11 L.Ed.2d 149 (1963), this case is plainly appealable. I would wait to deal with the issue of when the Commonwealth’s appeal from a suppression order is frivolous or insubstantial until that issue is presented by an appellate record and I would further caution Superior Court to do the same.