# Commonwealth v. Dugger

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 9, 1985 · 506 Pa. 537

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736144

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Billy G. DUGGER, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 9, 1985
- **Citations:** 506 Pa. 537; 486 A.2d 382; 1985 Pa. LEXIS 281
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hutchinson
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 305 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/9736144

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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.”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9736144. Public record. Not legal advice.