 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Kneer11/17/1999
J. S55012/99
*Petition for Reargument Filed 12/1/1999 *
*Petition for Reargument Denied 1/26/2000 *
The Commonwealth brings this appeal from an order granting Appellee's motions to suppress physical evidence and identification. We affirm.
Appellee was charged with burglary, criminal trespass, loitering or prowling at night, and theft by unlawful taking stemming from events occurring on the campus of Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Appellee filed pre-trial motions seeking to suppress physical evidence and the identification of Appellee by the victim. Following the filing of briefs and a hearing, the trial court granted Appellee's motions to suppress physical evidence and to suppress the identification finding the Commonwealth failed to establish the officers' authority to arrest. This appeal followed.
The Commonwealth presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in raising an issue of proof sua sponte; and (2) whether the trial court committed an error of law in its interpretation and application of Snyder v. Commonwealth, 640 A.2d 490 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).
When the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order, we follow a clearly defined standard of review and consider only the evidence from the defendant's witnesses together with the evidence of the prosecution that, when read in the context of the entire record, remains uncontradicted. Commonwealth v. Pickron, 634 A.2d 1093 (Pa. 1993). The suppression court's findings of fact bind an appellate court if the record supports those findings. Id. The suppression court's conclusions of law, however, are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. See Thatcher's Drug Store of West Goshen, Inc. v. Consolidated Supermarkets, Inc., 636 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1994).
The relevant facts, as summarized by the trial court are as follows:
At approximately 1:45 A.M. on March 8, 1998, Mr. [Jerome] Halluitte was returning to his living quarters, located in Roberts Hall on the Bucknell campus. Halluitte described his room as a "split double," meaning two rooms divided by a connecting door. As he was watching television in his roommates' room, Halluitte heard noises coming from his room. As he opened the connecting door, he observed an individual standing in his room. Halluitte described the individual as a young male, approximately 5'8" or 5'9" tall, wearing a blue knit hat, black hooded sweatshirt, and baggy pants. The individual had sideburns and was poorly shaven. Halluitte testified that he saw the individual for more than one second.
The individual jumped out the window and Halluitte followed. Halluitte noticed another individual running with the suspect. According to Halluitte, neither individual had a skateboard. Unable to overtake the two individuals, Halluitte abandoned the chase and headed to the University's public safety building, where he reported the incident to Sgt. Jonathan Weaver of the Public Safety Office.
Public Safety Officer Donald Wirick testified that while on routine patrol in a University Public Safety Office vehicle he received the report of the burglary in the Roberts Hall suite and also received a description of the alleged perpetrator. Approximately ten minutes later, Wirick observed an individual on a skateboard. According to Wirick, he was struck by the following: 1) the individual had long hair and several days growth of beard; 2) the individual was wearing a wool hat, dark colored top, and baggy pants; 3) the individual did not look like he belonged on Bucknell'
Page 1 2 3 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|