Commonwealth v. Mitchell
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
SPAETH, Judge:
On appeal from his conviction for theft, appellant claims that the trial judge erred (1) in permitting testimony by the arresting officer that appellant chose to remain silent, and (2) in prohibiting appellant from offering witnesses who would testify that a third party had told them that he, and not appellant, had committed the crime. We reverse on the first ground and therefore do not reach the second.1
*135The arresting officer testified that after giving the Miranda warnings, he questioned appellant as follows:
I then asked him about the burglary at Doctors Brady, Kegel and France…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Griffin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Commonwealth v. HaidemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Commonwealth v. MaloneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Commonwealth v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Commonwealth v. WilliamsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. DiPietroSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Commonwealth v. AyalaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Commonwealth v. ZellnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.