Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Perez

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 26, 2000Published

1DissentJohnson, J.

¶ 11 respectfully dissent from my distinguished colleagues’ Majority Opinion because I conclude that the trial court erred in denying John Perez’s motion to suppress his statement. Currently, the six-hour rule enunciated in Commonwealth v. Davenport, 471 Pa. 278, 370 A.2d 301 (1977), and refined in Commonwealth v. Duncan, 514 Pa. 395, 525 A.2d 1177 (1987), requires the suppression of a statement made by a defendant after arrest and prior to arraignment if the statement is given after the elapse of six hours following arrest. See Commonwealth v. Odrick, 410 Pa.Super. 245, 599 A.2d 974 (1991).…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. DavenportSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Commonwealth v. BridgesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Commonwealth v. DuncanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Commonwealth v. PriceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Commonwealth v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API