Commonwealth v. Gaul

OPINION

Chief Justice CAPPY*

In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether Appellant Lawrence A. Gaul, Jr., was subject to a custodial interrogation during a police encounter, and, thus, was entitled to Miranda1 warnings. The Superior Court concluded that he was not subject to a custodial interrogation and reversed the trial court’s order suppressing Appellant’s statement. Because we find that the encounter amounted to a custodial interrogation, we reverse the order of the Superior Court and reinstate the order of the trial court suppressing Appellant’s statement.

The facts surrounding the…