Legal Opinion · Dissent

In the Interest of L.J.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 30, 2013Published

1DissentJustice McCAFFERY

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that, in general, a reviewing court considering a challenge to a pretrial ruling should restrict its scope of review to evidence adduced at the suppression hearing. Rather, I would adopt the jurisprudence developed by many federal and state appellate courts and hold that, when reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, an appellate court may rely upon evidence adduced both at a suppression hearing and at trial. Accordingly I would affirm the order of the Superior Court upholding Appellant’s adjudication of delinquency. Because the majority…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. State v. HenningTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
  3. People v. GilliamIllinois Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State v. HuddlestonTennessee Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Commonwealth v. GrandisonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2001

32 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