Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Kunkel

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 13, 1978No. 793PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SPAETH, Judge:

Appellees were charged with gambling, poolselling, bookmaking, and related offenses. The lower court granted their suppression motion on the basis that the search warrant had been improperly issued. The Commonwealth filed this appeal.

It is settled that the Commonwealth may only appeal from a pre-trial order suppressing evidence if two requirements are satisfied: the appeal must involve a pure question of law, and the suppression must effectively terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution. See Commonwealth v. Barnett, 471 Pa. 34, 369 A.2d 1180 (1977); Commonwealth v.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BosurgiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  2. Commonwealth v. RaySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  3. Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  4. Commonwealth v. DerenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  5. Commonwealth v. TrefrySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. NazarovitchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  2. Commonwealth v. LapiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Commonwealth v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Commonwealth v. MintonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. Commonwealth v. PfenderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980

30 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