Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Stroud

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 26, 1997PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUDOCK, Judge:

In this appeal the Commonwealth asserts the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion to suppress evidence.1 We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

The standard of review employed by an appellate court when reviewing the grant of a suppression motion has been summarized by our Supreme Court:

We begin by noting that where a motion to suppress has been filed, the burden is on the Commonwealth to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence is admissible. Pa. R.Crim.P. 323(h). See Commonwealth v. Iannaccio, 505 Pa. 414, 480 A.2d 966…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania v. LabronSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Commonwealth v. DuggerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Commonwealth v. WhiteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. Commonwealth v. TilghmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Commonwealth v. JeffriesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. LindblomSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  2. Commonwealth v. MyersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Commonwealth v. NobalezSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Commonwealth v. DunlapSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  5. Commonwealth v. MickleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

9 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