Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Boggs

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 4, 1997PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POPOVICH, Judge:

In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether appellant’s incriminating statements made to a police officer posing as an attorney should have been suppressed. Appellant contends that his statements were improperly admitted at trial since he was not advised of his Miranda1 warnings prior to his conversation with the officer, he was deprived of his right to counsel, and the statements were confidential and protected under the attorney-client privilege. We affirm.

Our standard of review in this case is well-settled.

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, our…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Massiah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. McNeil v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Illinois v. PerkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. Commonwealth v. LopezSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. duPontSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Commonwealth v. SantiagoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Commonwealth v. LaneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Commonwealth v. SantiagoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API