Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Raab

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 15, 2004Published

1Dissent

*880DISSENTING OPINION BY

JOYCE, J.:

¶ 1 While the Majority has provided a careful analysis and perceptive rationale of position, I must respectfully dissent. In my view, the trial court did not err in admitting Officer Hanusey’s affidavit of probable cause under Pa.R.E. 803(6).

¶ 2 The suppression court admitted the affidavit of probable cause drafted by Officer Hanusey pursuant to the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act. As the Majority correctly notes, the proper basis under which to consider the report’s admissibility is Rule 803(6) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. That Rule…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. DiGiacomoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Commonwealth v. McCloudSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Commonwealth v. RussellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  4. Commonwealth v. SevilleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  5. Commonwealth v. KellySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976

8 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