Commonwealth v. Feflie

While I join the majority’s conclusion that John Hall was not serving as an agent of the Commonwealth when he elicited appellant’s “jailhouse confession” and conveyed it to the authorities, I believe this conclusion resolves the suppression issue and further discussion is unnecessary. See Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 364 Pa.Super. 54, 527 A.2d 148 (1987), allocatur denied, 521 Pa. 611, 557 A.2d 343 (1989). Accordingly, I believe the majority’s citation to Illinois v. Perkins, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2394, 110 L.Ed.2d 243 (1990), is misleading under these facts.

Resolving both the Fifth and Sixth…