Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Frankenfield

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 12, 1991No. 1282 and 1283PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM ORDER:

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of the trial court granting appellees’ motion to suppress physical evidence. In order to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a suppression order, the Commonwealth is required to certify in good faith that the suppression order substantially handicaps or terminates the prosecution. See Commonwealth v. Dugger, 506 Pa. 537, 486 A.2d 382 (1985). The Commonwealth’s failure to comply with this requirement subjects the appeal to being quashed. Commonwealth v. Elliott, 376 Pa.Super. 536, 546 A.2d 654 (1988);…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. DuggerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Commonwealth v. ElliottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  3. Commonwealth v. OsteenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. Commonwealth v. ZeitlenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Commonwealth v. CiottoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. JohnsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  2. Commonwealth v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Commonwealth v. KnoeppelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Commonwealth v. ProctorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Commonwealth v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API