Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Perez
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided March 24, 2004No. 44 EAP 2001PublishedCited by 67 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice EAKIN.
We are asked to determine whether the Superior Court erred in affirming appellant’s judgment of sentence for robbery and related offenses, when the evidence included an inculpatory statement appellant made more than six hours after his arrest, before he was arraigned. The Superior Court’s application of the “six-hour rule” established by Commonwealth v. Davenport, 471 Pa. 278, 370 A.2d 301 (1977), and Commonwealth v. Duncan, 514 Pa. 395, 525 A.2d 1177 (1987) (Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court),1 causes us to re-examine this bright-line rule, which calls for…
2Cases cited70 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- McNabb v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Mallory v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Cantu v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
- Commonwealth v. FutchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- In the Interest of L.J.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Commonwealth v. SepulvedaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Commonwealth v. BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Commonwealth v. BoczkowskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Commonwealth v. GarlandSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.