Case ID: a3d_170/html/1064-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Joshua Michael LUKACH, Respondent
    No. 313 MAL 2017
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    September 22, 2017
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

a. As a matter of first impression, did the Pennsylvania Superior Court err in holding that a suspect that is subject to custodial interrogation clearly and unambiguously invokes his right to remain silent under the standard articulated in Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct. 2250 (2010), where he makes a statement that he does not wish to talk, but, qualifies that statement with a statement of “I don’t know” and a general assertion of innocence?
b. Did the Pennsylvania Superior Court commit an error of law when it applied the wrong legal standard in affirming suppression of the physical evidence found as the “fruits” of [rjespondent’s confession where there was only a violation of the prophylactic rules of Miranda and the confession was not a product of coercion?