Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (d), which provides: “In a criminal case, under the circumstances provided by law, the Commonwealth may take an appeal as of right from an order that does not end the entire case where the Commonwealth certifies in the notice of appeal that the order will terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution.” Pa.R.A.P. 311(d). Our Supreme Court ruled that the order mandating the victim to undergo testing was not appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 311(d). It observed that, in,the context of trial court orders resolving questions regarding the admissibility of evidence, Pa.R,A.P. 311(d) is applicable only when the order in question suppresses, precludes,, or excludes some evidence that the Commonwealth seeks to introduce at trial. See Commonwealth v. Cosnek, 575 Pa. 411, 836 A.2d 871, 877 (2003) (<HOLDING>). The Commonwealth maintained in Shearer that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that pa rap 311d did not accord the commonwealth the right to appeal a pretrial ruling that denied its request that the defense be prevented from presenting certain evidence because in the context of a suppression ruling parap 311d applies only when a pretrial ruling results in the suppression preclusion or exclusion of commonwealth evidence (B) recognizing that we can consider trial evidence in reviewing the denial of a pretrial suppression motion (C) holding that the defendant waived the right to challenge a suppression ruling on appeal (D) holding challenge to suppression ruling not waived under young even though record did not affirmatively indicate that the ruling was part or all of reason for plea (E) holding that appellate court reviewing trial courts habeas corpus ruling must review record evidence in light most favorable to ruling and uphold ruling absent abuse of discretion
Output (English): holding challenge to suppression ruling not waived under young even though record did not affirmatively indicate that the ruling was part or all of reason for plea