Case Name: Commonwealth ex rel. Snook, Appellant, v. Rundle
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1966-10-19
Citations: 208 Pa. Super. 753
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 247
Parties: Commonwealth ex rel. Snook, Appellant, v. Rundle.
Judges: Hoffman, J., dissents because appellant’s statement, which was elicited without a prior warning of his right to remain silent and which admitted an essential element of the crime charged, was introduced into evidence against him.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 208
Pages: 753–753

Head Matter:
Commonwealth ex rel. Snook, Appellant, v. Rundle.
Submitted September 12, 1966.
John Snook, appellant, in propria persona; Ralph B. D’lorio and 7mm S. Nedurian, Assistant District Attorneys, Paul R. Sand, First Assistant District Attorney, and Jacques H. Fox, District Attorney, for appellee.

Opinion:
Order affirmed.
Hoffman, J., dissents because appellant's statement, which was elicited without a prior warning of his right to remain silent and which admitted an essential element of the crime charged, was introduced into evidence against him.