Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Joshua Michael LUKACH, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2017-09-22
Citations: 170 A.3d 1064
Docket Number: No. 313 MAL 2017
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Joshua Michael LUKACH, Respondent
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 170
Pages: 1064–1064

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

Opinion:
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?