Court Opinion

ID: 9648773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:34:41.728984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:05.379881
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that appellant’s appeal must be quashed. I do so, however, for reasons different from those of the majority. It is well-settled that after an indictment or information is issued, a defendant may not invalidate such indictment or information on the basis of a defect in a prior preliminary proceeding. See Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 5, 47 S.Ct. 250, 251, 71 L.Ed. 505 (1927) (Brandeis, J.) (“As the affidavits on which the warrant issued had not been properly verified, the arrest was in violation of the clause in the Fourth Amendment . But it does not follow that, because the arrest was illegal, the information was or became void.”); see also United *591States v. Hughes, 311 F.2d 845 (3rd Cir. 1962); 8 Moore’s Federal Practice para. 4.02. Once a court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant by reason of indictment or information, any challenge to the validity of prior assertions of jurisdiction, as in a preliminary hearing, is moot. See Commonwealth v. Krall, 452 Pa. 215, 219, 304 A.2d 488, 490 (1973). Accordingly, I would grant the Commonwealth’s motion to quash appellant’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s pre-trial motions.
LARSEN, J., joins in this concurring opinion.