Court Opinion

ID: 9749247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:29:32.055751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:45.553373
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice O’Brien:
I concur in the opinion of the majority and join in that opinion. In addition, however, I believe that the Commonwealth has followed a procedure in this matter which precludes any result other than the one arrived at by the majority.
As indicated in the majority opinion, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas entered its suppression *59order on May 23, 1968. Since the Commonwealth had no other independent evidence of appellant’s guilt, the effect of the suppression order was to put the Commonwealth out of court and the order was, therefore, as indicated by many, many cases, appealable. If the district attorney was unhappy with the suppression order, the proper course of action for him was to appeal that order within the time allowed for such appeals. He did not do so. Instead, nearly fifteen months later, he chose to request a rehearing of the suppression order in the trial court. I do not believe that we can countenance such procedures, and in my view the district attorney’s failure to appeal the suppression order within the statutory time period precludes any further consideration of that order.