Court Opinion

ID: 9756271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:19:49.698162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:17.375823
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
I join in all of the majority’s opinion except the assertion that Mrs. Ferro’s out-of-court identification was not the “fruit” of the admittedly illegal arrest of appellant. See Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S. Ct. 1394 (1969); Commonwealth v. Cephas, 447 Pa. 500, 291 A. 2d 106 (1972).
However, since my review of the record convinces me that Mrs. Ferro’s in-court identification was “based upon observations of . . . [appellant] other than Lie lineup identification . . .”, United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 240, 87 S. Ct. 1926, 1939 (1967); Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A. 2d 417 (1972), I believe that Mrs. Ferro’s in-court identification was properly admitted.