Court Opinion

ID: 9631102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:29:27.089627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:48.929694
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts :
The three-judge suppression court that heard testimony and saw witnesses found as a fact that appellee’s initial communication with the police did not indicate willingness to confess.  This finding of fact is binding on us. Commonwealth v. Agie, 449 Pa. 187, 191, 296 A.2d 741, 742 (1972); Commonwealth v. Neal, 447 Pa. 452, 456, 290 A.2d 922, 924 (1972).
Nevertheless, the opinion announcing the judgment of the Court asserts that when Dreuitt indicated he would “give his side of the story,” he actually meant that he would confess guilt. I find this interpretation, gleaned from a cold and stale record, unconvincing. And when such a questionable deduction is used to overturn a hearing court’s finding of fact and justify an accused’s isolation for six and one-half hours while handcuffed to a metal chair, I find it completely unacceptable.
*353I would affirm the order of the court of common pleas. I dissent.
Mr. Justice Nix and Mr. Justice Manderino join in this dissenting opinion.