Court Opinion

ID: 9762783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:30:57.529195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:37.427782
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice Hutchinson only insofar as his opinion would hold that Appellee effectively *532invoked his right to counsel and did not, thereafter, effectively revoke same. I disassociate myself, however, from that part of the dissenting opinion which addresses the “focus of the investigation” aspect which Mr. Justice Hutchinson perceives to be present in this case but which I cannot find under these facts and which renders this discussion unnecessary. Rather, I find that Appellee was clearly in custody when his request was made, and would, as I did in Commonwealth v. Holcomb (At 508 Pa. 425, 498 A.2d 833, Zappala, J. dissenting), suggest that we save for another day any further discussion of “focus of the investigation’s” place in Pennsylvania jurisprudence until such time as the facts place the issue squarely before this Court. In so doing, we shall not add to the confusion of the law in this area by further cluttering it with unnecessary dicta.