Court Opinion

ID: 9761537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:45:05.703494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:24.206582
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent; a new trial is an unnecessary prolongation of this case.
Assuming appellant’s version of the facts surrounding his confession (namely, that immediately prior to his confession, Trooper Kelly told him that “he’d be showing [appellant’s polygraph examination] to the district attorney and the judge”), Trooper Kelly’s statement was not such that it was “likely to cause an untrustworthy confession” nor was it “so reprehensible as to invalidate the confession as offensive to the basic notions of fairness.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 457 Pa. 423, 435, 322 A.2d 119, 126 (1974).
In holding that appellant’s confession was admissible, the suppression court found:
[Defendant frankly admitted that he was fully advised of his constitutional rights, including the right to refuse to take the [polygraph] test and to refuse to answer any questions and to remain silent, both before and after the test was administered and before he made any subsequent statements, and that he was not coerced, intimidated or mistreated in any way.
*536We conclude that defendant’s confession was intelligently and voluntarily given after full and complete advice as to his constitutional rights, that none of such rights were infringed, and that such confession is therefore admissible in evidence.
The record supports the suppression court’s findings and, therefore, I would affirm appellant’s judgment of sentence.