Court Opinion

ID: 9695678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:27:12.398726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:30.874414
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice
(concurring).
Appellant contends that his incriminating statements made to the police during custodial interrogation were inadmissible because he was not afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel or an interested and informed adult before waiving his constitutional rights. E. g. Commonwealth v. Chaney, 465 Pa. 400, 350 A.2d 829 (1975). However, appellant did not raise this contention in post-trial motions and has therefore failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. E. g. Commonwealth v. Bronaugh, 459 Pa. 634, 331 A.2d 171 (1975) and cases *91cited therein. Since appellant did not preserve this issue, it is unnecessary to decide the effect, if any, of appellant misrepresentation to the police that he was over eighteen years of age.