Court Opinion

ID: 9753119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:58:14.415465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:30.132555
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Wright, J.:
These appeals raise an important question of criminal procedure. May the Commonwealth secure appellate review of rulings by the trial court on the admissibility of evidence, where exclusion of the evidence has resulted in the sustaining of a demurrer. I am strongly of the opinion that, in the interest of the proper administration of justice, the Commonwealth should have this right. The majority opinion asserts that the point is ruled to the contrary by Commonwealth v. Frank, 159 Pa. Superior Ct. 271, 48 A. 2d 10. If that be so, the Frank case should be overruled. The admissibility of evidence is a question of law. Where the trial court does not agree with the Commonwealth’s position on a question of law, “it should endeavor to dispose of the proceeding in a manner, such as the sustaining of a demurrer, which would preserve the Commonwealth’s right of appeal”: Commonwealth v. Lodge No. 148 L. O. O. M., 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 531, 149 A. 2d 565.