Court Opinion

ID: 9641526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:33:53.510641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:38.134694
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority. On the question whether appellant was entitled to a second suppres*579sion hearing, I agree with the majority that he was not, but wish to note that this holding should not be read to foreclose a second suppression hearing where the defendant alleges new facts which would make the evidence inadmissible. See Commonwealth v. DeMichel, 442 Pa. 553, 277 A.2d 159 (1971); Pa.R.Crim.P. 323(j); cf. Commonwealth v. Oakes, 481 Pa. 343, 392 A.2d 1324 (1978).