Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH v. SMITH (03/19/70)

decided: March 19, 1970.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
SMITH, APPELLANT



Appeal from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Sept. T., 1967, No. 192, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Joseph Smith.

COUNSEL

Edward J. Zetusky, Jr., for appellant.

Vram Nedurian, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, with him Ralph B. D'Iorio, Assistant District Attorney, and Stephen J. McEwen, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Spaulding, J. Montgomery, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 216 Pa. Super. Page 244]

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Disposition

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Concurring Opinion by Spaulding, J.:

This is an appeal by Joseph Smith, appellant, from his January 1968 conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County for possession of narcotics.

On April 28, 1967, Detective Hamilton of the Chester police received a telephone call from an informant who told him that appellant would be driving a Cadillac sedan to a certain corner in Chester that day, and that he would be carrying a quantity of heroin in his mouth. The informant who was well known to the officer and who had given reliable information in the past also told the officer the license number of the car and the name of the driver, Joseph Smith. Detective Hamilton related this information to Magistrate Puzzanchera who issued search and arrest warrants. Smith was arrested and searched pursuant to the warrants and eleven packets of heroin wrapped in foil were found in his mouth.

[ 216 Pa. Super. Page 245]

Appellant argues here, as he did at the pretrial suppression hearing, that the warrants were defectively issued and the evidence seized should have been suppressed. Assuming arguendo that the warrants were procedurally defective, the question remains ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.