Ronald J. Brockington, Philadelphia, for appellant.
F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Dist. Atty., Steven H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., for appellee.
Jones, C. J., and Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Nix, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Roberts, J., joins. Manderino, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Roberts, J., joins.
Allocatur was improvidently granted.
NIX, Justice (dissenting).
In the instant case appellant claims the lower court erred in allowing into evidence a police officer's testimony that after appellant was arrested, he requested the opportunity to confer with counsel. After our decisions in Commonwealth v. Stafford, 450 Pa. 252, 299 A.2d 590 (1973), and Commonwealth v. Haideman, 449 Pa. 367, 296 A.2d 765 (1972), it is unquestionable that this constitutes reversible error if appellant's claim is properly preserved for appellate review. I dissent from the Court's per curiam order because I believe the issue was properly preserved for our consideration.
At trial, during the course of the Assistant District Attorney's direct examination, the following occurred:
"Q. Now, at the time, the moment you told the defendant that he was under arrest for robbery, what, if anything, did he say?
A. The defendant only stated --
MISS MARTIN: Objection, ...