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 PENNSYLVANIA v. WALTER D. ROBERTSON (03/31/83)

submitted: March 31, 1983.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
WALTER D. ROBERTSON, APPELLANT



No. 652 Pittsburgh, 1981, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, at Nos. 7905392A, CC 7905338A

COUNSEL

John H. Corbett, Jr., Public Defender, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Cavanaugh, Brosky and Montgomery, JJ.

Author: Brosky

[ 317 Pa. Super. Page 160]

This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence after convictions in a non-jury trial of first degree murder and robbery. Appellant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in failing to suppress his confession; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the homicide conviction; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the robbery conviction. We disagree with appellant and affirm the judgment of sentence.

On September 10, 1979, at 6:05 p.m., appellant was arrested for the murder and robbery of one Clay Christensen. He was taken before the deputy coroner for preliminary arraignment at 8:08 p.m. At this time, he was arraigned only on the murder charge because the deputy coroner did not have jurisdiction to arraign him for any crimes other than homicide.

From 9:01 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., appellant gave a taped statement in which he admitted his involvement in both the murder and the robbery of the victim. He was then arraigned on the robbery charge at 12:15 a.m. on September 11, 1979.

Appellant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress his statement. The court below heard testimony on the motion and

[ 317 Pa. Super. Page 161]

    denied it on May 19, 1980. Appellant was found guilty of murder and robbery and his timely post-verdict motions were denied.

This timely appeal followed.

Appellant first contends that the court below erred in not suppressing his confession. He alleges two grounds in support of this contention: (1) that the confession was involuntary because it was given while he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol; and (2) that the confession was invalid because he was arraigned on the robbery charge more than six hours after his arrest. After a careful review of the ...


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.