Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court at 2945 Philadelphia 1984, affirming a judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County at Trial Division Nos. 3581-3584 Oct. Term 1983, 349 Pa. Super. 616, 503 A.2d 48 (1985).
Silvio Modafferi, for appellant.
Gaele McLaughlin Barthold, Deputy Dist. Atty., Ronald Eisenberg, Chief, Appeals Div., for appellee.
Nix, C.j., and Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala and Papadakos, JJ.
The question presented by this case obtains in the following salient facts. Appellant was arrested while fleeing with the purse of an eighty year old woman who was seriously injured when the purse was snatched from her. Prior to his first trial appellant moved the court to exclude from trial the victim's identifications of him and an inculpatory remark that he made to the police. The court, following a suppression hearing, denied his motion and allowed the evidence to be admitted at trial. At this trial the jury was unable to agree on a verdict. A mistrial was declared and a new trial ordered.
At the inception of his retrial appellant renewed his motion to suppress the evidence of the identifications and statement. The court denied his motion without a hearing on the grounds that the issues it presented had already been litigated, and that he failed to allege the existence of any new evidence that would have justified reconsideration.
On retrial appellant was convicted by a jury on charges of aggravated assault and robbery. Following denial of post-trial motions the court sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of seven to twenty years.
Appellant appealed to the Superior Court, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that the denial of a new suppression hearing was a denial of his trial rights as guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and this Commonwealth.
A panel of the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the court of common pleas in a memorandum opinion, 349 Pa. Super. 616, 503 A.2d 48. We granted appellant leave to appeal on a single issue: i.e., whether a defendant on retrial, who asserts no error or new evidence regarding a previously litigated suppression motion, is entitled to a rehearing of the same issues as part of his second trial.
We note at the outset that appellant cites no authority to support his contention that defendant at retrial has a constitutional right to relitigate suppression issues which have been previously resolved. Instead, he relies on Commonwealth v. Hart, 479 Pa. 84, 387 A.2d 845 (1978), wherein we held that the parties at a second trial are entitled to reexamination of evidentiary rulings made during the course of a first trial. Id. ...