Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 8/21/2006

Commonwealth v. Edwards

Citations

903 A.2d 1139
588 Pa. 151
2006 Pa. LEXIS 1529

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that where interrogation in the absence of counsel occurs after the defendant invoked his right to counsel, suppression is not warranted if the defendant initiated the conversation with police
noting that a party cannot complain of his inability to cross-examine himself
upholding the Section 9711(d)(11) aggravator for each of three first degree murder convictions where the defendant shot three victims in various rooms of a mobile home
affirming defendant’s burglary conviction where defendant gained entry into victim’s home by deception, telling victim he was there to pay for previously stolen drugs
affirming suppression court’s finding, which was supported by the record, that the appellant, not the police corporal, who initiated further conversation after initially invoking his right to counsel
“[T]his Court has consistently held that a defendant’s out-of-court statements are party admissions and are exceptions to the hearsay rule.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cappy, Castille, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Baldwin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

45 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

62 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.