Commonwealth v. Metzer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Commonwealth’s failure to appeal trial court ruling excluding evidence means that on retrial such ruling is the law of the case and that such evidence remains inadmissible
• suppression orders and pretrial motions in limine that exclude evidence are final orders that are immediately ap-pealable by the Commonwealth
• “because our Supreme Court has held that a motion in limine is effectively the same as a motion to suppress, any ruling thereon is also final, conclusive, and binding at trial”
• the appellant’s counsel lodged -7- J-A18014-25 a request for a mistrial after the trial court reversed its earlier ruling excluding the results of the appellant’s breathalyzer test
• motions to suppress evidence must ordinarily be made before trial to suppression court, and be made with specificity and particularity as to the evidence sought to be suppressed and the reasons for suppression

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).