Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 10/5/1978

Commonwealth v. Simmons

Citations

394 A.2d 431
482 Pa. 496
1978 Pa. LEXIS 1001

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the specificity requirement of the suppression rule is mandatory, and therefore the failure to object to specific evidence in a suppression motion results in waiver of any argument that such evidence should have been suppressed
holding that the specificity requirement of the suppression rule is mandatory, and therefore the failure to object to specific evidence in a suppression motion results in waiver of any argument that such evidence should have been suppressed
appellant challenged validity of Miranda waiver, but not on specific grounds that he should have been rewarned of his Miranda rights periodically; this issue held waived
appellant challenged validity of Miranda waiver, but not on specific grounds that he should have been rewarned of his Miranda rights periodically; this issue held waived
appellant challenged validity of Miranda waiver, but not on specific grounds that he should have been rewarned of his Miranda rights periodically; this issue held waived

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino, Larsen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

24 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.