Opinion
March 21, 1972.
June 16, 1972.
Criminal Law — Search and seizure — Defective warrant — Holding of Supreme Court in another case on same warrant which was subject of the instant case.
Defendant timely petitioned to suppress certain evidence on the basis that such evidence was obtained pursuant to the issuance of a defective search and seizure warrant. In another case, the Supreme Court had held that the very same search warrant which was the subject of the instant case was defective.
It was Held that the Superior Court was bound by that ruling. The judgment of sentence was vacated and a new trial was ordered.
WATKINS, J., dissented.
Submitted March 21, 1972.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, CERCONE, and PACKEL, JJ.
Appeal, No. 443, Oct. T., 1970, from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County, Jan. T., 1969, No. 32, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Paul Fleming. Judgment of sentence vacated and new trial ordered.
Indictment charging defendant with illegal possession of narcotic drugs. Before O'MALLEY, P.J.
Verdict of guilty and judgment of sentence entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
George E. Goldstein and Robert M. Rosenblum, for appellant.
Edward P. Little, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
In the lower court appellant timely petitioned to suppress certain evidence on the basis that such evidence was obtained pursuant to the issuance of a defective search and seizure warrant. The lower court denied this motion on the basis that the warrant was proper on its face.
In Commonwealth v. Shaw, 444 Pa. 110, 281 A.2d 897 (1971), our Supreme Court had occasion to review the very same search warrant which is the subject of the instant case. In Shaw the Supreme Court held that the search warrant was defective. We are bound by that ruling.
Accordingly, the judgment of sentence is vacated and a new trial is ordered.
WATKINS, J., dissents.