Summary
holding that appeals by the Commonwealth are limited to the issues delineated in the statute
Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. MorrisseyOpinion
45845 No. 0839-88-1
Decided December 6, 1988
(1) Appellate Review — Commonwealth Appeals — Standard. — The Code provides that the Commonwealth may appeal an order of the circuit court prohibiting the use of certain evidence at trial on the grounds that such evidence was obtained in violation of the provisions of the fourth, fifth or sixth amendments to the Constitution of the United States or Article I, Sections 8, 10 or 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.
(2) Appellate Review — Commonwealth Appeals — Standard. — The Commonwealth's right to appeal suppression orders of the trial court is limited to orders that are based on constitutional violations.
Thomas C. Daniel, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellant.
Sharon L. Butler, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
SUMMARY
The Commonwealth appealed the order of the circuit court that suppressed certain evidence on the ground that it was obtained in violation of Code Sections 19.2-59 and 60 (Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach, Austin E. Owen, Judge).
The Court of Appeals dismissed, holding that the Commonwealth's right to appeal pretrial suppression orders is limited to orders that are based on constitutional violations.
Dismissed
OPINION
The appellant (Commonwealth) appeals from the pretrial suppression order of the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach.
(1) Code Sections 19.2-398 through 19.2-409 govern appeals by the Commonwealth. Code Sec. 19.2-398(2) specifically provides, in pertinent part, that the Commonwealth may appeal "[a]n order of a circuit court prohibiting the use of certain evidence at trial on the grounds such evidence was obtained in violation of the provisions of the Fourth, Fifth or Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States or Article I, Sections 8, 10 or 11 of the Constitution of Virginia prohibiting illegal searches and seizures and protecting rights against self-incrimination. . . ."
We have reviewed the record and find that the trial court prohibited the use of certain evidence at trial solely on the grounds such evidence was obtained in violation of Code Sections 19.2-59 and 19.2-60. The Commonwealth contends that the statutes are merely a codification of the constitutional proscriptions against illegal searches and seizures and of the exclusionary rule. Here, the trial court suppressed the evidence solely on the provision of the statute which purports to prohibit warrantless searches by "any other person" and not on constitutional grounds; therefore, we need not respond to that assertion in this cause.
(2) Because the legislature has narrowly limited the Commonwealth's right to appeal suppression orders of the trial courts to orders which are based on constitutional violations, this Court may not entertain the Commonwealth's appeal in the instant case.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.
Koontz, C.J., and Coleman, J., concurred.