HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-0246 criminalCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
01-0246 CRIMINAL
CHARGE: (1) CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
(2) KIDNAPPING
(3) THEFT BY UNLAWFUL TAKING
(4) UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT
: (5)ABUSE OF CORPSE
(6) CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
v. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
(7) CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
KIDNAPPING
(8) CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
THEFT BY UNLAWFUL TAKING
(9) CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT
: (10) CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
ABUSE OF CORPSE
AFFIANTS: TPR. ROGER HALL
" TPR. SALLY WORST
WILLIAM HOWARD HOUSMAN :
IN RE: OMNIBUS PRE-TRIAL MOTION1
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
HOFFER, P.J.:
I. Motion to Sever Trial
Defendant's motion to sever his trial from the trial of Markman is
refused.
References and the Court's headnotes are to defendant's Omnibus Motion (filed April 16, 2001), and not
to the defendant's brief.
II. Motion to Sur)loress
Statement to De~3utv Vau_qhan
Defendant's motion to suppress any statement to Deputy Vaughan is
refused. Any statements made to Vaughan were given in a non-custodial
setting, not requiring Miranda warnings.
II1. Motion to Sur)l~ress
October 12, 2000 Statement
A. Sixth Amendment
This statement was given to two law enforcement agents in Virginia
while defendant was in custody. The motion was originally presented under
the theory of violating Virginia law, Pennsylvania law, and Federal law [6th
amendment argument]. Defendant has withdrawn his arguments under
Virginia law and Federal law; he continues to argue a violation of
Pennsylvania law. The claims under any theory are meritless, and
defendant's motion is refused.
B. Fifth Amendment (Miranda)
This claim was withdrawn by defendant after the Court held a
suppression hearing; in any event, the claim held no merit. Defendant
received proper Miranda warnings, and waived them.
2
C. Alleged Violation of
Davenport "Six Hour Rule''2
This motion is refused.
D. Taping of this statement
violated Pennsylvania Wiretap Act3
The Court finds no violation of any law in the taping of this statement.
Defendant's motion is refused.
IV. Motion to Quash
Notice of Death Penalty
A. History of Violent Felonies r42 Pa.C.S. 9711
The District Attorney has withdrawn any argument in regard to history
of violent felonies as it relates to the Pennsylvania death penalty law [42
Pa. C.S. 9711(d)(9)]. This issue is moot.
B. Homicide Committed Durin.q the
Perpetration of a Felony r42 Pa.c.s.9711
The Commonwealth has made out a prima facie case of kidnapping,
Defendant's motion to quash notice of death penalty is refused and
dismissed.
2 This claim was not raised in the original Omnibus Motion; however, the defendant did brief and argue
the claim.
3 Originally "Ill-C" of the Omnibus Motion.
3
V. Motion to Suppress
Defendant's Statement to Inmate Green
Defendant has withdrawn this motion after the suppression hearing.
In any event, the motion did not have any merit as Green was never an
agent of the Commonwealth.
VI. Motion to Quash Count 2
of the Information (Kidnappin.q)
In conjunction with Section IV-B of this Order, this motion is refused
and dismissed.
VII. Motion for Chan.qe of Venue
Defendant has withheld his argument for change of venue or venire
until the voit dire stage of trial. No evidence was presented by defendant
at the suppression hearing held on May 21, 2001 and continued on June 2,
2001 to warrant relief. To this point, at the date of this order, defendant's
motion is refused.
VIII. Motion to Declare Death Penalty
Statute Unconstitutional
Defendant has withheld any argument on this motion as not ripe for
review at this time.
4
M. L. Ebert, Esquire
District Attorney
For the Commonwealth
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
Court-appointed for
Defendant Housman
William Braught, Esquire
Deputy Public Defender
For Defendant Markman
5