HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-0245 criminalCOMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
01-0245 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
BETH ANN MARKMAN TPR. SALLY WORST
IN RE: OMNIBUS PRE-TRIAL MOTION~
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
HOFFER, P.J.
I. Motion to Sever
Defendant's Motion to sever her trial from the trial of Housman is
refused.
References and the Court's headnotes are to defendant's Omnibus Motion (filed April 16, 2001), and not
to defendant's brief.
II. Statements to Deputy Vau.qhan
on October 7, 2000
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.
III. Phone call to Pennsylvania State Police-
Carlisle Barracks by Beth Markman
The Court finds no violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act in the
taping of this statement. Defendant's motion is refused and dismissed.
IV. Statements to Parole Officer
" Nicole Gutshall
Any statements made to the officer were given either spontaneously,
or in a non-custodial setting, or a combination of both conditions.
Defendant's motion is refused and dismissed.
V. Defendant's Statement of
October 12, 2000, at Franklin County,
VirRinia, Sheriff's Office
A. Probable Cause to Arrest on
Larceny of a Motor Vehicle
After consideration of the testimony and evidence presented, the
Court does find that probable cause existed to arrest the defendant. Her
motion to suppress on this ground is refused and dismissed.
2
B. Defendant's Statement was a Result
of an Unconstitutional Waiver of
Her Ri.qht to Counsel
[Federal Constitution, 6th Amendment Ri.qht].
Defendant only argues an alleged violation under Federal law. Her
claims under any theory of law, state or Federal, are meritless, and her
motion to suppress is refused.
C. Defendant did not waive
her Miranda Rights
After hearing and consideration of the testimony presented, the Court
does find that defendant was fully and properly advised of her Miranda
rights, and that she knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived any right
she had. Defendant's motion to suppress is refused and dismissed.
D. Tape Recording of Defendant
The Court finds no violation of any law in the taping of this statement.
Defendant's motion is refused.
Vi. Virginia Search Warrant Dated 10/12/00, 6:23 A.M.
This issue was not briefed or argued by the defendant, and is
presumed to be abandoned as without merit.
VII. Search of Camera and Film Inside of Camera
The Court determines that no further search warrant was needed to
develop the film that was seized under a proper warrant; in any event the
3
property was abandoned. Defendant's motion to supress is refused and
dismissed.
VIII. Motion to Compel Bill of Particulars
Not briefed or argued; moot, as District Attorney has furnished such.
IX. Motion for Chan.qe of Venue or Venire
Defendant has withheld her argument for change of venue or venire
until the voir 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.
X. Habeas Corpus Motion to
Dismiss Char.qe of Kidnappin_cl2
The Commonwealth has made out a prima facie case of kidnapping.
Defendant's motion to dismiss this charge is refused.
p.j.
2 A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, on this issue, was originally filed on February 26, 2001. It has
been briefed and argued.
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