HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-2247-2002COMMONWEATH
V.
ROBERT EDWIN RICKRODE
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2002-2247 CRIMINAL
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION
BEFORE GUIDO~ J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of FEBRUARY, 2003, after hearing on
defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion, and after reviewing the transcript of the
preliminary hearing, and the cases cited by counsel, including Commonwealth v.
Carmody, 799 A.2d 143 (Pa. Super 2002); Com. ex tel. Buchanan v. Ferbonitz, 525 Pa.
415, 581 A.2d 172 (1990); Commonwealth v. Lindsey, 23 Pa. D & C 4th 534 (1993) and
Commonwealth v. Polomchak, 10 Pa. D & C 4th 395, it is hereby ordered and directed as
follows:
(1 .) Concluding that the statement of the alleged victim to her Mother was
admissible as an excited utterance, defendant's Motion to Quash Count I
(Indecent Assault) and Count 4 (Corruption of Minors) of the information is
DENIED.
(2.) Finding that the defendants genitals were not seen by anyone and that no one
saw him performing any lewd acts, defendant's Motion to Quash Count 2
(Indecent Exposure) and Count 3 (Open Lewdness) of the information is
GRANTED.
(3.) Finding that the defendant was not in custody at the time he made statements
to the police on August 3, 2001, his request to suppress those statements is
DENIED.
(4.) Finding that the statements made on February 25, 2002 were neither made at
a time when he was in custody, nor were the product of police interrogation,
his request to suppress those statements is DENIED.
(5.) Finding that any statements made to the police on October 4, 2002, were
made after the defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his
Miranda rights, his request to suppress those statements is DENIED.
By the Court,
Michelle Sibert, Esquire
District Attorney
William G. Braught, Esquire
Public Defender
:sld
Edward E. Guido, J.