Com. v. Derhammer, J. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S10045-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. JOSEPH WALTER DERHAMMER, Appellee : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 935 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Order entered on May 14, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Criminal Division, No. CP-40-CR-0003474-2012 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OTT and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED APRIL 29, 2014 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the Order granting the pre-trial Motion in limine filed by Joseph Walter Derhammer -arrest silence to police officers following an alleged arson that claimed the lives of 1 We affirm. In its Opinion, the trial court thoroughly addressed the relevant procedural history, facts, and matters pertinent to the Motion in limine. See 1 In filing this interlocutory appeal, the Commonwealth complied with criminal case, under the circumstances provided by law, the Commonwealth may take an appeal as of right from an order that does not end the entire case where the Commonwealth certifies in the notice of appeal that the 311(d). J-S10045-14 Trial Court Opinion, 8/13/13, at 1-6. We a discussion herein by reference. See id. On appeal, the Commonwealth presents the following issue for our in limine, thus precluding the Commonwealth from presenting evidence that Preliminarily, we observe that [w]hen reviewing a ruling on a motion in limine, we apply an evidentiary abuse of discretion standard of review. The admission of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and our review is for an abuse of discretion. A not be disturbed unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous. Commonwealth v. Orie, 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 116, **95-96 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation, quotation marks, brackets, and paragraph break omitted). The Commonwealth argues that the trial court abused its discretion by in limine, thereby precluding the -arrest silence, residence.2 Brief for the Commonwealth at 8. In support of this claim, the Commonwealth principally relies upon the 2 ice if the -2- J-S10045-14 recent decision in Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013) (plurality). The Commonwealth points out the Salinas no privilege against self-incrimination, a witness or suspect does not do so by simply standing mute. Brief for the Commonwealth at 8; see also Salinas, 133 S. Ct. at 2178. The Commonwealth points out that Derhammer did not invoke his right to remain silent when he voluntarily spoke to the police officers at the scene of the house fire. Brief for the Commonwealth at 9. inquire what happened to his girlfriend is admissible because he voluntarily waived that right. [Derhammer] signed a waiver of his Miranda[3] rights, Id. at 9 (footnote added). For these constitutes reversible error. Id. at 10. We disagree. In its comprehensive Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court law and distinguished the cases upon which the Commonwealth relies, in limine and excluded the evidence in question. 3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). -3- See Trial Court Opinion, J-S10045-14 8/13/13, at 8-14.4 analysis is supported by the law, and we therefore affirm on this basis in concluding that the court did not abuse its discretion by granting in limine. See id. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 4/29/2014 4 On page 13 of the Trial Court Opinion, the court fails to provide the full citat Commonwealth v. Champney, 65 A.3d 386 (Pa. 2013) (plurality). -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
