Commonwealth v. Goldman

In Commonwealth v. Goldman, the defendant appealed his summary conviction of disorderly conduct, which stemmed from a drunken incident at a gas station. On appeal, the defendant alleged seven errors, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed. First, the Court held that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence for the trial court, as factfinder, to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(1). Next, the Court held that the defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied because the evidence established probable cause for the officers to arrest him. Next, the defendant challenged a police officer’s testimony that the convenience store clerk pointed to the defendant as the person causing a disturbance. The Court ruled that this contemporaneous statement was admissible under Pa.R.E. 803(1). Lastly, the defendant claimed that because the Court of Common Pleas presided over his summary trial, the judge sat as a magisterial district judge, thus entitling him to a trial de novo. The Superior Court disagreed and ruled that the trial court was not acting as an issuing authority.

Goldman