27. Denied. The Commonwealth notes that nowhere in this portion of the Omnibus Motion does the Defendant set forth even the date(s) of these alleged statements. Given the vagueness of this Motion, the Commonwealth will attempt to identify and address the statements the Defendant has not referred to.
28. Denied. To the extent the Defendant is referring to the actual arrest date in May 2007, Commonwealth v. Eichinger:, 915 A.2d 1122 stands for the proposition that under the 5th Amendment and Conflicts of Laws analysis, Virginia law would apply. The Eichinger court wrote: "As a threshold matter, we must determine whether there is a conflict of laws question in this case, inasmuch as the trial court relied on New Jersey law to resolve this issue. Presumably, the trial court did so because Eichinger was placed into custody in New Jersey and it is from this transaction that the suppression issue arises. More specifically, therefore, we must determine whether Pennsylvania or New Jersey law governs the suppression issue. It is a basic principle of conflict of laws cases involving criminal matters that the "question of jurisdiction and that of governing substantive law always receives the same answer. The governing law is always the law of the forum state, if the forum court has jurisdiction." Commonwealth v. Ohle, 503 Pa. 566, 470 A.2d 61, 67-67 (1983) (citing Leflar, Conflicts of Laws: Choice of Law in Criminal Cases, 25 Case Western Res.L.Rev. 44, 47 (1974)). Jurisdiction relates to a court's power to hear and decide a case. Ohle, 470 A.2d at 67. This concept has its roots in territorial principles and the idea of sovereignty. Leflar, supra at 45. Although these conflict of laws concepts have evolved, the traditional theory would argue that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is an independent sovereign over persons within its territory and can brook no control of its citizens by a foreign sovereign, nor allow what occurs in its territorial boundaries to be punished by another. ld. (citing Levitt, Jurisdiction' over Crimes-II, 16 J.Crim. L. & Criminology 495, 509-1 O( 1925). Pennsylvania has codified its jurisdiction over the matter under 18 Pa.C.S. § 102(a)(1) which provides for a conviction " under the laws of this Commonwealth" when "the conduct which is an element of the offense ...occurs within this Commonwealth." It is not in dispute that the substantive crime of murder occurred in Pennsylvania. As a result, Pennsylvania has jurisdiction and may apply it's law.
Our inquiry could end there. However, although it is not mandated, where more than one state has a substantial connection with the activity in question, the forum state may analyze the interests of all states involved and choose which state's law to apply. Ohle, 470 A.2d at 68. In Pennsylvania, we do not apply our law just because we have jurisdiction. Rather, we have adopted a flexible choice of law rule which weighs the interests our sister-states may have in the transaction. See Griffith v. United Air Lines, 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796, 805 (1964). This concept was formally adopted.for criminal cases Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 552 Pa. 570, 716 A.2d 1221, 1224 (1998).
To start this analysis, we first note that procedural rules and substantive law require separate considerations. It is a fundamental principle of conflicts of laws that a court will use the procedural rules of its own state. "That is true in both civil and criminal cases, but especially in criminal cases as a sort of corollary to the local nature of substantive criminal law. Procedures in criminal cases are always those of the forum." Leflar: American Conflicts Law, Fourth Edition, § 116 (1977). Procedural rules are "that which prescribe the methods of enforcing rights." Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 716 A.2d a1 1224. On the other hand, substantive law "gives or defines the right." Id.
In Commonwealth v. Sanchez, we held that an issue of search and seizure is substantive as it involves a strict question of constitutional law which concerns the fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Id. Eichinger raises a constitutional question under the Fifth Amendment, which implicates his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, therefore, the issue must be addressed under the principles of conflict between substantive laws. As noted before, our choice of law rule when there is a conflict between the substantive criminal laws of this Commonwealth and those of a sister-state, requires that we analyze the policies and interests underlying the rule of each state so that the policy of the jurisdiction most immediately concerned will be applied. Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 552 Pa. 570, 716 A.2d 1221, 1223-24·(1998). But it remains implicit in this analysis that there be a conflict between the substantive law of New Jersey and the law of Pennsylvania.
In fact, no conflict exists. Both the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Courts must effectuate the guarantee provided in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution that, as a general rule, the prosecution may not use statements, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, stemming from a custodial interrogation of a defendant unless it demonstrates that he was apprised of his right against self-incrimination and his right to counsel. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. A suspect in is custody when he is deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Id. at 445, 86 S.Ct. 1602.
In Pennsylvania, the test for determining whether a suspect is in custody is whether the suspect is physically deprived of his freedom in any significant way or is placed in a situation in which he reasonably believes that his freedom of action or movement is restricted. Commonwealth. v. Chacko, 500 Pa. 571, 459 A.2d 311, 314 (1983) (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602). Likewise, in New Jersey, a suspect is in custody where he has been deprived of freedom of action in a significant way. Timmendequas, 737 A.2d at 108 (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444,86 S.Ct. 1602). These rules align, as they both track Miranda Neither the Constitution of Pennsylvania nor of New Jersey provides additional protection under this particular factual scenario. Thus, there is no actual conflict between the laws of Pennsylvania and New Jersey on this issue. Any interest that New Jersey might have in this transaction is rendered moot by that lack of conflict. With no other interested state to consider, we will apply the law of the Commonwealth." In Commonwealth v Gates 30 Va.App. 352,516 S.E.2d 731, the court noted that reading a warrant to the Defendant did not amount to the functional equivalent of interrogation.
29. Denied. Any statements given by Cuadra are governed by Virginia law as the May 2007 arrest occurred in Virginia. To the extent the Defendant's motion alludes to other unidentified statements, of uncertain dates by unidentified law enforcement personnel, the Commonwealth avers the Defendant's Motion as to those statements be denied.
30. Denied. Any statements given by Cuadra are governed by Virginia law as the May 2007 arrest occurred in Virginia. To the extent the Defendant's motion alludes to other unidentified statements, of uncertain dates by unidentified law enforcement personnel, the Commonwealth avers the Defendant's Motion as to those statements be denied.
31. Denied. Any statements given by Cuadra are governed by Virginia law as the May 2007 arrest occurred in Virginia. Any statements given by Cuadra are governed by Virginia law as the May 2007 arrest occurred in Virginia. To the extent the Defendant's motion alludes to other unidentified statements, of uncertain dates by unidentified law enforcement personnel, the Commonwealth avers the Defendant's Motion as to those statements be denied.
32. Denied. Any statements given by Cuadra are governed by Virginia law as the May 2007 arrest occurred in Virginia. Any statements given by Cuadra are governed by Virginia law as the May 2007 arrest occurred in Virginia. To the extent the Defendant's motion alludes to other unidentified statements, of uncertain dates by unidentified law enforcement personnel, the Commonwealth avers the Defendant's Motion as to those statements be denied.
WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth moves this Honorable Court to deny the Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
28. Denied. To the extent the Defendant is referring to the actual arrest date in May 2007, Commonwealth v. Eichinger:, 915 A.2d 1122 stands for the proposition that under the 5th Amendment and Conflicts of Laws analysis, Virginia law would apply. The Eichinger court wrote: "As a threshold matter, we must determine whether there is a conflict of laws question in this case, inasmuch as the trial court relied on New Jersey law to resolve this issue. Presumably, the trial court did so because Eichinger was placed into custody in New Jersey and it is from this transaction that the suppression issue arises. More specifically, therefore, we must determine whether Pennsylvania or New Jersey law governs the suppression issue. It is a basic principle of conflict of laws cases involving criminal matters that the "question of jurisdiction and that of governing substantive law always receives the same answer. The governing law is always the law of the forum state, if the forum court has jurisdiction." Commonwealth v. Ohle, 503 Pa. 566, 470 A.2d 61, 67-67 (1983) (citing Leflar, Conflicts of Laws: Choice of Law in Criminal Cases, 25 Case Western Res.L.Rev. 44, 47 (1974)). Jurisdiction relates to a court's power to hear and decide a case. Ohle, 470 A.2d at 67. This concept has its roots in territorial principles and the idea of sovereignty. Leflar, supra at 45. Although these conflict of laws concepts have evolved, the traditional theory would argue that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is an independent sovereign over persons within its territory and can brook no control of its citizens by a foreign sovereign, nor allow what occurs in its territorial boundaries to be punished by another. ld. (citing Levitt, Jurisdiction' over Crimes-II, 16 J.Crim. L. & Criminology 495, 509-1 O( 1925). Pennsylvania has codified its jurisdiction over the matter under 18 Pa.C.S. § 102(a)(1) which provides for a conviction " under the laws of this Commonwealth" when "the conduct which is an element of the offense ...occurs within this Commonwealth." It is not in dispute that the substantive crime of murder occurred in Pennsylvania. As a result, Pennsylvania has jurisdiction and may apply it's law.
Our inquiry could end there. However, although it is not mandated, where more than one state has a substantial connection with the activity in question, the forum state may analyze the interests of all states involved and choose which state's law to apply. Ohle, 470 A.2d at 68. In Pennsylvania, we do not apply our law just because we have jurisdiction. Rather, we have adopted a flexible choice of law rule which weighs the interests our sister-states may have in the transaction. See Griffith v. United Air Lines, 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796, 805 (1964). This concept was formally adopted.for criminal cases Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 552 Pa. 570, 716 A.2d 1221, 1224 (1998).
To start this analysis, we first note that procedural rules and substantive law require separate considerations. It is a fundamental principle of conflicts of laws that a court will use the procedural rules of its own state. "That is true in both civil and criminal cases, but especially in criminal cases as a sort of corollary to the local nature of substantive criminal law. Procedures in criminal cases are always those of the forum." Leflar: American Conflicts Law, Fourth Edition, § 116 (1977). Procedural rules are "that which prescribe the methods of enforcing rights." Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 716 A.2d a1 1224. On the other hand, substantive law "gives or defines the right." Id.
In Commonwealth v. Sanchez, we held that an issue of search and seizure is substantive as it involves a strict question of constitutional law which concerns the fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Id. Eichinger raises a constitutional question under the Fifth Amendment, which implicates his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, therefore, the issue must be addressed under the principles of conflict between substantive laws. As noted before, our choice of law rule when there is a conflict between the substantive criminal laws of this Commonwealth and those of a sister-state, requires that we analyze the policies and interests underlying the rule of each state so that the policy of the jurisdiction most immediately concerned will be applied. Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 552 Pa. 570, 716 A.2d 1221, 1223-24·(1998). But it remains implicit in this analysis that there be a conflict between the substantive law of New Jersey and the law of Pennsylvania.
In fact, no conflict exists. Both the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Courts must effectuate the guarantee provided in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution that, as a general rule, the prosecution may not use statements, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, stemming from a custodial interrogation of a defendant unless it demonstrates that he was apprised of his right against self-incrimination and his right to counsel. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. A suspect in is custody when he is deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Id. at 445, 86 S.Ct. 1602.
In Pennsylvania, the test for determining whether a suspect is in custody is whether the suspect is physically deprived of his freedom in any significant way or is placed in a situation in which he reasonably believes that his freedom of action or movement is restricted. Commonwealth. v. Chacko, 500 Pa. 571, 459 A.2d 311, 314 (1983) (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602). Likewise, in New Jersey, a suspect is in custody where he has been deprived of freedom of action in a significant way. Timmendequas, 737 A.2d at 108 (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444,86 S.Ct. 1602). These rules align, as they both track Miranda Neither the Constitution of Pennsylvania nor of New Jersey provides additional protection under this particular factual scenario. Thus, there is no actual conflict between the laws of Pennsylvania and New Jersey on this issue. Any interest that New Jersey might have in this transaction is rendered moot by that lack of conflict. With no other interested state to consider, we will apply the law of the Commonwealth." In Commonwealth v Gates 30 Va.App. 352,516 S.E.2d 731, the court noted that reading a warrant to the Defendant did not amount to the functional equivalent of interrogation.
29. Denied. Any statements given by Cuadra are governed by Virginia law as the May 2007 arrest occurred in Virginia. To the extent the Defendant's motion alludes to other unidentified statements, of uncertain dates by unidentified law enforcement personnel, the Commonwealth avers the Defendant's Motion as to those statements be denied.
30. Denied. Any statements given by Cuadra are governed by Virginia law as the May 2007 arrest occurred in Virginia. To the extent the Defendant's motion alludes to other unidentified statements, of uncertain dates by unidentified law enforcement personnel, the Commonwealth avers the Defendant's Motion as to those statements be denied.
31. Denied. Any statements given by Cuadra are governed by Virginia law as the May 2007 arrest occurred in Virginia. Any statements given by Cuadra are governed by Virginia law as the May 2007 arrest occurred in Virginia. To the extent the Defendant's motion alludes to other unidentified statements, of uncertain dates by unidentified law enforcement personnel, the Commonwealth avers the Defendant's Motion as to those statements be denied.
32. Denied. Any statements given by Cuadra are governed by Virginia law as the May 2007 arrest occurred in Virginia. Any statements given by Cuadra are governed by Virginia law as the May 2007 arrest occurred in Virginia. To the extent the Defendant's motion alludes to other unidentified statements, of uncertain dates by unidentified law enforcement personnel, the Commonwealth avers the Defendant's Motion as to those statements be denied.
WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth moves this Honorable Court to deny the Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
