Commonwealth v. Molina
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
104 A.3d 430 (2014)
- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
During an investigation into the disappearance of Melissa Snodgrass, a detective received a lead that Molina (defendant) was holding Snodgrass against her will. When the detective spoke with Molina on the phone, Molina contradicted himself about the last time he had seen Snodgrass. The detective asked Molina to come to the police station for an interview, but Molina refused. During Molina’s later trial for Snodgrass’s murder, the prosecutor noted that Molina’s refusal to go to the station was “most telling.” The prosecutor then told the jury to factor Molina’s refusal into their decision. On appeal following Molina’s conviction, the superior court found that the prosecutor’s statements violated Molina’s constitutional right against self-incrimination. The commonwealth (plaintiff) then appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
