Commonwealth v. Evans
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth v. Evans, 70 Pa. Super. 534 (1918)
1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 301
Head, Henderson, Kephart, Orlady, Porter, Trexler, Williams
Commonwealth v. Evans
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
The able opinion of the court below, discharging the rule for new trial, sufficiently disposes of the more serious contentions of appellant: see also Com. v. Sayars, 21 Pa. Superior Ct. 75, and Com. v. Brown, 58 Pa. Superior Ct. 300.
The remaining question is whether the court below was guilty of reversible error in admitting the testimony of Breneman (assignments one to nine inclusive). Defendant testified at length to the same facts: even if irrelevant, it does not appear how it harmed appellant.
The judgment is affirmed, and the record remitted to the court below to the end that the sentence may be carried into effect.
Reference
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Criminal law — Receiving stolen goods — Evidence — Accomplices —Corroborative proof. A conviction on an indictment for receiving as stolen goods four bales of tobacco, will be sustained where two accomplices testify in a straightforward manner, without their testimony being shaken in the slightest particular by cross-examination, that they were employed by the defendant to steal the tobacco, and to deliver it to him, and that when they delivered the tobacco the defendant sent his son to a bank to have a cheek cashed to pay them, and this is corroborated by proof that on the day in question a check was drawn by the defendant and charged to his account. In such a case it is proper to admit in evidence proof that when defendant was arrested he denied having sold any tobacco up to that date, and that in this he was contradicted by a dealer who testified that he had bought five bales of tobacteo on the day immediately preceding the arrest. Even if such proof were irrelevant it was harmless, if it appeared that defendant testified at length to the samé facts. •