Commonwealth v. Bertels
Commonwealth v. Bertels
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
This is an appeal from a reversal by the Superior Court
On appeal is the issue of whether Adams County had venue and jurisdiction for trial, since the transactions involved occurred primarily outside that County. After a careful review of the briefs, record, and decisions below, we
Order of the Superior Court affirmed.
. Commonwealth v. Bertels, 260 Pa.Super. 496, 394 A.2d 1036 (1978).
. Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, §§ 828, 834, 846 and 302 respectively; 18 P.S. §§ 4828, 4834, 4846 and 4302 respectively.
Concurring Opinion
concurring.
I join the opinion of Mr. Justice Flaherty. It should be noted that the transfer of funds from a Pennsylvania parent corporation’s bank account in Adams County to its subsidiary’s bank account in Virginia, an outwardly innocent act, has not been shown to be in furtherance of an unlawful agreement. Commonwealth v. Thomas, 410 Pa. 160, 189 A.2d 255, cert. denied, 875 U.S. 856, 84 S.Ct. 118, 11 L.Ed.2d 83 (1963) (prosecution for criminal conspiracy may be brought either in the county where an unlawful agreement is formed or in the county where an overt act is committed in furtherance of that unlawful agreement). Because the Commonwealth has not met its burden of proving jurisdiction, the Superior Court’s order reversing judgments of sentence should be affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Norman H. BERTELS, Jr., W. Kirk Hammaker and Donald L. Parker, Appellees
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published