Commonwealth v. Bridges

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Bridges

82 Pa. Super. 92, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 240

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 2, 1923

DocketAppeal, 43

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 82 Pa. Super. 92 (Commonwealth v. Bridges) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Bridges, 82 Pa. Super. 92, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 240 (Pa. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

The learned trial judge quashed the indictment because the date laid as that on which the crime was committed was subsequent to the day on which the information was made. He considered this a fatal error. Our court expressed an opinion to the contrary in Com. v. Nailor (No. 2), 29 Pa. Superior Ct. 275. We stated in that case: “In the second count, June 6, 1901, is laid as the date of the offense charged. This is subsequent to the complaint and hearing on which the count is based. Yet being prior to the finding of the indictment, subsequent to the statute describing the offense and fixing the penalty, and within the period prescribed by the statute of limitations, it is well laid, according to the principles referred to in the preceding case”: Com. v. Nailor (No. 1), Id. 271.

*94 It has been held repeatedly that where time is not of the essence of the offense, the Commonwealth can show any time prior to the finding of the indictment and within the period of limitation, Com. v. Ryhal, 274 Pa. 401; Com. v. Powell, 23 Pa. Superior Ct. 370; Com. v. Coleman, 60 Pa. Superior Ct. 512.

The order and judgment of the court of quarter sessions quashing the bill of indictment is reversed, the indictment is reinstated and the record remitted for further proceedings according to law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

The learned trial judge quashed the indictment because the date laid as that on which the crime was committed was subsequent to the day on which the information was made. He considered this a fatal error. Our court expressed an opinion to the contrary in Com. v. Nailor (No. 2), 29 Pa. Superior Ct. 275. We stated in that case: “In the second count, June 6, 1901, is laid as the date of the offense charged. This is subsequent to the complaint and hearing on which the count is based. Yet being prior to the finding of the indictment, subsequent to the statute describing the offense and fixing the penalty, and within the period prescribed by the statute of limitations, it is well laid, according to the principles referred to in the preceding case”: Com. v. Nailor (No. 1), Id. 271.

*94 It has been held repeatedly that where time is not of the essence of the offense, the Commonwealth can show any time prior to the finding of the indictment and within the period of limitation, Com. v. Ryhal, 274 Pa. 401; Com. v. Powell, 23 Pa. Superior Ct. 370; Com. v. Coleman, 60 Pa. Superior Ct. 512.

The order and judgment of the court of quarter sessions quashing the bill of indictment is reversed, the indictment is reinstated and the record remitted for further proceedings according to law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 Pa. Super. 92, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-bridges-pasuperct-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack