Commonwealth v. Dorman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Dorman

22 Pa. Super. 17, 1903 Pa. Super. LEXIS 145

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 20, 1903

DocketNo. 1; Appeal, No. 7

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Pa. Super. 17 (Commonwealth v. Dorman) 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. Dorman, 22 Pa. Super. 17, 1903 Pa. Super. LEXIS 145 (Pa. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Smith, J.,

While the trial judge, in the charge, Aery properly laid before the jury the essential features of the evidence for the prosecution, we cannot say that he dwelt on it to an unwarrantable degree. Still less can we hold that he “ neglected to call like attention to testimony on behalf of defendants.” It was the misfortune of the defendants that the evidence on their part presented nothing material in the nature of a defense to the charge, and that cross-examination brought out features damaging to themselves. It contained nothing in their favor to which attention could be called. The explanatory circumstances which it introduced had no bearing on the question whether the defendants had formed a conspiracy to defraud, since they arose subsequently to the overt acts, and, as to these, explained nothing. The issue was fairly submitted to the jury, upon the evidence, and, as the record shows no error, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Smith, J.,

While the trial judge, in the charge, Aery properly laid before the jury the essential features of the evidence for the prosecution, we cannot say that he dwelt on it to an unwarrantable degree. Still less can we hold that he “ neglected to call like attention to testimony on behalf of defendants.” It was the misfortune of the defendants that the evidence on their part presented nothing material in the nature of a defense to the charge, and that cross-examination brought out features damaging to themselves. It contained nothing in their favor to which attention could be called. The explanatory circumstances which it introduced had no bearing on the question whether the defendants had formed a conspiracy to defraud, since they arose subsequently to the overt acts, and, as to these, explained nothing. The issue was fairly submitted to the jury, upon the evidence, and, as the record shows no error, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Pa. Super. 17, 1903 Pa. Super. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-dorman-pasuperct-1903.