Commonwealth v. Hollis

397 A.2d 417, 483 Pa. 427, 1979 Pa. LEXIS 424
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 24, 1979
DocketNo. 10
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 397 A.2d 417 (Commonwealth v. Hollis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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. Hollis, 397 A.2d 417, 483 Pa. 427, 1979 Pa. LEXIS 424 (Pa. 1979).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

On the evening of May 28, 1975, Anna Inej, her husband Harry, and Paul Maidatschewsky were returning home from a social function at a church on North Franklin Street, Philadelphia. Two assailants approached the three from behind. One assailant attempted to steal Mrs. Inej’s pocketbook. Mrs. Inej resisted, the assailant stabbed her several times, and she died from the stab wounds. The other assailant, also carrying a knife, stabbed Mr. Maidatschewsky in the arm. Both assailants fled with Mrs. Inej’s pocketbook. Appellant was arrested and charged with criminal [429]*429homicide, robbery, criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault, simple assault, and possessing an instrument of crime generally for his alleged participation in the incident.

A jury convicted appellant of murder of the second degree, robbery, criminal conspiracy, and felonious aggravated assault. The trial court denied appellant’s post-verdict motions and sentenced appellant to life imprisonment on the murder conviction and concurrent sentences on the other convictions.

Appellant’s appeal to this Court is from the murder conviction alone.1 He alleges that the trial court erred in: (1) arraigning him in the presence of a panel of jurors; (2) refusing to reduce pretrial bail; (3) failing to warn Commonwealth witnesses of their right not to testify and failing to appoint counsel for the witnesses; (4) admitting the victim’s pocketbook into evidence; (5) denying a demurrer on charges of murder of the first degree; and (6) suggesting to the jury that it return a verdict of murder of the second degree. None of these claims justifies relief.2

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

O’BRIEN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. POMEROY, former J., did not participate in the decision of this case.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Sudler
436 A.2d 1376 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Commonwealth v. Bruno
407 A.2d 413 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
397 A.2d 417, 483 Pa. 427, 1979 Pa. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-hollis-pa-1979.