Commonwealth v. Kent

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Kent

49 A.2d 868, 160 Pa. Super. 1

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 4, 1946

DocketAppeal, 51

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.2d 868 (Commonwealth v. Kent) 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. Kent, 49 A.2d 868, 160 Pa. Super. 1 (Pa. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The appellant in this case was charged and convicted of the crime of robbery.

In this appeal he challenges the credibility of a commonwealth witness, who, at the trial, positively identified him as the perpetrator of the crime charged in the indictment. Considering the testimony of this witness in its entirety, we think the weight to be given it was for the consideration of the jury.

Complaint was made also to the refusal of an application for a change of venue. Under the second paragraph of section 1 of the Act of March 18, 1875, P. L. 30, 19 PS 551, the granting or refusal of a change of venue is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge. When, as here, no abuse of discretion appears such an application will not be reviewed and reversed by us: Commonwealth v. Westley Allen, 135 Pa. 483, 19 A. 957.

The appellant alleges further that the court erred in the refusal to' permit examination of Ernest Osier, a commonwealth witness that he was prosecuted, charged with assault and battery and larceny; Commonwealth v. Mueller, 153 Pa. Superior Ct. 524, 34 A. 2d 321. It does not appear formally in the record that there was any proof, or offer to prove, that this witness had been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor in the nature of crimen falsi. In any event, the court’s action was not prejudicial to the appellant, as the jury was already apprised of the fact that the witness had been incarcer *3 ated in jail and furthermore, his credibility had been attacked on the ground of prior contradictory statements relative to a vital .portion of his testimony.

The record shows that there was ample evidence to support the verdict and we find no reversible trial errors. We are convinced that the appellant had a fair and impartial trial and that is all to which he was entitled.

Judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam,

The appellant in this case was charged and convicted of the crime of robbery.

In this appeal he challenges the credibility of a commonwealth witness, who, at the trial, positively identified him as the perpetrator of the crime charged in the indictment. Considering the testimony of this witness in its entirety, we think the weight to be given it was for the consideration of the jury.

Complaint was made also to the refusal of an application for a change of venue. Under the second paragraph of section 1 of the Act of March 18, 1875, P. L. 30, 19 PS 551, the granting or refusal of a change of venue is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge. When, as here, no abuse of discretion appears such an application will not be reviewed and reversed by us: Commonwealth v. Westley Allen, 135 Pa. 483, 19 A. 957.

The appellant alleges further that the court erred in the refusal to' permit examination of Ernest Osier, a commonwealth witness that he was prosecuted, charged with assault and battery and larceny; Commonwealth v. Mueller, 153 Pa. Superior Ct. 524, 34 A. 2d 321. It does not appear formally in the record that there was any proof, or offer to prove, that this witness had been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor in the nature of crimen falsi. In any event, the court’s action was not prejudicial to the appellant, as the jury was already apprised of the fact that the witness had been incarcer *3 ated in jail and furthermore, his credibility had been attacked on the ground of prior contradictory statements relative to a vital .portion of his testimony.

The record shows that there was ample evidence to support the verdict and we find no reversible trial errors. We are convinced that the appellant had a fair and impartial trial and that is all to which he was entitled.

Judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.2d 868, 160 Pa. Super. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-kent-pasuperct-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack