Commonwealth v. Lord

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Lord

81 Pa. Super. 279, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 66

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 13, 1923

DocketAppeal, 291

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 81 Pa. Super. 279 (Commonwealth v. Lord) 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. Lord, 81 Pa. Super. 279, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 66 (Pa. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

The defendant was tried and convicted in the court below upon an indictment charging him with having received stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen. He does not allege that there was error in any ruling of the court at the trial which resulted in his conviction. The only assignment of error complains of the refusal of the court to grant a new trial.

,The real complaint of the appellant is that the jury ought not to have believed the testimony of the thief, from whom he had received the property. There is no rule of law in this State that, forbids a conviction upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice: Com. v. DeMasi, 234 Pa. 572. The appellant has not printed the charge of the court, and as no part of the charge is assigned for error, we must assume that the court properly instructed the jury as to their duty -to critically examine the testimony of the accomplice and to accept and act upon it, only when convinced of its truthfulness. The testimony of the accomplice in this case was, however, not entirely without corroboration. The thief testified that the defendant had received the goods and had sold them to a hotelkeeper, named Robinson, the innocence of the latter being upon all hands conceded. The defendant testified that the goods never had been in his possession, that he had not received them, that all he did was to introduce Guard, the thief, to Robinson. Mr. Robinson was called as a witness by the Commonwealth and testified positively that he bought the goods from this defendant and that Guard was not present when he made the purchase. We would not be warranted, upon the record here presented, in holding that the court below was guilty of an abuse of discretion when it refused a new trial.

The judgment is affirmed and it is ordered that the defendant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called and that he be by that court committed *281 until lie has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not been performed at the time the appeal in this case was made a supersedeas.

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

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

The defendant was tried and convicted in the court below upon an indictment charging him with having received stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen. He does not allege that there was error in any ruling of the court at the trial which resulted in his conviction. The only assignment of error complains of the refusal of the court to grant a new trial.

,The real complaint of the appellant is that the jury ought not to have believed the testimony of the thief, from whom he had received the property. There is no rule of law in this State that, forbids a conviction upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice: Com. v. DeMasi, 234 Pa. 572. The appellant has not printed the charge of the court, and as no part of the charge is assigned for error, we must assume that the court properly instructed the jury as to their duty -to critically examine the testimony of the accomplice and to accept and act upon it, only when convinced of its truthfulness. The testimony of the accomplice in this case was, however, not entirely without corroboration. The thief testified that the defendant had received the goods and had sold them to a hotelkeeper, named Robinson, the innocence of the latter being upon all hands conceded. The defendant testified that the goods never had been in his possession, that he had not received them, that all he did was to introduce Guard, the thief, to Robinson. Mr. Robinson was called as a witness by the Commonwealth and testified positively that he bought the goods from this defendant and that Guard was not present when he made the purchase. We would not be warranted, upon the record here presented, in holding that the court below was guilty of an abuse of discretion when it refused a new trial.

The judgment is affirmed and it is ordered that the defendant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called and that he be by that court committed *281 until lie has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not been performed at the time the appeal in this case was made a supersedeas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 Pa. Super. 279, 1923 Pa. Super. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-lord-pasuperct-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack