Opinion by
Watkins, J.,
These are appeals from the judgment of sentence by the defendants-appellants, Ruth Marmon and Joseph Bardascino, imposed after convictions on indictments charging bribery, extortion, violation of the Magistrates’ Court Act of 1937 and conspiracy.
The facts upon which the convictions were based were largely uncovered as a result of an investigation of the Philadelphia Magisterial system conducted by the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and may be summarized as follows:
On August 29, 1963, a Thursday, Mr. and Mrs. Walker contacted John J. Welsh, a committeeman and [205]*205state assemblyman, in tbe hope that he could do something with regard to Mr. Walker’s arrest that morning on a lottery charge.
The next morning Welsh awaited the arrival of the defendant Marmon outside the police court in which she was to preside as magistrate that day. He spoke to her upon her arrival pleading Walker’s non-involvement in the numbers business. Magistrate Marmon said, “It would be $100 or $1,000 bail.” Under the arrangement, she would discharge for $100. In the alternative, she would hold Walker for court on $1000 bail, the premium for which would be the equivalent of the proposed bribe.
Welsh then told Marmon that one Crittendon, the Walker’s lodger, was the true culprit. Crittendon heard part of the conversation. At the hearing for Walker, Walker was discharged and Crittendon was held for a hearing the next day at the instigation of Magistrate Marmon. Crittendon was thereupon arrested and held for a hearing, Saturday, August 30, 1963.
On Saturday morning Magistrate Marmon beckoned Welsh to approach the bench and told him it was “still a $100 or $1000 bail.” Welsh reported this to the Walkers, but they only had $50. This was reported to Magistrate Marmon and she told Welsh to “talk to my clerk”, indicating the defendant Bardascino, then sitting beside her on the bench. Bardascino took Welsh into a side room. He took the $50 from Welsh for the payoff and made arrangements for payment of the $50 balance. Crittendon was discharged.
Monday was Labor Day. The Walkers could not withdraw the balance from their bank. Welsh telephoned Marmon’s office and was informed by her regularly appointed clerk that Bardascino was not there. Bardascino called Welsh that night and arranged another appointment for noon Wednesday at Welsh’s of[206]*206fice. Having obtained tbe $50 from Walker on Tuesday, tbe balance of the bribe was to be given by Welsh to Bardascino when he kept the Wednesday appointment. Welsh then paid the balance of $50 to Bardascino. Since convictions were had the above summary of facts are taken in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
Appellants raise numerous questions alleging many errors in the trial and charge to the jury. We will attempt to dispose of them in an orderly fashion.
First, they contend that the investigation and prosecution by the Attorney General were in violation of Section 907 of The Administrative Code and without legal basis.
This is patently incorrect. Section 907 of The Administrative Code established one means by which the attorney general may be brought into a criminal proceeding in any of the several counties of the Commonwealth. This, however, is not a limitation on the over-all powers and duties of the office. He is the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth, and is charged with the duty of seeing that the law throughout the Commonwealth is enforced, and he has the power and duly to investigate alleged violations thereof and take such enforcement steps as may be necessary. Matson v. Margiotti, 371 Pa. 188, 88 A. 2d 892 (1952). He has all the powers and attributes of attorneys general under the common law. Appeal of Margiotti, 365 Pa. 330, 75 A. 2d 465 (1950); Com. ex rel. Minerd v. Margiotti, 325 Pa. 17, 188 A. 524 (1936).
The action of the attorney general in the instant cases was taken after a request to the Governor by several judges of Philadelphia County; he acted at the direction of the Governor and carried out his investigation with the assistance and cooperation of the District Attorney of Philadelphia County.
[207]*207Appellant Marmon contends that the statements presented in the complaint to the magistrate issuing the warrant for arrest were not sufficient to allow the magistrate to make an independent determination of probable cause. The complaint was executed and sworn to by an investigator for the Department of Justice, was presented to a judge of the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Philadelphia County sitting as a committing magistrate and was as follows:
“On or about August 30, 1963, in the County of Philadelphia, the accused committed the following acts: they did conspire together to commit extortion and to violate the Magistrates Act of 1937 and did commit extortion and did violate the Magistrates Act of 1937 by extorting, demanding, taking and accepting the sum of $100.00 from an agent or intermediary of Andrew Crittendon, a defendant in case of Commonwealth v. Andrew Crittendon, all of which was against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and contrary to the pertinent Acts of Assembly. I ask that a warrant of arrest or a summons be issued and that the accused be required to answer the charges I have made, and I swear to or affirm the within complaint upon my knowledge, information and belief, and sign it on July 14, 1965 before Honorable Joseph Sloane whose office is that of President Judge, Common Pleas No. 7.”
It is enough if the information states a criminal offense committed by defendant, its general nature, and its time and place. The information must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a common sense and realistic fashion. Where the information sets forth some detail of the circumstances, where there is reason for crediting the source of the information which is disclosed, and when a magistrate has found probable cause, we should not invalidate warrants by interpreting the affidavits in a hyper-techni[208]*208cal, rather than a common sense manner. We find there was sufficient information and probable cause for issuance of the warrants. Com. v. Ametrane, 205 Pa. Superior Ct. 567, 210 A. 2d 902 (1965). It should also be noted that the defendants waived a hearing before the court sitting as a committing magistrate.
Appellant Bardascino contends that under the circumstances there was so much pretrial confusion that he did not have a reasonable opportunity to challenge the array of the grand jury. From the record it appears there were two arrests and three separate presentments to the grand jury and three sets of indictments. Warrants for the arrest of appellants were issued by Judge Sloane on July 14, 1965 and the appellants were arrested on July 15, 1965, were preliminarily arraigned before the same Judge on Jaly 21, 1965 and bills presented to the grand jury on August 12, 1965 and the appellants were indicted that same day.
At this time, because of petitions for writs of habeas corpus, motion to quash warrants, stay orders and phone calls, confusion reigned supreme.
The Attorney General, in order to protect the record from any future contingencies, on August 20, 1965, filed a new complaint against both appellants before Judge Carroll of the court below who, the same day, issued warrants for their arrest.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion by
Watkins, J.,
These are appeals from the judgment of sentence by the defendants-appellants, Ruth Marmon and Joseph Bardascino, imposed after convictions on indictments charging bribery, extortion, violation of the Magistrates’ Court Act of 1937 and conspiracy.
The facts upon which the convictions were based were largely uncovered as a result of an investigation of the Philadelphia Magisterial system conducted by the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and may be summarized as follows:
On August 29, 1963, a Thursday, Mr. and Mrs. Walker contacted John J. Welsh, a committeeman and [205]*205state assemblyman, in tbe hope that he could do something with regard to Mr. Walker’s arrest that morning on a lottery charge.
The next morning Welsh awaited the arrival of the defendant Marmon outside the police court in which she was to preside as magistrate that day. He spoke to her upon her arrival pleading Walker’s non-involvement in the numbers business. Magistrate Marmon said, “It would be $100 or $1,000 bail.” Under the arrangement, she would discharge for $100. In the alternative, she would hold Walker for court on $1000 bail, the premium for which would be the equivalent of the proposed bribe.
Welsh then told Marmon that one Crittendon, the Walker’s lodger, was the true culprit. Crittendon heard part of the conversation. At the hearing for Walker, Walker was discharged and Crittendon was held for a hearing the next day at the instigation of Magistrate Marmon. Crittendon was thereupon arrested and held for a hearing, Saturday, August 30, 1963.
On Saturday morning Magistrate Marmon beckoned Welsh to approach the bench and told him it was “still a $100 or $1000 bail.” Welsh reported this to the Walkers, but they only had $50. This was reported to Magistrate Marmon and she told Welsh to “talk to my clerk”, indicating the defendant Bardascino, then sitting beside her on the bench. Bardascino took Welsh into a side room. He took the $50 from Welsh for the payoff and made arrangements for payment of the $50 balance. Crittendon was discharged.
Monday was Labor Day. The Walkers could not withdraw the balance from their bank. Welsh telephoned Marmon’s office and was informed by her regularly appointed clerk that Bardascino was not there. Bardascino called Welsh that night and arranged another appointment for noon Wednesday at Welsh’s of[206]*206fice. Having obtained tbe $50 from Walker on Tuesday, tbe balance of the bribe was to be given by Welsh to Bardascino when he kept the Wednesday appointment. Welsh then paid the balance of $50 to Bardascino. Since convictions were had the above summary of facts are taken in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
Appellants raise numerous questions alleging many errors in the trial and charge to the jury. We will attempt to dispose of them in an orderly fashion.
First, they contend that the investigation and prosecution by the Attorney General were in violation of Section 907 of The Administrative Code and without legal basis.
This is patently incorrect. Section 907 of The Administrative Code established one means by which the attorney general may be brought into a criminal proceeding in any of the several counties of the Commonwealth. This, however, is not a limitation on the over-all powers and duties of the office. He is the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth, and is charged with the duty of seeing that the law throughout the Commonwealth is enforced, and he has the power and duly to investigate alleged violations thereof and take such enforcement steps as may be necessary. Matson v. Margiotti, 371 Pa. 188, 88 A. 2d 892 (1952). He has all the powers and attributes of attorneys general under the common law. Appeal of Margiotti, 365 Pa. 330, 75 A. 2d 465 (1950); Com. ex rel. Minerd v. Margiotti, 325 Pa. 17, 188 A. 524 (1936).
The action of the attorney general in the instant cases was taken after a request to the Governor by several judges of Philadelphia County; he acted at the direction of the Governor and carried out his investigation with the assistance and cooperation of the District Attorney of Philadelphia County.
[207]*207Appellant Marmon contends that the statements presented in the complaint to the magistrate issuing the warrant for arrest were not sufficient to allow the magistrate to make an independent determination of probable cause. The complaint was executed and sworn to by an investigator for the Department of Justice, was presented to a judge of the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Philadelphia County sitting as a committing magistrate and was as follows:
“On or about August 30, 1963, in the County of Philadelphia, the accused committed the following acts: they did conspire together to commit extortion and to violate the Magistrates Act of 1937 and did commit extortion and did violate the Magistrates Act of 1937 by extorting, demanding, taking and accepting the sum of $100.00 from an agent or intermediary of Andrew Crittendon, a defendant in case of Commonwealth v. Andrew Crittendon, all of which was against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and contrary to the pertinent Acts of Assembly. I ask that a warrant of arrest or a summons be issued and that the accused be required to answer the charges I have made, and I swear to or affirm the within complaint upon my knowledge, information and belief, and sign it on July 14, 1965 before Honorable Joseph Sloane whose office is that of President Judge, Common Pleas No. 7.”
It is enough if the information states a criminal offense committed by defendant, its general nature, and its time and place. The information must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a common sense and realistic fashion. Where the information sets forth some detail of the circumstances, where there is reason for crediting the source of the information which is disclosed, and when a magistrate has found probable cause, we should not invalidate warrants by interpreting the affidavits in a hyper-techni[208]*208cal, rather than a common sense manner. We find there was sufficient information and probable cause for issuance of the warrants. Com. v. Ametrane, 205 Pa. Superior Ct. 567, 210 A. 2d 902 (1965). It should also be noted that the defendants waived a hearing before the court sitting as a committing magistrate.
Appellant Bardascino contends that under the circumstances there was so much pretrial confusion that he did not have a reasonable opportunity to challenge the array of the grand jury. From the record it appears there were two arrests and three separate presentments to the grand jury and three sets of indictments. Warrants for the arrest of appellants were issued by Judge Sloane on July 14, 1965 and the appellants were arrested on July 15, 1965, were preliminarily arraigned before the same Judge on Jaly 21, 1965 and bills presented to the grand jury on August 12, 1965 and the appellants were indicted that same day.
At this time, because of petitions for writs of habeas corpus, motion to quash warrants, stay orders and phone calls, confusion reigned supreme.
The Attorney General, in order to protect the record from any future contingencies, on August 20, 1965, filed a new complaint against both appellants before Judge Carroll of the court below who, the same day, issued warrants for their arrest. Appellants were again arrested on August 23, 1965, a preliminary hearing was set for August 27, 1965 at which time both waived the hearing and on August 30, 1965, with the statute of limitations about to run on several of the charges, they were again indicted. These same bills were again presented to the grand jury and another set of indictments had on October 28, 1965.
Appellant Bardascino, by his attorney, notified the Attorney General by letter on August 27, 1965 that he intended to challenge the array, but took no further [209]*209action. The term for this grand jury started on August 2, 1965.
Appellant relies on the case of Com. v. Dessus, 423 Pa. 177, 224 A. 2d 188 (1966), in which the defendant was held for action by the grand jury by a magistrate and indicted the same day. The Supreme Court discussed the new Rule 203 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the question of the violation or circumvention of defendant’s constitutional rights because of a speedy indictment not giving the defendant a reasonable opportunity to challenge the array at page 187 as follows: Rule 203 provides: (Adopted June 30, 1964; effective January 1, 1965).
“Rule 203. Objections to Grand Jury and Grand Jurors.
“Either the attorney for the Commonwealth or a defendant who has been held to answer may challenge the array of jurors or an individual grand juror. A challenge to the array may be made only on the ground that the grand jury was not selected, drawn, or summoned substantially in accordance with law. An inidividual grand juror may be challenged on the ground that he is not legally qualified or that a state of mind exists on his part which may prevent him from acting impartially. All challenges must be made before the jurors are sworn unless opportunity did not exist prior thereto; in any event a challenge must be made before the bill of indictment is submitted to the grand jury. All challenges shall be heard and determined by the court. If a challenge to the array is sustained, the grand jury shall be discharged, if a challenge to an individual grand juror is sustained, he shall be retired or discharged and the court may replace him from the persons drawn or selected for grand jury service.”
The court held in that case, “under all the circumstances, we shall interpret the Rule liberally, in order to preserve if promptly exercised, defendant-appellee’s [210]*210legal and constitutional right to challenge the grand jury array, or an individual grand juror or grand jurors for cause.” In the instant case, however, appellant was represented by counsel at every stage of the proceedings and under these circumstances, as the Rule is now promulgated, had sufficient reasonable opportunity, if promptly exercised, to challenge the array, etc.
The contention of appellant Bardascino, that the charge of the court regarding alibi was error, is without merit. When read as a whole, the charge fairly placed the burden of proof on the Commomvealth and explained the possibility that alibi evidence, either alone or together with other evidence, may be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as set forth in Com. v. Bonomo, 396 Pa. 222, 151 A. 2d 441 (1959).
The appellants contend as error the court’s charge as to reputation evidence being limited as substantive evidence to the crimes charged of conspiracy, bribery and extortion and excluding it from their consideration of the charged violation of the Magistrates’ Court Act of 1937, since there was no criminal intent required in finding a violation of the Act.
This trial presented a very novel and difficult situation, in that crimes were charged which require criminal intent for conviction and also the violation of the Magistrates’ Court Act. The charge of the court was fair and clear as to reputation evidence generally and as to its exclusion from consideration regarding the Magistrates’ Court Act. This was limited to the question of whether or not the appellants were guilty of doing the acts complained of regardless of intent and in no way restricted the consideration of the reputation evidence in determining the general credibility of the appellants as to all their testimony regardless of the crime charged. At the new trial of these matters, which is being granted by this Court, the court below will have [211]*211an opportunity to spell this out without difficulty, as called for in Com. v. Zeger, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 498, 165 A. 2d 683 (1960).
Appellant Marmon contends that the charge of the court regarding the crime of bribery was fundamental error. With this we must agree. The court charged as follows: “You may convict the defendants upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice provided his testimony satisfies you of the guilt of the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt.” No attempt was made to eliminate the bribery charge from this instruction even though the Act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 382, §49, 18 PS §2, as amended, sets forth the following:
“Bribery; witness testifying to be exempt from prosecution; testimony of accomplice. . . .
“Provided, that the accused shall not be convicted on the testimony of an accomplice, unless the same be corroborated by other evidence, or the circumstances of the case.”
The crime of bribery is one offense. 1939, June 24, P. L. 872, §303, as amended, 1963, July 31, P. L. 421, §1, 18 PS §4303, but it takes more than one person to commit it, the briber and the one bribed. The Act provides more serious punishment for the public functionary who receives the bribe than the one offering it. This is obviously based on public policy. The Act provides for different punishments and makes it a misdemeanor for the briber and a felony for the one bribed. “No witness shall be excused from testifying in any criminal proceeding . . . touching his knowledge of the aforesaid crime, under any pretense or allegation whatsoever; but the evidence so given, . . . shall not be used against him in any prosecution under this act; provided that the accused shall not be convicted on the testimony of an accomplice, unless the same be corroborated by other evidence, or the circumstances of the case.” 1860, March 31, P. L. 382, §49, 18 PS §2.
[212]*212Portions of the Act of 1860 have been repealed but this section is still a part of the statutory law of Pennsylvania and should be preserved. Otherwise it is an invitation to make reckless accusations by one protected from prosecution by the law itself and might well result in serious injustice. The court below misled the jury to the prejudice of the appellants when it could just as easily have gone on to state that the conviction could be sustained on the testimony of an accomplice if corroborated by other evidence or the circumstances of the case. There may well be sufficient evidence in this record to sustain such a charge.
The court below, in its opinion, distinguishes the briber from the one bribed since one is guilty of a misdemeanor and the other a felony, and that, therefore, one could not be the accomplice of the other. This is error. There was only one offense of bribery with different punishments but both punishments are imposed for violation of the same act and for purposes of immunity under Art. Ill, §32 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania the briber and the one bribed are considered accomplices. “Any person may be compelled to testify in any lawful investigation or judicial proceeding against any person who may be charged with having committed the offense of bribery or corrupt solicitation, or practices of solicitation, and shall not be permitted to withhold his testimony upon the ground that it may criminate himself or subject him to public infamy; but such testimony shall not afterwards be used against him in any judicial proceeding, except for perjury in giving such testimony, and any person convicted of either of the offenses aforesaid shall, as part of the punishment therefor, be disqualified from holding any office or position of honor, trust or profit in this Commonwealth.” We must read all the statutes under the light of the Constitution. “The crime of bribery applies to the giver and to the taker of the bribe. [213]*213Each is the accomplice of the other.” Com. v. Kilgallen, 379 Pa. 315, 108 A. 2d 780 (1954).
Com. v. Hopkins, 165 Pa. Superior Ct. 561, 69 A. 2d 428 (1949), holds that the test of determining if one is an accomplice of the accused on trial is whether or not he could be indicted and punished for the crime with which the accused is charged. Certainly the giver of the bribe may be indicted and convicted under the Act of 1939, as amended 1963, supra, which provides: “Whoever shall directly or indirectly, or by means of and through any artful and dishonest device whatever, give or make any promise, contract or agreement, for the payment, delivery, or alienation of any money, goods or other thing, in order to obtain or influence the vote, opinion, verdict, award, judgment, decree, or behavior of any member of the General Assembly, or any officer or employe of this Commonwealth, or of any political subdivision thereof, or any judge, juror, justice, referee or arbitrator, in any bill, action, suit, complaint, indictment, controversy, matter or thing whatsoever, depending or which shall depend before him or them, is guilty of bribery, a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or to undergo imprisonment by separate or solitary confinement at labor not exceeding one (1) year, or both.” This is the same crime of bribery under which the defendants in this case were indicted and convicted but because of the testimony of the giver on behalf of the Commonwealth he is immune from prosecution under the law.
We come now to the final question and that is whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of assistant district attorneys, and the records of ten unrelated cases which came before appellant Marmon, as rebuttal. Appellant Marmon testified that in the cases of Walker and Crittendon, she discharged [214]*214Walker and directed the arrest of Crittendon on the advice of the assistant district attorney, who was present on Friday. The assistant district attorney had been called by the appellant but had no recollection of the proceeding and stated nothing unsual happened to help him recall, and the record did not indicate anything unusual. Appellant Marmon, on cross-examination, stated that she followed the advice of the assistant district attorney most of the time, not always, and that she was not bound to take their advice.
The Commonwealth was then permitted to introduce testimony on these ten proceedings, all except one of which had to do with numbers violations, out of several hundred cases she had heard, to show that she did not rely on the advice of the assistant district attorneys as she had indicated, “almost always”.
Once admitted, the Commonwealth then proceeded to read into the record the prosecutor’s side of the case. Upon request of defense counsel the defense testimony, the disposition made by appellant Marmon and the recommendations of the assistant district attorney were also read into the record. The Court also charged on the duties of a magistrate in such cases.
The door was thrown open to numerous inferences, innuendoes and collateral decisions to be made by the jury. They could not help but try to determine whether she acted properly in these unrelated cases and be influenced by their decision in them. The original purpose for the testimony becomes hopelessly lost in the web of events having nothing to do with the case at issue. So much so, that no admonishment by the court, or attempt to limit the purpose for the testimony can wipe it clean in the mind of a juror. We cannot agree, under all the circumstances of this case, with the contention of the Commonwealth that “even if error (the introduction of the cases) it was not prejudicial in the context of the trial.” How do you define [215]*215“almost always”? Are we going to try and rebut tonal changes in voice or gestures because we infer a witness attempted to convey something to the jury other than what her words indicate? This we believe goes far afield. It is true that the admission of testimony is left largely to the sound discretion of the trial court, and his decision will not be reversed unless that discretion is abused. This record indicates an abuse of discretion which requires reversal in the interest of justice.
Judgment of sentence reversed and a new trial is granted both appellants.