Commonwealth v. McMillan

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. McMillan

240 A.2d 380, 212 Pa. Super. 48, 1968 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1058

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 20, 1968

DocketAppeal, 1129

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.2d 380 (Commonwealth v. McMillan) 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. McMillan, 240 A.2d 380, 212 Pa. Super. 48, 1968 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1058 (Pa. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Wright, P. J.,

Jesse McMillan and Norris Woodley were jointly indicted in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County at May Sessions 1967 in Bill No. 1230 charging assault and battery, in Bill No. 1231 charging aggravated robbery, and in Bill No. 1232 charging conspiracy. Pleas of not guilty were entered, and trial was held before Honorable John R. Meade and a jury. A verdict of guilty was returned on Bills Nos. 1230 and 1231, and a verdict of not guilty on Bill No. 1232. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were dismissed, and a sentence of two and one-half to five years was imposed on each defendant on Bill No. 1231. Sentences were suspended on Bill No. 1230. McMillan has appealed at No. 1129 October Term 1967. There is a companion appeal by Woodley at No. 1141 October Term 1967. The factual situation appears in the following excerpt from the opinion below:

“The evidence presented during the trial indicated that the complainant, Francis J. Donnelly, on April 22, 1967 at approximately 3:30 A.M. paid his check at the Snow White Restaurant located at 1317 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, walked outside and, after an unsuccessful effort to secure a taxi-cab, leaned against a building nearby facing a subway entrance and dozed off. Defendants who had been in said restaurant at the same time with the complainant subsequently followed him outside, grabbed his arms, beat and pushed him one-half way down the subway stairs shouting obscenities at him while going through his pockets. Upon the approach of a police officer, defendants released the complainant and dropped his handkerchief and comb on the floor; defendants were positively identified by the complainant as his assailants. Defendant Woodley did not take the stand and offer any testimony on his behalf. Defendant McMillan testified that complainant in the restaurant had re *50 ferred to both defendants in an uncomplimentary manner and that, when the defendants left the restaurant, complainant again repeated the same epithets and tried to ‘grab’ the defendants thereby causing a struggle among the three of them, until the police officer arrived”.

Appellant’s contentions on this appeal relate (1) to alleged improper cross-examination, and (2) to the sufficiency of the evidence. The only case mentioned in the brief is Anders v. California, 388 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396. This extreme example of the attitude of a majority 1 of the members of the United States Supreme Court concerning procedure and equality in appellate representation has no relevancy here. Appellant’s counsel have not indicated lack of merit in the instant appeal. On the contrary, they have filed a brief marshalling all possible arguments on appellant’s behalf.

Having carefully reviewed the original record, we agree with the court below that “the evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury’s findings and all conflicts in credibility were resolved by the jury’s verdicts”. No trial or other error has been demonstrated. In brief, we perceive no merit in this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

1

There were three dissents in the Anders case.

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

Opinion by

Wright, P. J.,

Jesse McMillan and Norris Woodley were jointly indicted in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County at May Sessions 1967 in Bill No. 1230 charging assault and battery, in Bill No. 1231 charging aggravated robbery, and in Bill No. 1232 charging conspiracy. Pleas of not guilty were entered, and trial was held before Honorable John R. Meade and a jury. A verdict of guilty was returned on Bills Nos. 1230 and 1231, and a verdict of not guilty on Bill No. 1232. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were dismissed, and a sentence of two and one-half to five years was imposed on each defendant on Bill No. 1231. Sentences were suspended on Bill No. 1230. McMillan has appealed at No. 1129 October Term 1967. There is a companion appeal by Woodley at No. 1141 October Term 1967. The factual situation appears in the following excerpt from the opinion below:

“The evidence presented during the trial indicated that the complainant, Francis J. Donnelly, on April 22, 1967 at approximately 3:30 A.M. paid his check at the Snow White Restaurant located at 1317 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, walked outside and, after an unsuccessful effort to secure a taxi-cab, leaned against a building nearby facing a subway entrance and dozed off. Defendants who had been in said restaurant at the same time with the complainant subsequently followed him outside, grabbed his arms, beat and pushed him one-half way down the subway stairs shouting obscenities at him while going through his pockets. Upon the approach of a police officer, defendants released the complainant and dropped his handkerchief and comb on the floor; defendants were positively identified by the complainant as his assailants. Defendant Woodley did not take the stand and offer any testimony on his behalf. Defendant McMillan testified that complainant in the restaurant had re *50 ferred to both defendants in an uncomplimentary manner and that, when the defendants left the restaurant, complainant again repeated the same epithets and tried to ‘grab’ the defendants thereby causing a struggle among the three of them, until the police officer arrived”.

Appellant’s contentions on this appeal relate (1) to alleged improper cross-examination, and (2) to the sufficiency of the evidence. The only case mentioned in the brief is Anders v. California, 388 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396. This extreme example of the attitude of a majority 1 of the members of the United States Supreme Court concerning procedure and equality in appellate representation has no relevancy here. Appellant’s counsel have not indicated lack of merit in the instant appeal. On the contrary, they have filed a brief marshalling all possible arguments on appellant’s behalf.

Having carefully reviewed the original record, we agree with the court below that “the evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury’s findings and all conflicts in credibility were resolved by the jury’s verdicts”. No trial or other error has been demonstrated. In brief, we perceive no merit in this appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

1

There were three dissents in the Anders case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.2d 380, 212 Pa. Super. 48, 1968 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-mcmillan-pasuperct-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack