Commonwealth v. O'Brien

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. O'Brien

21 A. 385, 140 Pa. 555, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 871

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 9, 1891

DocketNo. 117

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 21 A. 385 (Commonwealth v. O'Brien) 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. O'Brien, 21 A. 385, 140 Pa. 555, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 871 (Pa. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The right of the commonwealth to stand aside a juror, is no longer an open question. Nor is the right confined to trials for felonies, but may be exercised in cases of misdemeanors. And it applies as well to jurors brought into court on a special venire, as to those on the regular panel: Haines v. Commonwealth, 100 Pa. 317; Smith v. Commonwealth, 100 Pa. 324; Rudy v. Commonwealth, 128 Pa. 500. Nor was the rule changed by the thirty-seventh section of the criminal procedure act of 1860, which allows peremptory challenges to the commonwealth: Warren v. Commonwealth, 37 Pa. 45. We need not pursue the subject further; it is thoroughly exhausted.

We are unable to find error in the admission of the application of Charles O’Brien to the directors of the poor. James O’Brien was directly connected with this transaction, and, as [561]*561an overt act of one of two joint conspirators, it was evidence against both.

Several of the assignments relate to the exclusion of evidence. As they do not conform to the rules of court they have not been considered. Those that allege error in the charge of the court are not sustained. The charge was correct upon the law and impartial upon the facts.

The judgment is affirmed, and it is ordered that the defendants surrender themselves forthwith to the custody of the high sheriff of Schuylkill county, for confinement in pursuance of the sentence of the court below.

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

Per Curiam:

The right of the commonwealth to stand aside a juror, is no longer an open question. Nor is the right confined to trials for felonies, but may be exercised in cases of misdemeanors. And it applies as well to jurors brought into court on a special venire, as to those on the regular panel: Haines v. Commonwealth, 100 Pa. 317; Smith v. Commonwealth, 100 Pa. 324; Rudy v. Commonwealth, 128 Pa. 500. Nor was the rule changed by the thirty-seventh section of the criminal procedure act of 1860, which allows peremptory challenges to the commonwealth: Warren v. Commonwealth, 37 Pa. 45. We need not pursue the subject further; it is thoroughly exhausted.

We are unable to find error in the admission of the application of Charles O’Brien to the directors of the poor. James O’Brien was directly connected with this transaction, and, as [561]*561an overt act of one of two joint conspirators, it was evidence against both.

Several of the assignments relate to the exclusion of evidence. As they do not conform to the rules of court they have not been considered. Those that allege error in the charge of the court are not sustained. The charge was correct upon the law and impartial upon the facts.

The judgment is affirmed, and it is ordered that the defendants surrender themselves forthwith to the custody of the high sheriff of Schuylkill county, for confinement in pursuance of the sentence of the court below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A. 385, 140 Pa. 555, 1891 Pa. LEXIS 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-obrien-pa-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack