Commonwealth v. Peach

32 A. 582, 170 Pa. 173, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1379
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 18, 1895
DocketAppeal, No. 115
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 32 A. 582 (Commonwealth v. Peach) 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. Peach, 32 A. 582, 170 Pa. 173, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1379 (Pa. 1895).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

There is no error on this record. The charge of the learned •court below was eminently fair and impartial an d entirely correct. It gave the prisoner the benefit of every consideration to which persons charged with the offense of rape are entitled. The absence of an instruction that the prisoner might have been convicted of fornication if the jury doubted his guilt of the greater charge was not error, because no such instruction was asked for. But the court distinctly charged the jury that if they had a reasonable doubt of the guilt of prisoner of the crime of rape they should acquit him altogether, and as this covered every aspect of his case except that of technical rape, it necessarily included the minor offense of fornication, and was more favorable to the prisoner than would have been an instruction that he might have been convicted of the minor offense. But as the jury did not have any doubt of his guilt on the charge [177]*177of rape an instruction as to fornication would have been of no avail.

The second assignment of error has no merit. The utmost effect it could have would be to produce a re-sentence. In no view of the case would it be an error upon which the judgment should be reversed. But the last provisb-jof the 74th section of the criminal code applies only to persons sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary, whereas this prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment in the Northumberland county prison.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, and the record is remitted for the purpose of execution.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Friday
90 A.2d 856 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1952)
Commonwealth v. Moskorison
85 A.2d 644 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1952)
Commonwealth v. Magliarditi
45 A.2d 244 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1945)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Guiramez v. Ashe
141 A. 723 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Commonwealth v. Mehring
4 Pa. D. & C. 673 (York County Court of Quarter Sessions, 1923)
Hockenberry v. New Castle Electric Co.
96 A. 1046 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1916)
Commonwealth v. Walker
33 Pa. Super. 167 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 A. 582, 170 Pa. 173, 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-peach-pa-1895.