Commonwealth v. Roman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Roman

411 A.2d 805, 270 Pa. Super. 450, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3098

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 12, 1979

DocketNos. 100 and 101

StatusPublished

This text of 411 A.2d 805 (Commonwealth v. Roman) 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. Roman, 411 A.2d 805, 270 Pa. Super. 450, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3098 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

NIX, Judge:

Appellant appeals from the judgment of sentence following his conviction on two counts of third degree murder following a jury trial. Although appellant couches his position in terms of two arguments, the thrust of both is that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of third degree murder on both counts because the evidence established a killing in self defense and not a malicious killing.

The test of sufficiency of the evidence is whether, accepting as true all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which, if believed, the factfinder could properly have based its verdict, it is sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime or crimes of which he has been convicted. Commonwealth v. Glass, 486 Pa. 334, 405 A.2d 1236 (1979); Commonwealth v. Hamm, 474 Pa. 487, 494, 378 A.2d 1219, 1222 (1977). See also, Commonwealth v. Thomas, 465 Pa. 442, 350 A.2d 847 (1976); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 458 Pa. 23, 326 A.2d 315 (1974).

As we review the evidence, this Court must consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this instance, the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Glass, supra, Commonwealth v. Brown, 467 Pa. 388, 357 A.2d 147 (1976); Commonwealth v. Caye, 465 Pa. 98, 348 A.2d 136 (1975).

The prosecution’s eyewitness testified that the appellant had engaged in an argument with the two victims early in the evening. The appellant left the scene of the argument but returned later having procured a bayonet. Upon his return, the appellant repeatedly stabbed both victims. Appellant testified that the victims were in fact aggressors and that he had acted in self-defense. The eyewitness, however, disputed that conclusion and testified that the [452]*452appellant was in fact the aggressor. In accordance with the above mentioned standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence, we must reject appellant’s claim for relief.

The judgment of sentence is affirmed.

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

NIX, Judge:

Appellant appeals from the judgment of sentence following his conviction on two counts of third degree murder following a jury trial. Although appellant couches his position in terms of two arguments, the thrust of both is that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of third degree murder on both counts because the evidence established a killing in self defense and not a malicious killing.

The test of sufficiency of the evidence is whether, accepting as true all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which, if believed, the factfinder could properly have based its verdict, it is sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime or crimes of which he has been convicted. Commonwealth v. Glass, 486 Pa. 334, 405 A.2d 1236 (1979); Commonwealth v. Hamm, 474 Pa. 487, 494, 378 A.2d 1219, 1222 (1977). See also, Commonwealth v. Thomas, 465 Pa. 442, 350 A.2d 847 (1976); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 458 Pa. 23, 326 A.2d 315 (1974).

As we review the evidence, this Court must consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this instance, the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Glass, supra, Commonwealth v. Brown, 467 Pa. 388, 357 A.2d 147 (1976); Commonwealth v. Caye, 465 Pa. 98, 348 A.2d 136 (1975).

The prosecution’s eyewitness testified that the appellant had engaged in an argument with the two victims early in the evening. The appellant left the scene of the argument but returned later having procured a bayonet. Upon his return, the appellant repeatedly stabbed both victims. Appellant testified that the victims were in fact aggressors and that he had acted in self-defense. The eyewitness, however, disputed that conclusion and testified that the [452]*452appellant was in fact the aggressor. In accordance with the above mentioned standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence, we must reject appellant’s claim for relief.

The judgment of sentence is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 A.2d 805, 270 Pa. Super. 450, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-roman-pasuperct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack