Commonwealth v. Roth
This text of 8 Pa. Super. 220 (Commonwealth v. Roth) 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.
Opinion
The defendant moved to quash the indictment for reasons not appearing upon the record and after conviction appealed, assigning the refusal of the motion for error. Whether or not Such an order can be assigned for error, it is very clear that it cannot be when the facts upon which the motion was founded were not brought upon the record in any authorized way. If, upon a motion to quash an indictment the court could receive proof of the facts alleged in this motion — a point not decided —it must be presumed, in the absence of a bill of exception, that it heard the evidence and decided correctly. Finding no error in the record the judgment is affirmed and the record remitted to the end that the sentence be carried into effect.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Pa. Super. 220, 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-roth-pasuperct-1898.