Commonwealth v. Trader

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Trader

512 A.2d 693, 354 Pa. Super. 583, 1986 Pa. Super. LEXIS 11377

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 14, 1986

DocketNo. 1634

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 512 A.2d 693 (Commonwealth v. Trader) 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. Trader, 512 A.2d 693, 354 Pa. Super. 583, 1986 Pa. Super. LEXIS 11377 (Pa. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

WIEAND, Judge:

On December 19, 1984, at or about 8:10 p.m., a burglar alarm was activated at Saul Levy’s Furniture Warehouse in the City of Chester, Delaware County. Responding police found Richard Trader in a crouched position in an adjoining, vacant building. Trader had a flashlight in his possession but was not carrying burglary tools. Although a hole had been forced in the wall between the vacant building and the warehouse, neither plaster dust nor wooden splinters were found on Trader’s clothing. After the Commonwealth had proven these facts, the trial court sustained a defense demurrer to charges of criminal trespass and attempted burglary. Mere presence at the scene of a crime, the trial court held, was insufficient to prove guilt.

The sustaining of Trader’s demurrer was a determination that as a matter of law the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. This was an acquittal. Because reversal would require a second trial in violation of the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution, an appeal by the Commonwealth can serve no proper purpose and, therefore, is barred. Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1745, 90 L.Ed.2d 116, (1986). [585]*585See also: United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 97 S.Ct. 1349, 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977). The Commonwealth’s appeal in the instant case, therefore, must be quashed.

Appeal quashed.

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

WIEAND, Judge:

On December 19, 1984, at or about 8:10 p.m., a burglar alarm was activated at Saul Levy’s Furniture Warehouse in the City of Chester, Delaware County. Responding police found Richard Trader in a crouched position in an adjoining, vacant building. Trader had a flashlight in his possession but was not carrying burglary tools. Although a hole had been forced in the wall between the vacant building and the warehouse, neither plaster dust nor wooden splinters were found on Trader’s clothing. After the Commonwealth had proven these facts, the trial court sustained a defense demurrer to charges of criminal trespass and attempted burglary. Mere presence at the scene of a crime, the trial court held, was insufficient to prove guilt.

The sustaining of Trader’s demurrer was a determination that as a matter of law the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. This was an acquittal. Because reversal would require a second trial in violation of the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution, an appeal by the Commonwealth can serve no proper purpose and, therefore, is barred. Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1745, 90 L.Ed.2d 116, (1986). [585]*585See also: United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 97 S.Ct. 1349, 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977). The Commonwealth’s appeal in the instant case, therefore, must be quashed.

Appeal quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

512 A.2d 693, 354 Pa. Super. 583, 1986 Pa. Super. LEXIS 11377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-trader-pasuperct-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack