Commonwealth v. Wimmer

Lehigh County Court of Oyer and Terminer

Commonwealth v. Wimmer

10 Pa. D. & C. 720, 1927 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 261

CourtLehigh County Court of Oyer and Terminer

DecidedNovember 21, 1927

DocketNo. 19

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Pa. D. & C. 720 (Commonwealth v. Wimmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Lehigh County Court of Oyer and Terminer primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Wimmer, 10 Pa. D. & C. 720, 1927 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 261 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Reno, P. J.,

Defendants were indicted for burglary. They pleaded not guilty. The Commonwealth established the commission of the crime, defendants’ participation in it and their signed confessions. The jury convicted them. They are guilty beyond all doubt.

Upon cross-examination of Commonwealth’s witnesses, defendants established that the committing alderman held the preliminary hearing at a place outside of his jurisdiction. Upon that circumstance they based a motion for discharge at the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case. The motion was overruled. The overruling of that motion is made the basis of the motion in arrest of judgment which is now before us.

If defendants had moved to quash the indictment upon the ground that the proceedings before the alderman were irregular, there is respectable authority for sustaining the motion: Com. v. Kurz, 14 Dist. R. 741. Certainly, they would have been released in a habeas corpus proceeding: Com. v. Brennan, 193 Pa. 567. But having entered a plea and gone to trial upon the merits, all defects in the information, warrant and proceedings before the committing alderman were cured: Com. v. Schoen, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 211.

Now, Nov. 21, 1927, the motion in arrest of judgment is overruled and discharged.

From Edwin L. Kohler, Allentown, Pa.

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

Reno, P. J.,

Defendants were indicted for burglary. They pleaded not guilty. The Commonwealth established the commission of the crime, defendants’ participation in it and their signed confessions. The jury convicted them. They are guilty beyond all doubt.

Upon cross-examination of Commonwealth’s witnesses, defendants established that the committing alderman held the preliminary hearing at a place outside of his jurisdiction. Upon that circumstance they based a motion for discharge at the conclusion of the Commonwealth’s case. The motion was overruled. The overruling of that motion is made the basis of the motion in arrest of judgment which is now before us.

If defendants had moved to quash the indictment upon the ground that the proceedings before the alderman were irregular, there is respectable authority for sustaining the motion: Com. v. Kurz, 14 Dist. R. 741. Certainly, they would have been released in a habeas corpus proceeding: Com. v. Brennan, 193 Pa. 567. But having entered a plea and gone to trial upon the merits, all defects in the information, warrant and proceedings before the committing alderman were cured: Com. v. Schoen, 25 Pa. Superior Ct. 211.

Now, Nov. 21, 1927, the motion in arrest of judgment is overruled and discharged.

From Edwin L. Kohler, Allentown, Pa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Pa. D. & C. 720, 1927 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-wimmer-paoytermctlehig-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack