Harry Irwin Glick, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
William S. Rahauser, District Attorney, Leo J. Kelly, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P. J., and Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.
[ 167 Pa. Super. Page 630]
Appellant was convicted of soliciting one Charles Pelcharsky to commit embracery.
The defendant, Spanos, operated a restaurant in Elizabeth, Allegheny County, with a liquor license and
[ 167 Pa. Super. Page 631]
pin ball machines. Charles Pelcharsky, a young married man, was a senior in the University of Pittsburgh, and had known Spanos for nine or ten years. His mother was employed by Spanos. Pelcharsky's wife was the daughter of one Nolder, who had been called as a prospective juror in the case of Commonwealth v. Husick, a bank burglary case in the criminal courts of Allegheny County.
On May 23, 1949, Pelcharsky was in the defendant's restaurant. Spanos told Pelcharsky that Nolder (Pelcharsky's father-in-law) was to be on the jury panel called in the Husick criminal case. Spanos stated that he had a call from his lawyer, who was very influential, and that if Nolder would see the case in the proper way, the lawyer would do something for Nolder. He also stated that the lawyer wanted to know if Nolder 'could be persuaded on the case.'
The defendant admitted that he received a telephone call from the lawyer, but claimed that all the lawyer wanted was to 'find out what kind of a fellow the juror in question was'; and admitted that the juror lived in Elizabeth where his restaurant was located. He also admitted that he talked to Pelcharsky, inquired concerning the kind of fellow Nolder was, and that he wanted to know from Pelcharsky 'if we could get to him.' Spanos testified that all this talk was entirely innocent and was merely a start toward a proper investigation of a prospective juror.
The refusal of the court below to sustain defendant's demurrer to the evidence cannot be reviewed on appeal where the defendant offers evidence. Commonwealth v. Ott, 154 Pa. Super. 647, 36 A.2d 838; Commonwealth v. Heller et al., 147 Pa. Super. 68, 24 A.2d 460. Nor was the defendant entitled to a directed ...