Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH v. LOMAX (09/12/61)

September 12, 1961

COMMONWEALTH
v.
LOMAX, APPELLANT.



Appeals, Nos. 451 and 452, Oct. T., 1960, from judgments of Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County, July T., 1959, Nos. 47-49, 921-926, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Eddie Lomax. Judgments of sentence affirmed.

COUNSEL

Eddie Lomax, appellant, in propria persona.

Patrick F. Casey, Stanley M. Schwarz, and Arlen Specter, Assistant District Attorneys, paul M. Chalfin, First Assistant District Attorney, and James C. Crumlish, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 6]

OPINION PER CURIAM

Defendant, Eddie Lomax, was tried before a jury in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County on nine indictments charging him with the illegal possession and sale of drugs.*fn1 Defendant was found guilty on all indictments, after which he moved for arrest of judgment and for a new trial. These motions

[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 7]

    were denied by the court below. Defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and to undergo imprisonment at the Eastern State Penitentiary for a period of not less than five years nor more than ten years on bills Nos. 47 and 48. The sentences were to run consecutively. Sentences on the other seven bills were suspended. Defendant has appealed from his sentences.

In his appeal, defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions, and in the alternative raises the following issues: (1) That it is a violation of due process to permit a witness convicted of a crime and awaiting sentence to testify in a criminal proceeding; (2) that the court erred in not properly charging the jury on the law of alibi; (3) that the court erred in not granting a motion for withdrawal of a juror upon an alleged violation of the court's sequestration order; (4) that defendant should be given a new trial because the Commonwealth did not produce "eye witnesses" who were available; and (5) that the court erred when it expressed its opinion concerning defendant's veracity and guilt.

The facts are adequately stated in the opinion of Judge SLOANE, as follows:

"As must be expected, diverse and many witnesses testified. Because several of defendant's objections pertain to less than all the indictments, the evidence is discussed seriatim on a bill to bill basis, and though laborious, it seems better to do so.

"Bill 49. A police officer who operated as an undercover buyer of narcotics for the Special Investigations Squad, William C. Hanton, testified as to the first purchase. This occurred on March 7, 1959 at 3:00 P.M. in the hall way of 1404 W. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.