Appeals, Nos. 253, 254, 255 and 256, March T., 1962, from judgments of County Court of Allegheny County, Nos. C-166, C-167, C-168 and C-169 of 1962, in cases of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Martin Haines, trading and doing business as Haines Supermarket, Same v. Victor Pasula, trading and doing business as Payday's Supermarket, Inc., Same v. Henry Verscharen, trading and doing business as Verscharen's Food Center. Appeals quashed.
Martin Labow, Assistant District Attorney, with him Edward C. Boyle, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellant.
William H. Eckert, with him Milton W. Lamproplos, Leonard Shapiro, Barton Z. Cowan, and Eckert, Seamans & Cherin, for appellees.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE EAGEN
The defendant-appellees were arrested and charged with violations of The Penal Code, Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, as amended, 18 P.S. § 4699.15, prohibiting the sale of certain personal property on Sunday. After hearings before a justice of the peace, the defendants were found guilty and sentenced to pay fines. Appeals were allowed to the County Court of Allegheny County. The cases were then heard by a judge of that court without a jury. After hearing the testimony of several Commonwealth witnesses, counsel agreed to stipulate all of the facts deemed material. Subsequently, the court entered orders in each case adjudging the defendants "not guitly." The Commonwealth appeals.
It is our conclusion that the Commonwealth has no right to appeal from the judgments below. Hence, the issues raised concerning the construction and constitutionality of the statute involved need not be discussed or considered.
The Court very recently in Commonwealth v. Melton, 402 Pa. 628, 168 A.2d 328 (1961), decided and explained under what circumstances the Commonwealth may appeal from an adverse ruling in a criminal case. None of the situations defined therein, wherein such an appeal is proper, are present here. In the cases at bar, the defendants were found "not guilty." From
such a judgment, an appeal does not lie. Commonwealth v. Benson, 94 Pa. Superior Ct. 10 (1928); Commonwealth v. Heiland, 110 Pa. Superior Ct. 188, 167 A. 439 (1933); Commonwealth v. Obenreder, 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 253, 19 A.2d 497 (1941); Commonwealth v. Kerr, 150 Pa. Superior Ct. 598, 29 A.2d 340 (1942); State v. Solomons, 27 Am.Dec. 469, 471-480.
As stated by President Judge KELLER in Commonwealth v. Obenreder, supra, at 254-255: "It is well settled in this State that the Commonwealth cannot appeal from a judgment of acquittal in criminal prosecutions, except in cases of nuisance, forcible entry and detainer, and forcible detainer .... And this is so whether the prosecution be by indictment ... or by summary proceeding .... And, if the former, it does not matter whether the verdict be rendered by the jury of its own accord or by direction of the court .... Such a verdict or judgment of acquittal is not to be confused with the quashing of an indictment, or an arrest of judgment following a verdict of guilty, or a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the evidence, which raise only questions of law and do not result in a verdict of not guilty or judgment of acquittal,*fn1 and accordingly in those cases, the Commonwealth may appeal." This rule was reiterated by Judge (now President Judge) RHODES in Commonwealth v. Kerr, supra, wherein at 602, he said: "[The] result of the verdict of not guilty is that the Commonwealth is precluded from appealing from the judgment of acquittal." As pointed out in ...