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. DALE (09/11/69)

decided: September 11, 1969.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
DALE, APPELLANT



Appeals from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Nov. T., 1965, Nos. 466 and 470, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Arthur Dale.

COUNSEL

John W. Packel, Assistant Defender, with him Melvin Dildine, Assistant Defender, and Vincent J. Ziccardi, Acting Defender, for appellant.

James D. Crawford, Assistant District Attorney, with him Roger F. Cox, Assistant District Attorney, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J. Montgomery, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 180]

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Disposition

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.:

Appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery and rape. Post-trial motions nunc pro tunc were filed and denied. This appeal followed.

The issue in this case is whether a new trial should be awarded because the prosecutor allowed a co-defendant, Joseph Charles, who appeared for the Commonwealth, to testify falsely that no promises of special consideration had been made to him in exchange for his testimony.

Before considering the implications of this case, it should be noted that this issue was raised by Fred Williams, one of appellant's co-defendants, with respect to this very case. Williams' conviction was affirmed per curiam without an opinion by this Court at 209 Pa. Superior Ct. 772, 231 A.2d 187 (1967), and allocatur was refused. Relief was sought through federal habeas corpus. Williams argued that he was denied due process in that his counsel was not permitted to question Charles as to expectations of leniency arising as a result of ...


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.