Appeals from judgments of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, June T., 1963, Nos. 341, 341-1, in cases of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Edward J. DelMarmol, and Same v. John Patrick Scanlon.
Edward F. Kane, with him Bean, DeAngelis, Tredinnick & Giangiulio, for appellant.
James P. Geoghegan, for appellant.
Richard A. Devlin, Assistant District Attorney, with him Paul W. Tressler, Assistant District Attorney, and Milton O. Moss, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Wright, P.j., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J. Spaulding, J., joins in this opinion.
[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 484]
Judgment of sentence affirmed, and the defendant is directed to appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called, and that he be by that court
[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 485]
committed until he has complied with the sentence, or any part thereof which has not been performed at the time the appeal was made a supersedeas.
Judgment of sentence affirmed in each case.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.:
The facts in these two appeals have been set forth in Judge Jacob's careful opinion, reported at 206 Pa. Superior Ct. 512, 214 A.2d 264 (1965). In that opinion, the Court held that certain evidence was inadmissible to prove that appellants had committed burglary and ordered a new trial. In dictum, the Court said there remained evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because I disagree with that dictum and the holding of the majority today with respect to appellant Scanlon, I must dissent and set forth the facts as I see them, granting the Commonwealth all reasonable inferences arising from those facts. Compare Commonwealth v. Tabb, 417 Pa. 13, 207 A.2d 884 (1965); with Commonwealth v. ...