Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, No. 114 of 1968, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Charles Edward Craft.
James T. Reilly, with him Egli, Walter and Reilly, for appellant.
George E. Christianson, Assistant District Attorney, with him Alvin B. Lewis, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Opinion by Hoffman, J. Wright, P. J., Watkins and Montgomery, JJ., would affirm the judgment below.
[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 478]
Appellant in the instant case was convicted of larceny and burglary, arising out of two separate incidents at the Trinity United Church of Christ. The only question presented in this case is whether there was sufficient evidence to convict appellant of the crimes charged.
[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 479]
It is axiomatic that the test of the sufficiency of the evidence is whether accepting as true all the evidence upon which the fact finder could properly have based its verdict, the evidence was sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the crimes charged. Compare Commonwealth v. Tabb, 417 Pa. 13, 207 A.2d 884 (1965), with Commonwealth v. Walker, 428 Pa. 244, 236 A.2d 765 (1968); Commonwealth v. Crews, 429 Pa. 16, 239 A.2d 350 (1968); Commonwealth v. Hazlett, 429 Pa. 476, 240 A.2d 555 (1968). In reviewing the evidence, the Commonwealth is entitled to all reasonable inferences arising therefrom. Compare Commonwealth v. Tabb, supra, with Commonwealth v. Hazlett, supra; Commonwealth Page 479} v. Zimmerman, 214 Pa. Superior Ct. 61, 251 A.2d 819 (1969).
The first charge involved the larceny of a pocketbook from the church. The facts in that case were as follows:
In March, 1967, one Sarah Hartman was a custodian at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Palmyra. One morning, she was dusting the first floor hallway when appellant appeared at the church's closed front door requesting entrance. There was another door which was open at the time, which appellant did not use. Appellant explained that he was looking for a pair of gloves left by his daughter in the church. Mrs. Hartman admitted him. Appellant entered The Fellowship Hall, presumably to look for the gloves, and Mrs. Hartman resumed her dusting. After some time, Mrs. Hartman was curious as to whether appellant had found the missing gloves. She headed toward one door of Fellowship Hall. At the same time, appellant was leaving the Hall by another door. Then he left the church by the rear door.
Mrs. Hartman admitted she did not see appellant carrying anything as he left. Admittedly, she was a distance up the hallway from where appellant left the church.
Some time later, Mrs. Hartman missed her pocketbook. She had left it on an umbrella rack near the door which ...