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. GILLIS ET AL. (09/18/70)

decided: September 18, 1970.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
GILLIS ET AL., APPELLANTS



Appeals from judgments of sentence of Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, No. 102 of 1968, in case of Commonwealth v. Leo Gillis, Same v. John J. Boykins.

COUNSEL

Harold B. Vikoren, Assistant Public Defender, for appellants.

Michael F. O'Brien, Assistant District Attorney, with him Ward F. Clark, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Hoffman, J.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 217 Pa. Super. Page 159]

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

Disposition

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

[ 217 Pa. Super. Page 160]

Concurring Opinion by Hoffman, J.:

Appellants were convicted by a jury on indictments charging them with burglary, larceny, receiving stolen goods, and conspiracy. From judgment of sentence, they bring this appeal. The relevant facts are as follows:

Shortly after 7:00 P.M., on January 10, 1968, one Mildred Kaufman heard running footsteps in her house, when she returned home. Upon opening the door, she saw a man whom she described as short, white, and in dark or black clothing. The police arrived minutes later and found the rear door ajar, its lock assembly bent and open. They also saw two sets of adult footprints in the snow, leading from the back of the house. One officer remained in the Kaufman house to determine the extent of the burglary. Rooms were found in disarray, and Mrs. Kaufman confirmed that certain pieces of jewelry and money were missing. The other officer followed the footprints for approximately two city blocks, in the direction of the Big Oak Service Station.

While this investigation was taking place, two other officers, unaware of the burglary, were summoned to the Big Oak Service Station as a result of the owner's complaint about two suspicious men soliciting rides from customers. When they arrived, one officer interrogated the station owner. The owner stated he was suspicious of the pair because they seemed anxious to get a ride and had stationed themselves in the area where he kept his unattended cars awaiting service. The officers proceeded to question both appellants, not having found it necessary to frisk them first. Appellant Gillis told the officers that he and appellant ...


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.