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. JAINLETT ET AL. (11/13/70)

decided: November 13, 1970.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
JAINLETT ET AL., APPELLANTS



Appeals from judgments of sentence of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, Oct. T., 1969, Nos. 2865 and 2866, in cases of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Irving Jainlett; Same v. James Marchaman.

COUNSEL

John W. Packel, Assistant Defender, with him Mark Schaffer, Assistant Defender, and Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, for appellants.

Milton M. Stein, Assistant District Attorney, with him T. Michael Mather, Assistant District Attorney, James D. Crawford, Deputy 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. Concurring Opinion by Hoffman, J. Spaulding and Cercone, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 217 Pa. Super. Page 407]

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

Disposition

Judgments of sentence affirmed.

Concurring Opinion by Hoffman, J.:

Appellants were tried before a jury on indictments charging aggravated robbery, assault and battery with intent to murder and burglary. During the trial appellant Jainlett took the stand in his own defense and presented the alibi that during the period when the

[ 217 Pa. Super. Page 408]

    crime in question took place he had been at his sister's house. For the purpose of rebuttal the Commonwealth presented a detective who had interrogated this appellant soon after he was arrested. The detective testified with the aid of his rough notes and "52" summary report that appellant had told him that he was at his girlfriend's house during the relevant period.

During cross-examination of the detective, defense counsel attempted to point out inconsistencies and deletions between the rough notes and the submitted report. To dispel any inference of inconsistency, on redirect examination the prosecutor asked the detective to explain the relationship between the rough notes and the "49". The detective explained that the report at issue was a "52" and that the "49" was the report of the original investigation prior to arrest. On recross-examination defense counsel established ...


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.