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. O'MALLEY (09/26/72)

decided: September 26, 1972.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
O'MALLEY, APPELLANT



Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming County, March T., 1970, No. 23, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. James Francis O'Malley.

COUNSEL

John J. Hovan and John R. Morgan, for appellant.

James E. Davis, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

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

Author: Per Curiam

[ 222 Pa. Super. Page 494]

Order affirmed.

Disposition

Order affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion by Spaulding, J.:

Appellant James O'Malley was found guilty of robbery and assault and battery, together with an accomplice, following a jury trial in the Criminal Division of the Wyoming County Court which commenced on June 24, 1970. He was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 2 1/2 to 5 years. No direct appeal was taken, but subsequently, appellant filed a petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act. After a hearing, the petition was denied. This appeal followed.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in submitting his confession to the jury without first holding a separate hearing as required by Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S. Ct. 1774 (1964). He alleges that the confession was inadmissible in that it was taken while he was intoxicated. His statement consisted of a stipulation that the account of the perpetration of the crime given to police officers by his accomplice was true and correct, and that he had voluntarily turned over to police the remaining $49.00 of the $70.00 which was his share of the loot from the robbery. The statement of the accomplice, which was read and attested to at the trial, indicated appellant to be the primary instigator of the scheme and the one who physically assaulted the victim. It further stated that at appellant's suggestion, the $140.00 taken from the victim was divided two ways.

Aside from appellant's own contention that he was in a drunken daze at the time of his in-custody interrogation, the record ...


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.