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. KITCHEN (04/04/73)

decided: April 4, 1973.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
KITCHEN, APPELLANT



Appeal from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, Nov. T., 1971, No. 649, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Ronald Arthur Kitchen.

COUNSEL

Jonathan Miller, Assistant Defender, and Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, for appellant.

Linda West Conley, James T. Ranney and Milton M. Stein, Assistant District Attorneys, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

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

Author: Per Curiam

[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 192]

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Disposition

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Concurring Opinion by Spaulding, J.:

Appellant Ronald Kitchen was convicted of aggravated robbery in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia by Judge Joseph L. McGlynn, Jr., sitting without a jury. His contentions on this appeal relate solely to the methods by which he was identified as one of the two robbers by the victim. Prior to trial the victim twice identified appellant as one of the robbers, once from photographs and once at a line-up. Appellant contends that both identification procedures were improper.

I.

The identification from photographs took place within a day or two after the robbery. The victim was shown ten or twelve pictures, containing both front and side views and numbers (apparently mug shots) and identified appellant. At the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth failed to produce this photographic array, the police officer stating that he had misplaced his records concerning the identification proceeding. Appellant argues that this was violative of due process, prohibiting him from ...


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.