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. HOWARD (11/16/73)

decided: November 16, 1973.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
HOWARD, APPELLANT



Appeals from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Nos. 1902, 1907, 1908, and 1911 of 1971, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Jesse W. Howard, Jr.

COUNSEL

William A. Atlee, Jr., Richard P. Nuffort, and Geisenberger, Zimmerman, Pfannebecker & Gibbel, for appellant.

D. Richard Eckman, First Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, and Spaeth, JJ. Opinion by Jacobs, J. Hoffman, Cercone, and Spaeth, JJ., concur in the result.

Author: Jacobs

[ 226 Pa. Super. Page 23]

This is an appeal from a judgment of sentence and from orders imposing probation in a case in which the appellant was found guilty by a jury of two burglaries

[ 226 Pa. Super. Page 24]

    and related larcenies and two conspiracies to commit said burglaries.*fn1 A co-defendant was found similarly guilty.

Issues presented involve the refusal of the lower court to allow reargument of post-trial motions and to allow the appellant to file additional post-trial motions nunc pro tunc, the refusal of the lower court to grant a motion for sequestration of witnesses, and the occurrence of testimonial and judicial references to appellant's silence upon arrest and notification of constitutional rights.

A short summary of the Commonwealth's and appellant's cases will be useful to a disposition of the appeal. Testimony of prosecution witnesses was to the effect that two houses in Lancaster County, within three-quarters of a mile of each other, were burglarized on July 19, 1971, between 12:30 and 2:00 p.m. Certain items of personalty were taken from each.

Two men, one relatively taller than the other and wearing a yellow shirt, the other wearing a light shirt, were placed in back of one of the houses shortly before discovery of the burglary, by two residents of the house and their son, who observed them from a distance. Between 3 and 4 hours later, police intercepted a truck in which the appellant and his co-defendant were passengers a few miles from the crimes. The driver of the truck had previously observed the two passengers as pedestrians, noted that their dress matched that of the men described above, and notified police that he would

[ 226 Pa. Super. Page 25]

    give them a ride.*fn2 Appellant was the shorter of the two and wore a white ...


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.