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. WHITE (03/31/75)

decided: March 31, 1975.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
WHITE, APPELLANT



Appeal from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, May T., 1973, No. 278, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Dennis White.

COUNSEL

Paul Messing and John W. Packel, Assistant Defenders, and Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, for appellant.

Mark Sendrow and Steven H. Goldblatt, Assistant District Attorneys, Abraham J. Gafni, Deputy District Attorney, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. Opinion by Hoffman, J.

Author: Hoffman

[ 233 Pa. Super. Page 197]

Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for receiving stolen property.*fn1

On January 9, 1972, Mary Kauses of 1837 West Venango Street, in the Nicetown section of Philadelphia, reported that her light blue Pontiac, with license number R26342, had been taken by persons unknown from the street in front of her house. She had given no one permission to operate her car; at the time of the theft the car was undamaged. On January 31, 1972, at approximately 1:15 a.m., Officer Frederick Morse observed appellant driving the Pontiac on Germantown Avenue in Philadelphia. After observing that the car had a heavily damaged front and a missing trunk lock, he stopped the automobile for further investigation and asked the appellant to produce his owner's card and driver's license.*fn2 Appellant left his vehicle and nervously looked through his wallet. Appellant produced no owner's card; he gave the officer the driver's license of one Thomas J. Carroll of 2830 East Almond Street, Philadelphia. In response to a question by the officer appellant stated that the address was in the Germantown section of Philadelphia; in fact, it is in the Richmond section, on the opposite side of the city. Appellant stated that he had borrowed the car from a friend, but failed to give the friend's name or address or to call him. Officer Morse checked the car's license plate number and vehicle identification number with the National Crime Information Center. When he learned that the car had been stolen, he arrested the appellant.

On March 15 and 16, 1973, appellant was tried in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia; he was found guilty

[ 233 Pa. Super. Page 198]

    of receiving stolen property but acquitted of other charges. On April 19, 1973, he was sentenced to a term of six to twenty-three and one half months in the county correctional institution. Appellant appealed this conviction to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. He waived his right to a trial by jury and was found guilty of receiving stolen property on March 4, 1974, by the Honorable Charles A. Lord, Jr., after a trial de novo. On June 19, 1974, after the denial of post-trial motions, appellant was sentenced to a term of one to two years at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford. This appeal followed.

In a prosecution for receiving stolen property, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the three elements of the crime: (1) that certain goods were stolen; (2) that the defendant received some or all of the goods; and (3) that he received them knowing or having reason to know that the goods were stolen. Commonwealth v. Davis, 444 Pa. 11, 280 A.2d 119 (1971). Appellant contends that the Commonwealth has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew or had reason to know that the automobile had been stolen.

"The element of appellant's guilty knowledge may be established by direct evidence of knowledge or by circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that appellant had reasonable cause to know that the property was stolen. If from the circumstantial evidence, it can be inferred that the appellant had reasonable cause to know, a final inference can reasonably be made that he in fact knew ...


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.