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. ADAMS (09/22/75)

decided: September 22, 1975.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
ADAMS, APPELLANT



Appeal from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, July T., 1974, No. 968, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Robert Adams.

COUNSEL

Leonard Sosnov and John W. Packel, Assistant Defenders, and Benjamin Lerner, Defender, for appellant.

Jonathan D. Schiffman, Mark Sendrow, and Steven H. Goldblatt, Assistant District Attorneys, Abraham J. Gafni, Deputy District Attorney, and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Hoffman, J. Spaeth, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 236 Pa. Super. Page 535]

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Disposition

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Concurring Opinion by Hoffman, J.:

I concur in the result reached by the Majority. I reach that result, however, by a somewhat different route.

Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was the "thief"*fn1 of the Corvette automobile. At the same time, he concedes in his brief that there was sufficient evidence to convict him of receiving stolen property: "While this evidence is clearly sufficient to indicate that appellant knew that the automobile was stolen, one could only conjecture as to whether he was the individual who stole the automobile from the complainant." (Emphasis added.)

The Majority points to § 3921(a) of the Crimes Code, supra, to sustain appellant's conviction: "A person is guilty of theft if he unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with intent to deprive him thereof." (Emphasis added.) Thus, § 3921(a) does not require an initial, unlawful "taking" for an actor to be a "thief." At the same time, § 3925 of the Code provides that "[a] person is guilty of theft if he intentionally receives, retains, or ...


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.