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 PENNSYLVANIA v. DONALD E. TEAGLE (03/14/80)

March 14, 1980

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DONALD E. TEAGLE, APPELLANT



No. 2209 October Term, 1978, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Trial Division of Philadelphia County, imposed on Bill of Indictment Nos. 419-420 February Session, 1978.

Before Price, Van Der Voort and Wieand,*fn* JJ.

Per Curiam:

The judgment of sentence is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Murray C. Goldman for the court below.

EXHIBIT "A"

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH v DONALD TEAGLE

FEBRUARY SESSIONS, 1973

No. 415-419

GOLDMAN, J.

DATE: DEC 15, 1978

On May 3 and 4, 1978, Donald Teagle was tried before a jury and found guilty of corruption of minors and statutory rape. The jury found defendant not guilty of indecent assault, unlawful restraint, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, rape, and possession of instruments of crime. Defendant filed a post-trial motion in arrest of judgment claiming that the Commonwealth failed to prove the charges against him. The Court rejects this contention and therefore denies defendant's post-verdict motion.

One of the elements of the relevant offenses is that the accused be 18 years of age or older. Defendant claims that because the Commonwealth introduced no direct evidence of his age, the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant first raised this issue by a demurrer. The demurrer was overruled on the ground that the jury could determine the age of the defendant, who had been identified, by observing his physical appearance. The defense then rested without putting on evidence. The district attorney called defendant's physical appearance to the attention of the jury in his closing remarks and in its charge the Court instructed the jury to consider defendant's physical appearance in determine his age since age was an essential element of the crimes charged.

Defendant claims that the jury cannot infer his age from his physical appearance alone. He also asserts that because the first mention of determining age from his appearance was made in the Commonwealth's closing argument, the Commonwealth's case was legally insufficient. The Court rejects both assertions.

It is generally accepted that the trier of fact may determine a person's age by observation. 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3rd Ed. 1940) ยง 222; 32 ...


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.