No. 222 January Term, 1978, Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court, at No. 1406 October Term, 1977, affirming the Judgments of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas Criminal, of Delaware County, at Nos. 405 and 406 March Session, 1971
Roy H. Davis, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
David E. Fritchey, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Eagen, C. J., and O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty and Kauffman, JJ. Kauffman, J., filed a concurring and dissenting opinion in which Eagen, C. J., and Larsen, J., joined.
Appellant, Raymond Doman, was convicted by a jury of larceny and operating a motor vehicle without consent of the owner. Post-verdict motions were filed, but then were withdrawn prior to sentencing, when appellant received concurrent prison terms of eighteen months to three years. Appellant then appealed to the Superior Court, which vacated the judgments of sentence and remanded for the filing of new post-verdict motions. Commonwealth v. Doman, 237 Pa. Super. 415, 352 A.2d 157 (1975). The motions were filed
and denied, and appellant received the same sentences which previously had been imposed. The Superior Court affirmed, per curiam. Commonwealth v. Doman, 251 Pa. Super. 594, 381 A.2d 893 (1977). We granted appellant's petition for allowance of appeal.
Appellant argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain either of his convictions. The facts adduced at trial are as follows.
On October 7, 1970, George Wescott's 1965 Cadillac was stolen from his place of employment in Delaware County. Three weeks later, on October 27, two Philadelphia policemen on patrol saw appellant drive a Cadillac with a flat tire through a red light. In response to a signal from the officers, appellant, who was alone in the car, pulled into a gas station near the intersection of Broad Street and Lycoming Avenue. Appellant was unable to produce either a driver's license or an owner's registration card for the vehicle. The police noticed that the window on the driver's side was broken and that the car's serial numbers had been obliterated. Further investigation revealed that the Cadillac was the one which had been reported stolen by Wescott.
Appellant testified that he worked at an Esso station at the corner of Broad and Lycoming. He stated that, at the time of his arrest, he was acting pursuant to orders from his boss, Samuel Rivers, and was simply moving the car from the service station lot to a lot across the street. Wescott testified, however, that he did not know appellant and had never given appellant or anyone else permission to drive the car.
Appellant was charged with larceny, receiving stolen property and operating a motor vehicle without consent of the owner. At the close of the Commonwealth's case, the trial court sustained a demurrer to the charge of receiving stolen property. The remaining two charges were given to the jury, which convicted appellant of both charges.
Appellant first claims that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he was operating the automobile without ...