No. 80-1-6, Appeal from Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Allegheny County, at No. CC7407117 and CC7407161
Paul D. Boas, Berlin, Boas, Isaacson & Logan, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Robert E. Colville, Dist. Atty., Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy Dist. Atty., Kemal A. Mericli, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for appellee.
O'Brien, C. J., and Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, Kauffman and Wilkinson, JJ.
Appellant Harold L. Scott was originally convicted of murder of the first degree and a violation of the Uniform Firearms Act. Post-verdict motions were denied and appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a concurrent prison term of two and one-half to five years for the firearms violation. On direct appeal, this Court reversed and granted appellant a new trial because the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence concerning prior racial incidents in the neighborhood. Commonwealth v. Scott, 480 Pa. 50, 389 A.2d 79 (1978).
On retrial, which is the subject matter of this appeal, appellant was convicted of murder of the third degree and a violation of the Uniform Firearms Act. Post-verdict motions again were denied and appellant was sentenced to a prison term of ten to twenty years with a consecutive prison term of one and one-half to five years for the firearms violation. This appeal followed.
The facts are set out in detail in our opinion following appellant's direct appeal from the original trial. For our purposes here it is sufficient to note that appellant, a black man, shot a white victim following a racial incident. The Commonwealth's witnesses, friends of the victim, testified that appellant had not been provoked. Appellant has claimed that he acted in self-defense.
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for violating the Uniform Firearms Act. Appellant was convicted of violating 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106, which provides:
"No person shall carry a firearm in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a license . . ."
Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106. Appellant claims that since the Commonwealth offered no proof of concealment, the evidence was insufficient to sustain this conviction.
In Commonwealth v. Butler, 189 Pa. Super. 399, 403, 150 A.2d 172, 173 ...