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. ARNOLD ROSENFIELD (03/26/82)

filed: March 26, 1982.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ARNOLD ROSENFIELD, APPELLANT



No. 2863 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Delaware County at No. 4028 A, B and C of 1979.

COUNSEL

Robert F. Pappano, Assistant Public Defender, Media, for appellant.

Frank T. Hazel, District Attorney, Media, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Wickersham, Beck and Popovich, JJ. Popovich, J., concurs in the result.

Author: Wickersham

[ 297 Pa. Super. Page 253]

Arnold Rosenfield, appellant, was charged by criminal informations in Delaware County with unlawfully and feloniously attempting to and, in fact, taking or exercising

[ 297 Pa. Super. Page 254]

    unlawful control over movable property, to wit: in excess of $135,000.00 U.S. currency, belonging to Circle Ford Company, with intent to deprive said company thereof. The offenses charged in the informations included theft by unlawful taking or disposition (18 Pa.C.S. § 3921), theft by receiving stolen property (18 Pa.C.S. § 3925), theft by deception (18 Pa.C.S. § 3922), and theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received (18 Pa.C.S. § 3927).

Trial commenced in Media on January 17, 1980 before the Honorable Robert A. Wright and a jury. Appellant was found guilty of theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception and theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received.

Following trial, Arnold Rosenfield filed a motion in arrest of judgment reading as follows:

MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT

TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT:

AND NOW, after verdict against the said Defendant and before sentence comes the said Defendant, by his attorney Daniel E. Murtaugh, Jr., Esquire, and moves the Court to arrest judgment herein, and not pronounce the same, because of manifest errors in the record appearing; to wit, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, and such other reasons as may be assigned after a review of the Notes of Testimony.

     and he filed a motion for a new trial, reading as follows:

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE ...


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.