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. JACK D. GROSSMAN (03/13/89)

decided*fn*: March 13, 1989.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE,
v.
JACK D. GROSSMAN, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court, entered July 7, 1986, at No. 666 Pittsburgh 1984, affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County, Criminal Division, entered January 23, 1984, at Nos. 1983-293A&B and 1983-294A. 358 Pa. Super. 625, 514 A.2d 198 (1986).

COUNSEL

Jack D. Grossman, pro se.

Thomas A. Crawford, Jr., Patricia Liptak-McGrail, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

John M. Dawson, Dist. Atty., John F. Spataro, Asst. Dist. Atty., Meadville, for appellee.

Nix, C.j., and Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos and Stout, JJ. Zappala, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. McDermott, J., files a dissenting opinion in which Papadakos, J., joins.

Author: Stout

[ 521 Pa. Page 291]

OPINION OF THE COURT

Jack D. Grossman appeals from the Superior Court's order affirming his conviction for thirteen counts of theft by failure to make required disposition of funds received. 358 Pa. Super. 625, 514 A.2d 198. 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. ยง 3927 (Purdon 1983). Appellant contends that the courts below erroneously failed to suppress evidence seized from Appellant's place of business. The issue presented in this

[ 521 Pa. Page 292]

    case is whether a warrant that authorized the seizure of "[a]ll insurance files, payment records, receipt records, copies of insurance applications and policies, [and] cancelled checks" is unconstitutional under Article 1 section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because it failed to describe with particularity the precise files to be seized.

I. Facts

Having heard the evidence, the Court of Common Pleas, aptly summarized the facts underlying the conviction:

The defendant was the owner of a local insurance agency and had an extensive clientele of over 2,000 active cases. For a variety of reasons the defendant found himself in [a] precarious financial condition and one or more of his insurance companies had withdrawn his right to act as a binding agent to bind the company as their representative . . . . [T]he defendant fell into the habit of taking partial or full premiums for new or renewal insurance policies and then improperly using these funds to meet third party premium obligations to the company or to underwrite the expenses of his insurance business. ...


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.