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. KERRY CAMBRIDGE (06/27/89)

submitted: June 27, 1989.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
KERRY CAMBRIDGE, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 8, 1988 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal Division, Nos. 4394-86, 4394.1-86, 4394.3-86, 4394.5-86.

COUNSEL

Douglas M. Johnson, Asst. Public Defender, Souderton, for appellant.

Thomas E. Waters, Jr., Dist. Atty., Blue Bell, for Com., appellee.

Del Sole, Tamilia and Cercone, JJ.

Author: Cercone

[ 386 Pa. Super. Page 543]

This is a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence entered April 8, 1988 in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal Division. For the reasons enumerated below, we affirm.

The events underlying the instant appeal occurred August 10, 1986, when two men robbed two other men at a

[ 386 Pa. Super. Page 544]

SEPTA bus stop located in Montgomery County. Appellant, Kerry Cambridge, along with his neighbor and frequent associate, Charles Haines, were subsequently arrested and tried for the robberies. A jury found appellant guilty of robbery,*fn1 criminal conspiracy,*fn2 and possession of an instrument of crime.*fn3 Post-verdict motions were timely filed and duly denied after argument.

Appellant was then sentenced to serve between five (5) and ten (10) years incarceration for the robbery. The lower court imposed a five (5) year term of probation on the conviction for criminal conspiracy which was to run consecutively to the term of incarceration. Appellant also received a sentence of two (2) years probation for possessing an instrument of crime which was to run concurrently with the probation imposed for conspiracy. Appellant next filed the instant timely appeal in which he raises two questions for our consideration: (1) whether the lower court erred by permitting a hypothetical question to be asked and answered; and (2) whether the lower court erred by admitting into evidence a photographic array consisting of eight police "mug shots" which included a photograph of appellant.

Appellant's first contention is that the following exchange between the prosecutor and one of the victims of the robbery was improperly admitted into evidence:

BY THE PROSECUTOR:

Q. Now, Mr. Green, I want to draw your attention back, again, to the incident in the early ...


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.