Opinion
June 17, 1960.
July 12, 1960.
Criminal Law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Regularity of proceedings prior to indictment — Trial errors — Falsity or irrelevance of testimony — Prior convictions affecting credibility of defendant — Uncorroborated testimony of accomplice — Alleged improper representation by counsel.
1. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to attack the sufficiency or regularity of proceedings prior to the grand jury's true bill.
2. Trial errors such as the alleged falsity of testimony or its irrelevance must be remedied by motion for a new trial or in arrest of judgment, or by appeal, and not by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
3. A defendant in a criminal prosecution who takes the witness stand in his defense places his credibility in issue, and the Commonwealth is entitled to attack his credibility by proving prior convictions of felonies or of misdemeanors in the nature of crimen falsi.
4. In this case, relator's contention that his prior record could not be admitted in evidence unless he first offered evidence of his good reputation was Held to be without merit.
5. Relator's contention that no conviction could be had based on the testimony of an accomplice without corroboration was Held to be without merit, especially where it appeared that at the trial the jury was cautioned at length that the accomplice was a self-confessed and unsentenced felon and that his testimony should be minutely examined in order to determine what degree of truth was contained therein.
6. Relator's complaint that his counsel at the trial refused to subpoena and present certain witnesses as requested and that he failed to enter timely objections when the Commonwealth presented the testimony of certain witnesses, was Held to be without merit, where it appeared that relator's trial counsel was completely familiar with the nature of the offense, the Commonwealth's theory thereof, and the nature of the defense, and that he displayed an unusual degree of skill and a complete loyalty to his client's cause, and where it further appeared that relator had had considerable prior experience in criminal proceedings, was aware of the gravity of the offenses with which he was charged, and failed to bring his counsel's alleged improper representation to the attention of the trial court.
Before RHODES, P.J., GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, WATKINS, and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
Appeal, No. 25, Oct. T., 1960, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, June T., 1959, No. 129, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Raymond Fritchman v. Thomas Ceraul, Warden. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 21 Pa. D. C. 2d 357.
Habeas corpus.
Order entered dismissing petition, opinion by WOODRING, J. Relator appealed.
Raymond Fritchman, appellant, in propria persona.
Bernard V. O'Hare, Jr., First Assistant District Attorney, and Andrew L. Herster, Jr., District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted June 17, 1960.
The order of the court below dismissing relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed on the opinion of Judge WOODRING of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, as reported in 21 Pa. D. C. 2d 357, with a correction that the word "legality" be changed to "regularity," so that the sentence shall read: "A petition for writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to attack the sufficiency or regularity of proceedings prior to the grand jury's true bill ( Com. ex rel. Scasserra v. Maroney, 179 Pa. Super. 150, 154, 115 A.2d 912).3"