Summary
explaining that "[w]hether a blackmailer is in a position to carry out his threat in the event money is not paid is immaterial"
Summary of this case from U.S. v. LewisOpinion
June 16, 1962.
September 13, 1962.
Criminal Law — Practice — Consolidation of indictments — Trial before court without jury — Blackmail, accepting bawd money, pandering, and prostitution and assignation — Evidence — Sufficiency — Threatened disclosure of information to tax authorities — Threat by telephone — Jurisdiction of court — Competency of defendant's counsel.
1. In this case, in which it appeared that defendant was indicted on the charge of blackmail in two bills of indictment, and on charges of accepting bawd money, pandering, and prostitution and assignation; that all the charges were tried by the court sitting without a jury; that the blackmail cases were tried first and, at the conclusion of the evidence, adjudication was deferred to give defense counsel an opportunity, which he requested, to submit a brief; that the cases involving other bills were then tried, and the court below sustained a demurrer to the charge of accepting bawd money, and found defendant guilty of pandering and prostitution and assignation; that thereafter the trial judge found defendant guilty on both bills charging blackmail, but subsequently granted defendant's motion in arrest of judgment as to one blackmail bill, and granted a new trial as to the charges of pandering and prostitution and assignation; it was Held, in the circumstances, that the court below did not commit reversible error in consolidating the indictments for trial.
2. It was Held that the court below properly concluded that the evidence was sufficient to make out a prima facie case of pandering and prostitution, and that for that reason defendant's motions in arrest of judgment in regard to these charges was properly denied.
3. Where there was testimony that the private prosecutor received a call in his office within the county from defendant, in which defendant demanded money from the private prosecutor, threatening disclosure of certain information to the federal tax authorities unless the money was paid to him, it was Held that the court below properly concluded that there was no merit to defendant's contention that the court below lacked jurisdiction because no crime was committed within the county.
4. Defendant's contention that the court below erred in refusing to permit two agents of the Internal Revenue Service to testify that they had met defendant, who turned over to them certain documents pertaining to the private prosecutor, offered to negative the testimony of the latter that defendant threatened him with exposure unless he paid defendant money to keep quiet, was Held to be without merit, since the gravamen of the offense charged was that defendant attempted to extort money from the private prosecutor, and whether or not defendant had turned over the records to the agents was irrelevant to the issue being tried.
5. Defendant's contention that his trial counsel indicated a marked inexperience in conduct of a criminal trial to the severe prejudice of defendant's rights was Held to be without merit.
Before RHODES, P.J., WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ. (ERVIN, J., absent).
Appeals, Nos. 212, 221, and 222, Oct. T., 1962, from judgment and sentence of Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace of Philadelphia County, Aug. T., 1961, No. 33, in case of Commonwealth v. Joseph A. Keenan. Sentence affirmed.
Same case in court below: 28 Pa. D. C. 2d 41.
Indictments charging defendant with blackmail, accepting bawd money, pandering and prostitution and assignation. Before DOTY, J., without a jury.
Demurrer to charge of accepting bawd money sustained, and defendant adjudged guilty of pandering, prostitution and assignation, and on both bills charging blackmail; motion in arrest of judgment granted as to one blackmail bill, new trial granted as to charges of pandering and prostitution and assignation; and judgment of sentence entered. Defendant appealed.
I. Raymond Kremer, for appellant.
Burton Satzberg, Assistant District Attorney, with him Louis F. McCabe, and Arlen Specter, Assistant District Attorneys, Paul M. Chalfin, First Assistant District Attorney, and James C. Crumlish, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Argued June 16, 1962.
The sentence of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace of Philadelphia County is affirmed on the opinion of Judge DOTY, for the court below, reported at 28 Pa. D. C. 2d 41.