Opinion
December 13, 1961.
March 21, 1962.
Criminal Law — Evidence — Circumstantial — Sufficiency — Conspiracy — Burglary — Silence of defendant following reading of confession of accomplice — Defendant's statements in cell monitored by police.
1. On appeal by defendant following conviction of charges of burglary and conspiracy, in which it appeared that the case against defendant was one of circumstantial evidence, including evidence that defendant and the sister of an accomplice were at, or near, the scene of the burglary, in an automobile, in the early morning, without adequate explanation, evidence that defendant, when first questioned by the police misrepresented his reason for being in the neighborhood, evidence of statements made by defendant in a prison cell while his remarks were monitored, and evidence of his silence at the time the confession of an accomplice incriminating defendant was read to him; and that the court below holding that there was sufficient legal and acceptable evidence to sustain the conviction, dismissed defendant's motion for a new trial; it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.
2. Where it appeared that there was evidence that the original confession made by the accomplice was given to defendant and an officer had a typewritten copy, which was read to the defendant; that, upon completion of the reading, defendant said nothing, and the officer made no inquiry, except to ask whether the statement was understandable to defendant and whether he was following the officer; that, when the case was tried, the typewritten copies of the original statement were lost or misplaced and the court permitted the original statement to be read in the presence of the jury; and that there was testimony on the part of two police officers that they had made a thorough and complete search to try and locate the lost papers; it was Held that the court below did not err, in the circumstances, in holding that the introduction of the reading of the confession did not constitute reversible error.
3. Where it appeared that statements made by defendant while he was in a prison cell were monitored and written notations thereof made; that defendant contended that such testimony should not have been admitted because it was not established that the officers were familiar with defendant's voice (although both of the police officers said they were familiar with his voice) and because not everything that was said in the cell was noted by the police officers; and that counsel for defendant did not object to the admission of this testimony nor move to strike it out; it was Held that the court below properly concluded that the admission of this testimony did not constitute reversible error.
Before ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ. (RHODES, P.J., absent).
Appeal, No. 402, Oct. T., 1961, from judgment of Court of Oyer and Terminer of Bucks County, March T., 1960, Nos. 116 and 117, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. William Kiefaber. Judgment affirmed.
Same case in court below: 26 Pa. D. C. 2d 451.
Indictments charging defendant with burglary and conspiracy. Before BIESTER, P.J.
Demurrer sustained as to the charge of being an accessory; verdicts of guilty and judgment of sentence entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Leonard Barkan, with him Alan D. Williams, Jr., for appellant.
William Thatcher, Assistant District Attorney, with him Paul R. Beckert, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Argued December 13, 1961.
The judgment of the court of Bucks County is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge EDWARD C. BIESTER for the court below, reported 26 Pa. D. C. 2d 451. See also: Com. v. Schultz, 170 Pa. Super. 504, 87 A.2d 69 (1952), and it is ordered that the defendant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called, and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not been performed at the time the appeal was made a supersedeas.