Opinion
June 16, 1972.
September 15, 1972.
Criminal Law — Evidence — Hearsay evidence of flight — No effect as to its truthfulness given to extra-judicial statement by trial judge, sitting without a jury.
In this case, in which it appeared that defendant claimed error because the court below permitted hearsay evidence that he was fleeing from the scene of the robbery; that the trial judge, sitting without a jury, made clear that he was not considering the statement about the flight for its truthfulness, and particularly pointed out that it was immaterial whether defendant was the person referred to or not; it was Held that the judgment of sentence should be affirmed.
Argued June 16, 1972.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, CERCONE, and PACKEL, JJ.
Appeal, No. 814, Oct. T., 1972, from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, June T., 1971, No. 481, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lawrence Williams. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Indictments charging defendant with aggravated robbery and aggravated assault and battery. Before SMITH, JR., J., without a jury.
Finding of guilty of assault and battery and aggravated robbery and judgment of sentence entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Steven G. Farber, Assistant Defender, with him Francis S. Wright, Assistant Defender, and Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, for appellant.
Milton M. Stein, Assistant District Attorney, with him James D. Crawford, Deputy District Attorney, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
The appellant claims error because the court below permitted hearsay evidence that he was fleeing from the scene of the robbery. Since the sole identification of the appellant's participation in the crime came from an officer as a result of a brief glance as he came upon the scene, the plaintiff claims the error was prejudicial.
The judge, sitting without a jury, had permitted evidence of an extra-judicial statement about flight by a person nicknamed "Worm". This took place in the course of another officer's explanation as to his investigation and as to why he had arrested the appellant. The judge made clear that he was not considering the statement about the flight for its truthfulness, and particularly pointed out "It is really immaterial whether he is actually Worm or not." Unlike the uncertainty that might exist in a jury trial, here we have the court itself making clear that it was giving no effect to the extra-judicial statement as to its truthfulness.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.