Com. v. Bradley

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Citation: 295 A.2d 842,449 Pa. 19
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. George BRADLEY, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 07 September 1972

Page 842

295 A.2d 842 449 Pa. 19 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
George BRADLEY, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Sept. 7, 1972.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1972.

[449 Pa. 20]

Page 843

Lee Mandell, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, First Asst. Dist. Atty., James D. Crawford, Deputy Dist. Atty., Milton M. Stein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Division, Benjamin H. Levintow, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

[449 Pa. 19] Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.

[449 Pa. 20] OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

After a jury trial in the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, appellant George Bradley was found guilty of first degree murder. The jury fixed appellant's penalty at death and after appellant's post trial motions were denied and sentence imposed, appellant pursued this appeal. ¹ Appellant raises four main contentions which we shall treat seriatim.

First, appellant contends that his arrest was made without probable cause and that his oral and written confessions, as tainted fruits of this allegedly unlawful arrest were therefore improperly admitted into evidence[449 Pa. 21] at his trial. This contention must be rejected, for appellant's arrest was clearly lawful.

On the evening of December 15, 1967, three males entered a bar located at 15th and York Streets in Philadelphia and held up Charles Mosicant, the bar's proprietor. During the course of this robbery, Mosicant was shot and killed.

On December 19, 1967, the police secured a confession from a Daniel Frazier admitting that he had participated in the robbery and killing of Mosicant. ² In his

Page 844

confession Frazier implicated appellant as a participant in the same robbery. On the basis of this information supplied by Frazier, the police arrested appellant at his place of employment at approximately 11:20 P.M. on December 19, 1967.

We believe that appellant's arrest was clearly supported by probable cause. See Commonwealth v. Roach, 444 Pa. 368, 370, 282 A.2d 382, 383 (1971); ³ Commonwealth v. Negri, 414 Pa. 21, 31, 198 A.2d 595, 601 (1964), order of affirmance vacated on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Negri, 419 Pa. 117, 213 A.2d 670 (1965). It has long been the law of Pennsylvania that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to convict a defendant. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bruno, 316 Pa. 394, 402, 175 A. 518, 521 (1934); Commonwealth v. Elliott, 292 Pa. 16, 22--23, 140 A. 537, 539 (1928); Commonwealth v. De Masi, 234 Pa. 570, 572, 83 A. 430, 431 (1912); Commonwealth v. Didio, 212 Pa.Super. 51, 57, 239 A.2d 883, 885 (1968); Commonwealth v. Pressel, 199 Pa.Super. [449 Pa. 22] 16, 20, 184 A.2d 358, 360 (1962). In light of the fact that probable cause may be established by less evidence than would be sufficient to support a conviction, ⁴ it would be quite inconsistent to hold that information supplied by a confessed accomplice cannot form the basis for probable cause to arrest. See Miller v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 371 Pa. 308, 317, 89 A.2d 809, 813 (1952).

Appellant's second contention is that his oral and written confessions were erroneously admitted since he was not given his Miranda ⁵ warnings By the officers who interrogated him. The Commonwealth established that appellant was arrested at his place of employment at approximately 11:20 P.M. on December 19, 1967. Detective Torpey informed appellant that he was a suspect in a murder case, and after appellant had been placed in a squad car, Detective...