Com. v. Carlos
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | Before JONES; EAGEN |
| Citation | 341 A.2d 71,462 Pa. 262 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Gregory CARLOS a/k/a Carl Wesley Ray, Appellant (two cases). |
| Decision Date | 07 July 1975 |
Page 71
v.
Gregory CARLOS a/k/a Carl Wesley Ray, Appellant (two cases).
[462 Pa. 263] Donald C. Marino, Philadelphia, for appellant.
F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty., Steven H. Goldblatt, Asst. [462 Pa. 264] Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., Douglas B. Richardson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Mark Sendrow, Asst. Dist. Atty., Asst. Chief, Appeals Div., Abraham J. Gafni, Deputy Dist. Atty. for Law, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Page 72
Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
EAGEN, Justice.
Gregory Carlos, also known as Carl Wesley Ray, appeals from the judgments of sentence imposed following his conviction by a jury of murder in the second degree and of aggravated robbery. 1
The evidence at trial established that on January 19, 1972, Carlos and two other males perpetrated an armed holdup of a bar in Philadelphia and that during the robbery Carlos fatally shot one of the patrons. While the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant the convictions is not challenged, it is urged that certain rulings by the trial court were erroneous and so prejudicial as to require a new trial.
The prime complaint is that one of the three eyewitnesses who testified at trial and identified Carlos in court as one of the felons was permitted, over objection, to also testify that after the occurrence he viewed photographs exhibited to him by a police detective and identified Carlos in one of the photographs. 2 It is argued [462 Pa. 265] that the jury could have inferred from the police detective's possession and display of the photos that they were 'mug shots' and Carlos had a prior criminal record, since the significance of 'mug shots' is common knowledge.
It is well-settled that a testimonial reference to a photograph may constitute reversible error if a jury could reasonably infer therefrom prior criminal activity on the part of the accused. Commonwealth v. Allen, 448 Pa. 177, 292 A.2d 373 (1972). However, it is also well-settled that every reference to a photograph does not necessarily require reversal. Commonwealth v. Allen, supra.
'(T)he controlling question is whether or not a juror could Reasonably infer from the facts presented that the accused had engaged in prior criminal activity. (As such) a mere passing reference to photographs from which a reasonable inference of prior criminal activity cannot properly be drawn does not invalidate the proceedings since there has been no prejudice as a result of the reference; . . .'
Id. at 181, 292 A.2d at 375. (Emphasis supplied.) Instantly, there was but a mere passing reference and thus no reversible error.
The Commonwealth's witness merely replied in the affirmative when asked if he identified Carlos from approximately ten photographs displayed by a police detective. Barring this brief reference to the photographic [462 Pa. 266] identification, the photographs
Page 73
were never displayed, marked, admitted, or otherwise referred to at trial. Cf. Commonwealth v. Craft, 455 Pa. 616, 317 A.2d 213 (1974). Moreover, the photographs were never identified or characterized as 'mug shots' or even as photographs from a police file. Cf. Commonwealth v. Smith, 454 Pa. 515, 314 A.2d 224 (1973). In addition, there was no suggestion that the photographic identification was conducted in a Police Identification Unit, or that when the photograph was displayed a portion of it had to be deleted or covered over....To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Krasner
...could Page 1179 reasonably infer therefrom prior criminal activity on [285 Pa.Super. 409] the part of the accused, Commonwealth v. Carlos, 462 Pa. 262, 341 A.2d 71 (1975); Commonwealth v. Allen, 448 Pa. 177, 292, A.2d 373 (1972), it is equally well-established that not every reference to a ......
-
Com. v. Washington, No. 347 CAP.
...discussion in Young, 849 A.2d at 1155. In applying the Allen test to the facts of a particular matter, we noted in Commonwealth v. Carlos, 462 Pa. 262, 341 A.2d 71, 73 (1975), a mere passing reference to photographs does not amount to prejudicial error. Young, 849 A.2d at 1156. In Carlos, a......
-
Com. v. Hoss
...necessary either because the impact of the prosecutorial conduct was not sufficient to have tainted the verdict, Commonwealth v. Carlos, 462 Pa. 262, 341 A.2d 71 (1975); Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, 462 Pa. 43, 337 A.2d 873 (1975); Commonwealth v. Riley, 459 Pa. 35, 326 A.2d 400 (1974); Commo......
-
Com. v. Young
...a parole officer who knew the appellant did not convey to the jury any prior criminal involvement). Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Carlos, 462 Pa. 262, 341 A.2d 71, 72 (1975), the court explained that a mere passing reference that a witness identified the defendant from a number of photos di......
-
Com. v. Krasner
...could Page 1179 reasonably infer therefrom prior criminal activity on [285 Pa.Super. 409] the part of the accused, Commonwealth v. Carlos, 462 Pa. 262, 341 A.2d 71 (1975); Commonwealth v. Allen, 448 Pa. 177, 292, A.2d 373 (1972), it is equally well-established that not every reference to a ......
-
Com. v. Washington, No. 347 CAP.
...discussion in Young, 849 A.2d at 1155. In applying the Allen test to the facts of a particular matter, we noted in Commonwealth v. Carlos, 462 Pa. 262, 341 A.2d 71, 73 (1975), a mere passing reference to photographs does not amount to prejudicial error. Young, 849 A.2d at 1156. In Carlos, a......
-
Com. v. Hoss
...necessary either because the impact of the prosecutorial conduct was not sufficient to have tainted the verdict, Commonwealth v. Carlos, 462 Pa. 262, 341 A.2d 71 (1975); Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, 462 Pa. 43, 337 A.2d 873 (1975); Commonwealth v. Riley, 459 Pa. 35, 326 A.2d 400 (1974); Commo......
-
Com. v. Young
...a parole officer who knew the appellant did not convey to the jury any prior criminal involvement). Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Carlos, 462 Pa. 262, 341 A.2d 71, 72 (1975), the court explained that a mere passing reference that a witness identified the defendant from a number of photos di......