Com. v. Collura
| Decision Date | 28 December 1956 |
| Citation | 128 A.2d 101,183 Pa.Super. 17 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Frank COLLURA, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Louis C. Glasso, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Samuel Strauss, William Claney Smith, Asst. Dist. Attys., Edward C. Boyle, Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before RHODES, P. J., and HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN and CARR, JJ.
The defendant, an ex-constable, was tried on ten indictments, six charging robbery and four charging false impersonation an officer. He was acquitted on six charges and found guilty on Nos. 96, 97, and 98 February Term, 1956 (O & T) charging robbery, and on No. 349 February Sessions, 1956 (I. S.) charging the misdemeanor of impersonating an officer.
Motion for a new trial assigning the reasons that (a) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and (b) that the charge was prejudicial to the defendant was refused by a court en banc. Defendant was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, a fine of one dollar and be committed to the Western Correctional, Diagnostic and Classification Center to undergo imprisonment for a term of not less than five years nor more than ten years. Identical sentences were imposed at Nos. 96, 97, and 98, to run concurrently; sentence was suspended in the case at No. 349.
From these sentences the defendant now appeals.
Counsel for defendant submits for our review statements of three questions involved.
(1) Are the verdicts against the weight of the credible evidence?
(2) Did the court commit reversible error in misquoting certain testimony in its charge?
(3) Did the court in its charge so emphasize the testimony as to commit reversable error?
The court en banc answered the questions in the negative.
Our review of the testimony reveals that the victims in each case were elderly men. They were followed by a person in a car who stopped and ordered them into the car under the pretext that defendant was conducting an investigation. The victims were searched and relieved of their valuables either by force or threats. One of the victims, John Hass, testified that he noted the license number of the car to be 31EEI or F. He identified the defendant in a police stand-up and also identified him at the trial. John Alexander, another victim, testified that he noted the first four digits of the license number of the car to be 31EE. He identified the defendant in a police stand-up and also identified him at the trial. The victim, Gaetano Catino, identified the defendant at a police stand-up and at the trial. Defendant contends that the evidence, with reference to identification, is incredible and unreliable. The lower court in its opinion, however, specifically points out that the guilty verdicts were returned only in those cases where the victims identified the defendant without hesitation in a police stand-up after the robbery, as well as at the time of trail. In each instance, where guilty verdicts were returned, the crime was committed in board daylight and the victims had a good look at the defendant.
In Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 378 Pa. 412, 106 A.2d 820, 826, the Court said: 'Where the opportunity for positive identification is good and the witness is positive in his identification and his identification is not weakened by prior failure to identify, but remains, even after cross-examination, positive and unqualified, the testimony as to identification need not be received with caution--indeed the cases say that "his (positive) testimony as to identity may be treated as the statement of fact."' See Commonwealth v. Ricci, 161 Pa.Super. 193, 54 A.2d 51; Commonwealth v. Sharpe, 138 Pa.Super. 156, 10 A.2d 120.
At the trial, one of the victims identified the defendant as follows:
Credibility of the witnesses is for the jury, and if there is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction it will not be disturbed by our appellate courts.
There is other testimony to the effect that Valerie Hass, the victim's daughter, testified that the day following the robbery the wife and daughter of the defendant came to their home, and offered to pay the money back if the victim would go to the magistrate and say that he had made a mistake.
In committing the crime in Alexander's case, the defendant posed as a Social Security investigator. He searched the victim and took from him $47.50. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial