Com. v. Kane
| Decision Date | 18 March 1975 |
| Citation | 460 Pa. 582,333 A.2d 925 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Joseph H. KANE, also known as Joseph Kelly, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Milton O. Moss, Dist. Atty., William T. Nicholas, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty., Stewart J. Greenleaf, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, App. Div., Norristown, for appellee.
Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
The appellant, Joseph H. Kane (also known as Joseph Kelly), was convicted in a nonjury trial of operating a motor vehicle while his operator's license was suspended. Act of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58 § 624 as amended 75 P.S. § 624. His sentence of two months to three years imprisonment was affirmed on appeal to the Superior Court. Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal to this Court was then granted.
Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt. We agree and reverse the judgment of sentence.
The appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish one of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had notice of the suspension of his operator's license. See Act of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, § 618(b), as amended, 75 P.S. § 618(b). The prosecution introduced at trial an officially certified copy of appellant's records from the Bureau of Traffic Safety of the Department of Transportation. These records stated that on April 9, 1969, a notice of suspension was mailed to the appellant. There was no other proof that appellant had actual notice of his suspension.
It is important to note that the issue now being discussed is not whether evidence of mailing is Admissible evidence, but whether admissible evidence of mailing, standing alone, is Sufficient evidence to establish one of the elements of the crime Beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of mailing was admissible because it was some evidence probative of one of the essential elements of the crime. Admissibility, however, is not determinative of whether the evidence is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The distinction is crucial. In a different but nonetheless helpful context, Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969), pointed out that even though an inferred fact is More likely than not to follow from a proven fact, in a criminal case, the inference 'must also satisfy the criminal 'reasonable doubt' standard if proof of the crime charged or an essential element thereof depends upon its use.' Footnote 64, 395 U.S. at 36, 89 S.Ct. at 1548, 23 L.Ed.2d at 81. Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970), a companion case to Leary, held that in a criminal case, an inference, upon which 'proof of the crime charged or an essential element thereof depends,' must be an inference which follows Beyond a reasonable doubt.
We do not have before us an admissibility of evidence issue, nor are we faced with the same sufficiency of evidence issue presented in civil cases where the standard of proof is lesser than in criminal cases. See Paul v. Dwyer, 410 Pa. 229, 188 A.2d 753 (1963); Cameron Estate, 388 Pa. 25, 130 A.2d 173 (1957); Thomas v. Employers L. Assur. Corp, 284 Pa. 129, 130 A. 322 (1925). See also Commonwealth v. Valeroso, 273 Pa. 213 at 223, 116 A. 828 at 831 (1922), which left undecided 'the broad question (of) whether the mailing of a letter, postage prepaid, is prima facie evidence, in a criminal case, that (the letter) was received by the person to whom it was addressed.'
Although the inference which the prosecution contends can be drawn from the evidence in this case--an inference necessary for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Crockford
...undergo imprisonment for a period of not less than 90 days. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(b). The seminal case in this area is Commonwealth v. Kane, 460 Pa. 582, 333 A.2d 925 (1975), which held that it is necessary for the Commonwealth to prove that the accused had actual notice of suspension in orde......
-
Com., Dept. of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Johnson
...notice was sent to her address of record. Commonwealth v. Heckman, 404 Pa.Super. 335, 590 A.2d 1261 (1991). Commonwealth v. Kane, supra, [460 Pa. 582, 333 A.2d 925 (1975) ], is inapposite because, in that case, the defendant's notice of suspension was not sent to defendant's address of reco......
-
Commonwealth v. Stevenson
...inter alia , the court informed the defendant at the guilty plea hearing that his license would be suspended); Commonwealth v. Kane , 460 Pa. 582, 333 A.2d 925, 927 (1975) (holding that proof that the notice of suspension was mailed is not sufficient by itself to establish notice).22 In re ......
-
Com. v. Martin
...of the suspension of his operator's license. See Commonwealth v. Burkett, 300 Pa.Super. 72, 445 A.2d 1304 (1982); Commonwealth v. Kane, 460 Pa. 582, 333 A.2d 925 (1975). Instantly, the Commonwealth introduced into evidence a certified statement of the appellant's operating record. This stat......