Com. v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 11 November 1959
• Citation: 155 A.2d 410,190 Pa.Super. 591
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Benjamin LEWIS, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 410

155 A.2d 410

190 Pa.Super. 591

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Benjamin LEWIS, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 11, 1959.

Application for Allocatur Denied Jan. 18, 1960.

Howard Gittis, Edmund E. DePaul, Assistant Defenders, Herman I. Pollock, Defender, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Juanita Kidd Stout, Asst. Dist. Atty., Paul M. Chalfin, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Victor H. Blanc, Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before RHODES, P. J., and HIRT, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN and WATKINS, JJ.

WRIGHT, Judge.

Benjamin Lewis and James Johnson were indicted in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County on two charges of burglary, larceny, and receiving stolen goods, Bills Nos. 425 and 426 April Sessions 1959. They entered pleas of not guilty and were tried before President Judge Sloane without a jury. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's testimony, counsel for the defendants demurred to the evidence. The demurrer was sustained as to the charges of burglary and larceny, but overruled as to the charge of receiving stolen goods. The defense rested without presenting testimony. The trial judge found each defendant guilty of receiving stolen goods. Following the denial of defendants' motions in arrest of judgment, sentences were imposed on Bill No. 425. ¹ Lewis has appealed.

Sometime late in the evening of April 3, 1959 or early in the morning of April 4, 1959, the fool market of David Caplan, at 2004 North 31st Street, was entered through a skylight, and 40 cartons of cigarettes, as well as $90 in money, were stolen. During the same period, Gilbert Bayson's drug store at 2445 Ridge Avenue, approximately three blocks from the Caplan market, was also entered and 12 cartons of cigarettes, as well as $10 in money, were stolen. The record discloses that each package of cigarettes bears a tax stamp number assigned to and placed on the package by the distributor. At about 10:30 on the morning of April 4, 1959, Lewis and Johnson were apprehended by Officer MacDonald as they were walking along Columbia Avenue carrying a suitcase. They stated that the suitcase contained clothes. The officer opened the suitcase and found nine cartons of cigarettes. Lewis and Johnson stated that they had purchased the cigarettes from an unknown man outside a taproom at 11th and Noble Streets; that they assumed the cigarettes were hot, but figured this was a good way to make a fast buck. Investigation revealed that there was no taproom at 11th and Noble Streets. Detective Morris, who conducted the interrogation, ascertained the tax stamp numbers on the packages of cigarettes found in the suitcase. These numbers corresponded with numbers assigned to the distributors who serviced Caplan and Bayson. One such number was 27262, and this same number appeared on a package of cigarettes removed from Lewis' pocket. Lewis stated that he had purchased this particular package the evening before from a cigarette machine in a restaurant[190 Pa.Super. 594] at 2512 Ridge Avenue. However, corresponding packages from that machine actually bore the number 27173.

The offense of receiving stolen goods is proscribed by Section 817 of The Penal Code of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, as amended, 18 P.S. § 4817, which reads as follows: 'Whoever buys, has, or receives any goods, chattels, money or securities, or any other matter or thing, which shall have been stolen or feloniously taken, either in this Commonwealth or in any other state or country, knowing, or having reasonable cause to know the same to have been stolen or feloniously taken, is guilty of a felony'. To support a charge of receiving stolen goods, the Commonwealth must prove (1) that certain goods were stolen; (2) that the defendant received some or all of such goods; and (3) that he received them knowing or having reasonable cause to know the same to be stolen. Commonwealth v. Roth, 169 Pa.Super. 88, 82 A.2d 710.

It is well settled that proof of guilt may be established by circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Nasuti, 385 Pa. 436, 123 A.2d 435; Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 378 Pa. 412, 106 A.2d 820; Commonwealth v. Hooe, 187 Pa.Super. 330, 144 A.2d 580. 'In a criminal prosecution, the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction where the circumstances proved are such as reasonably and naturally justify an inference of guilt, and are of such volume and quality as to overcome the presumption of innocence and satisfy the jury of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt'. Commonwealth v. Whalen, 189 Pa.Super. 351, 150 A.2d 133, 135. One having in his possession goods recently stolen should account for such possession, and his failure to advance a reasonable explanation justifies an inference of guilt. See Commonwealth v. Pittman, 179 Pa.Super. 645, 118 A.2d 214; Commonwealth v. Pollack, 174 Pa.Super. 621, 101 A.2d 140. We are convinced from our review of the record in the case at bar that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and that appellant's motion in arrest of judgment was properly denied.

Appellant first contends that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the cigarettes found in his possession were the property of either Caplan or Bayson, relying principally on Commonwealth v. Gold, 155 Pa.Super. 364, 38 A.2d 486. The Gold case was discussed and distinguished in Commonwealth v. Cohan, 177 Pa.Super. 532, 111 A.2d 182. It is not here controlling. The Commonwealth proved in the instant case that the cigarettes found in defendant's possession bore tax stamp numbers assigned to distributors who serviced Caplan and Bayson. This fact, together with the quantity of cigarettes in the suitcase, appellant's statement that he assumed they were hot, and his false explanation as to how they were obtained, warranted an inference by the trial judge that the cigarettes were those stolen as charged in the indictments. See Commonwealth v. Joyce, 159 Pa.Super. 45, 46 A.2d 529; Commonwealth v. Frankina, 156 Pa.Super. 152, 39 A.2d 628. The factual situation in...