Com. v. Schuloff

• Citation: 275 A.2d 835,218 Pa.Super. 209
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. William Kron SCHULOFF, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 23 March 1971
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 835

275 A.2d 835 218 Pa.Super. 209 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
William Kron SCHULOFF, Appellant. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. March 23, 1971.

[218 Pa.Super. 210]

Page 836

William A. Atlee, Jr., John O. Shirk, Geisenberger, Zimmerman, Pfannebecker & Gibbel, Lancaster, for appellant.

Clarence C. Newcomer, Dist. Atty., D. Richard Eckman, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lancaster, for appellee.

[218 Pa.Super. 209] Before WRIGHT, President Judge, and WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING and CERCONE, JJ.

[218 Pa.Super. 210] MONTGOMERY, Judge.

The appellant, William K. Schulhoff, was tried before a jury and convicted on June 30, 1969, of the crime of possession of marijuana and hashish, and on this appeal he has raised, inter alia, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction.

The evidence presented by the Commonwealth was entirely circumstantial. The drugs were found on the early morning of January 18, 1969, by the Pennsylvania State Police in a couch situated in the living room of a second floor apartment in Lancaster. The apartment was rented by appellant and Bernard G. Beck, Jr., who was also indicated for possession of narcotics. Entry by the police was obtained as a result of a search warrant, the legality of which appellant also questions on this appeal. At the time of execution of the search warrant, the police found four persons, including appellant and Beck, asleep in the apartment, but none of them were found in the living room where the narcotics were discovered in the search.

It is our conclusion that the Commonwealth has presented insufficient evidence to...