Com. v. Simpson
| Decision Date | 09 January 1970 |
| Citation | 436 Pa. 459,260 A.2d 751 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Wallace SIMPSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Page 751
v.
Wallace SIMPSON, Appellant.
[436 Pa. 460]
Page 752
I. Herman Stern, Philadelphia, for appellant.[436 Pa. 461] Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., [436 Pa. 460] James D. Crawford, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Division, Richard A. Sprague, First Asst. Dist. [436 Pa. 461] Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.
[436 Pa. 460] Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.
[436 Pa. 461]
Page 753
OPINIONEAGEN, Justice.
The appellant, Wallace Simpson, was convicted by a jury in Philadelphia County of aggravated robbery, and murder in the first degree. On the latter conviction, the jury fixed the punishment at life imprisonment. Motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were subsequently denied, and on the murder conviction the court imposed sentence as the jury directed. On the robbery conviction, a prison sentence of 10 to 20 years was imposed; the sentences to run consecutively. These appeals followed.
The basic question and the only one requiring discussion is whether or not the evidence was sufficient, as a matter of law, to sustain the convictions. We conclude not.
The Commonwealth's evidence at trial was as follows:
Edwin Duncan and Hugh Fitzpatrick operated a used automobile sales lot in Darby, Pennsylvania, under a partnership arrangement. About 10 a.m. on May 28, 1964, the appellant, Simpson, visited the lot and indicated an interest in purchasing a 1958 Mercury automobile which was then on the lot. The asking price for this vehicle was $390, but after some discussion, Duncan reduced the price to $300. Simpson said he had $100. on his person.
John Brown, a friend of Duncan, then took Simpson out for a demonstration or test ride. This covered approximately four miles in all. During this ride, Brown drove to and stopped at the home of Simpson's sister in Sharon Hill at Simpson's request. There he asked for her opinion of the car. While returning to the sales lot, a knock developed in the automobile's motor.
[436 Pa. 462] About 11:30 a.m. Fitzpatrick left the sales lot with Simpson for a second test ride. Simpson was driving. Fitzpatrick never returned to the sales lot and was never seen alive again by his friends or associates. Efforts to locate him were fruitless. When Fitzpatrick left the lot with Simpson, Fitzpatrick had $84. in cash on his person.
About twelve noon of the same day, Simpson arrived alone at the home of a girl friend, Ida Brown, driving the 1958 Mercury. He told her, 'It was his car.' About two hours later, Simpson drove Miss Brown to the Holmesburg Prison to visit her brother. During the return trip, he agreed to drive her to a gas company's office, but en route the automobile broke down and was abandoned on a street in West Philadelphia. On June 19th, the police found the automobile at this location and towed it away.
On August 2, 1964, two months and six days after his disappearance, the skeletonized remains of the body of Fitzpatrick were found in a field in Philadelphia, about two blocks distant from the residence of Ida Brown, and in the approximate vicinity of the used automobile sales lot.
The skull and ribs were intact, but very little remained except the skeleton, traces of cartilage and leather-like skin covering the lower extremities. No evidence of fracture or trauma could be found, nor could the precise cause or manner of death be ascertained. The medical examiner who performed the autopsy stated that the death could have occurred at anytime within a period of one week to several months preceding the discovery of the remains. He further stated that he could not rule out the possibility that death was due to natural causes.
The Commonwealth's position at trial was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Vogel
... ... conviction: Commonwealth v. Slavik, 437 Pa. 354, ... 358, 261 A.2d 583; Commonwealth v. Simpson, 436 Pa ... 459, 463, 260 A.2d 751; Commonwealth v. Thomas, 429 ... Pa. 227, 231--232, 239 A.2d 354; Commonwealth v ... Finnie, 415 Pa ... this Court will not be substituted ... [268 A.2d 102] ... for that of the jury: Com. v. Wendt, 258 Pa. 325, ... 102 A. 27 * * *.' ... In ... Commonwealth v. Lance, 381 Pa., page 297, 113 A.2d ... page 292, supra, the ... ...
-
Com. v. Whitfield
... ... California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Commonwealth v. Davis, 452 Pa. 171, 305 A.2d 715 (1973) ... 13 See note 2 supra ... 14 Compare Commonwealth v. Whitner, 444 Pa. 556, 281 A.2d 870 (1971) (plurality opinion); Commonwealth v. Simpson, 436 Pa. 459, 260 A.2d 751 (1970); Commonwealth v. New, 354 Pa. 188, 47 A.2d 450 (1946) ... 15 The trial court delivered the following instruction on Harold Scott's volunteered response ... "THE COURT: Note for the record that the defendant is present, his counsel, and the District Attorney, ... ...
-
Com. v. DeJohn
... ... " ... Since all of the evidence produced by the prosecution to support its theory was circumstantial and the issue before us is the sufficiency of that circumstantial evidence, we note initially what we have said about circumstantial evidence in the past. In Commonwealth v. Simpson, 436 Pa. 459, 260 A.2d 751 (1970) we said: ... " 'It is true that circumstantial evidence, in itself, may be sufficient to establish the commission of a crime and the accused's connection therewith ... It is equally true that in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence after a guilty ... ...
-
Com. v. Vogel
...proof of the actual murder is required for conviction: Commonwealth v. Slavik, 437 Pa. 354, 358, 261 A.2d 583; Commonwealth v. Simpson, 436 Pa. 459, 463, 260 A.2d 751; Commonwealth v. Thomas, 429 Pa. 227, 231--232, 239 A.2d 354; Commonwealth v. Finnie, 415 Pa. 166, 171, 202 A.2d 85; Commonw......