Com. v. Townsend
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
| Citation | 211 Pa.Super. 135,235 A.2d 461 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Robert L. TOWNSEND. |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1967 |
J. Davis, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., Philadelphia, Richard A. Sprague, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Before ERVIN, P.J., and WRIGHT, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN and SPAULDING, JJ.
Robert L. Townsend was indicted by the Grand Jury of Philadelphia County on Bill No. 509 July Sessions 1966 charging (1) carrying a concealed deadly weapon, and (2) unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license. A plea of not guilty was entered, and the case was listed for trial, February 23, 1967, before Hon. Charles Wright and a jury. After the trial commenced, a juror was withdrawn and a new trial granted. The case was next listed for May 10, 1967, and was tried non jury before Hon. Arnold D. Smorto, specially presiding. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's testimony, the trial judge sustained a demurrer to the evidence. This appeal by the Commonwealth followed.
The test to be applied to the validity of a demurrer in a criminal case is whether the evidence produced by the Commonwealth and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom would support a guilty verdict: Commonwealth v. Farrell, 208 Pa.Super. 200, 222 A.2d 437. City police officer Doyle testified that, on the evening of June 11, 1966, he was called to premises at 901 North Fallon Street where appellant was standing on the front steps. As the officer approached he noticed a bulge in appellant's pocket which proved to be a .38 caliber pistol loaded and in operable condition. This testimony was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty on both counts.
As to the first count, the demurrer was sustained on the ground that the Commonwealth had failed to prove 'that the carrying was malicious with the intent to do bodily harm.' Overlooked by the trial judge was the express provision in the pertinent section of The Penal Code 1 that such intent may be inferred 'from the fact the defendant carried such weapon'. Once evidence is introduced that the weapon carried was deadly in character, and that it was concealed, the case must go to the jury: Commonwealth v. Festa, 156 Pa.Super. 329, 40 A.2d 112.
As to the second count, the demurrer was sustained on the ground that the Commonwealth had failed to 'establish the fact as to whether or not he did have a license'....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Sojourner
...the Court in McNeil recognized as much. Commonwealth v. Anderson, 191 Pa.Super. 213, 156 A.2d 624 (1959). Cf. Commonwealth v. Townsend, 211 Pa.Super. 135, 235 A.2d 461 (1967); Commonwealth v. Silia, 194 Pa.Super. 291, 166 A.2d 73 (1960), Cert. denied 368 U.S. 969, 82 S.Ct. 443, 7 L.Ed.2d 39......
-
Com. v. London
...this weapon upon a vital part of Thomas' body. Act June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, § 416, as amended; 18 P.S. § 4416; Commonwealth v. Townsend, 211 Pa.Super. 135, 235 A.2d 461 (1967); Commonwealth v. Festa, 156 Pa.Super. 329, 40 A.2d 112 (1945). See also Commonwealth v. Cannon, 453 Pa. 389, 309 A.......
-
Com. v. Supertzi
...produced by the Commonwealth and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom would support a guilty verdict.' Commonwealth v. Townsend, 211 Pa.Super. 135, 137, 235 A.2d 461 (1967). The Commonwealth argues that the unrebutted evidence established that the appellee committed an assault and batt......
-
Com. v. Williams
...stated that it was the burden of the defendant to prove that he had a license if, in fact, he did have one. See Commonwealth v. Townsend, 211 Pa.Super. 135, 235 A.2d 461 (1967); Commonwealth v. Silia, 194 Pa.Super. 291, 166 A.2d 73 (1960); and Commonwealth v. Anderson, 191 Pa.Super. 213, 15......