Com. v. Whiting

Citation208 A.2d 1,205 Pa.Super. 92
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert WHITING, Appellant.
Decision Date18 March 1965
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

Page 1

208 A.2d 1
205 Pa.Super. 92
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Robert WHITING, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
March 18, 1965.

[205 Pa.Super. 93] Martin Vinikoor, Vinikoor, Fein, Criden & Johanson, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Charles Jay Bogdanoff, Asst. Dist. Atty., Joseph M. Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Division, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., First Asst. Dist. Atty., James C. Crumlish, Jr., Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

[205 Pa.Super. 92] Before ERVIN, Acting P. J., and WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.

[205 Pa.Super. 93] WRIGHT, Judge.

Robert Whiting was indicted by the Grand July of Philadelphia County on Bills Nos. 1552 and 1553 December Sessions 1963, charging assault and battery and immoral practice, respectively. The defendant was represented by counsel, and pleas of not guilty were entered. Trial was held on June 17, 1964, before Honorable Charles L. Guerin, sitting without a jury. After hearing the testimony, the trial judge found the defendant guilty on each bill. Sentences were suspended, and the defendant was placed on probation for a period of twenty-three months on condition that he receive psychiatric treatment. On July 13, 1964, having procured new counsel, Whiting filed a petition for a rule to show cause why motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment nunc pro tunc should not be allowed. The court below concluded that 'the within petition comes too late', and refused to grant the rule. These appeals followed.

Page 2

The record discloses that appellant was a science teacher in one of the Philadelphia high schools. On November 13, 1963, B_____, a male student in the senior class, remained at the end of the period to discuss his grades. The conversation 'turned into something else'. Appellant and B_____ went from the class room to an adjoining office where appellant pulled down B_____'s zipper, inserted his hand in B_____'s trousers, and touched his genitals. B_____ ran from [205 Pa.Super. 94] the room, related the incident to his family doctor, and eventually to his father and the school principal. B_____'s father testified as to his son's complaint, and as to their visit to the school principal. A police officer testified as to his investigation of the case.

In his defense, appellant testified that his conversation with B_____ concerned making up work for repeated absences. He admitted that sex was discussed, and that he said: 'You must have something to get all those...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT