Commonwealth v. Bassi
| Decision Date | 27 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 103 |
| Citation | 130 A. 311,284 Pa. 81 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Bassi, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued May 11, 1925
Appeal, No. 103, March T., 1925, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Cambria Co., Dec. T., 1924, No. 2, on verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree, in case of Commonwealth v. Michele Bassi. Affirmed.
Indictment for murder. Before EVANS, P.J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree on which sentence was passed. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were various rulings on evidence referred to in the opinion of the Supreme Court, quoting bills of exceptions.
We find no error in the record. The judgment of the court below is affirmed and the record ordered remitted for the purpose of execution.
Philip N. Shettig, with him George A. Foster, cited: 22 C.J. 906; Sweeney v. Oil & Gas Co., 130 Pa. 193; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547; Turman v State (Texas), 95 S.W. 533; State v. Griffin (S.C.), 124 S.E. 81; Evans v. State, 106 Pa 519; Cooper v. State, 86 Ala. 610; Day v. State, 63 Ga. 667.
D. P. Weimer, for appellee.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
Defendant was convicted of murder of the first degree, committed while he with others were engaged in robbing the American Railway Express Co. of a box containing cash, being transported by train from Ebensburg to Colver in Cambria County. A number of witnesses identified defendant as one of the two men who boarded the train and did the shooting which resulted in the death of one of the guards, and it is not contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The only questions raised on this appeal relate to the competency of evidence offered by the Commonwealth and admitted by the trial judge.
The first assignment of error refers to the admission of a letter purporting to have been written by defendant to a witness produced by the Commonwealth. The letter was not signed but bore the word "Ugo" on one corner. It appeared Ugo was the name by which defendant was known to the witness. He did not testify to knowledge of the handwriting but said it came from defendant "because it had Ugo's name on it." While this alone would be insufficient to identify the letter (Sweeney v. Oil Co., 130 Pa. 193), the contents indicate the writer had knowledge of matters with which the witness and defendant were both familiar. It stated the writer had been looking for the witness every evening, inquired if anything had happened, whether he "had found out anything," suggested that if a letter should come addressed in the name of "Bassi" it was for the writer and that the latter would wait for the witness "at same time and at same place." This was sufficient to enable the witness to identify the writer of the letter and to warrant a finding that it was written by defendant: Roe v. Insurance Co., 149 Pa. 94; Comerer v. Insurance Co., 53 Pa.Super. 516, 524, 525.
The second assignment complains that defendant was compelled to bear witness against himself in that he was brought into court for arraignment and trial wearing clothing similar to that worn by him at or about the time the crime was committed and was further forcibly compelled, while confined in jail, awaiting trial, to grow a moustache and with it present a resemblance to one of the perpetrators of the robbery, it being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Huffman
...is admissible in evidence. 32 C.J.S., Evidence, § 706a; State ex rel. Kunz v. Woodmansee, 156 Or. 607, 69 P.2d 298; Commonwealth v. Bassi, 284 Pa. 81, 130 A. 311. In People v. Adams, 162 Mich. 371, 127 N.W. 354, letters and telegrams purporting to come from the defendant to a witness and re......
-
Caton v. State
...381 U.S. 275, 85 S.Ct. 1458, 14 L.Ed.2d 431 (1965); Widgeon v. Commonwealth, 142 Va. 658, 128 S.E. 459 (1925); Commonwealth v. Bassi, 284 Pa. 81, 130 A. 311 (1925); Commonwealth v. Pezzi, 284 Pa. 85, 130 A. 312 (1925). No such connection appears in this What we have heretofore said demonstr......
-
Com. v. Zook
... 615 A.2d 1 ... 532 Pa. 79 ... COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, ... Robert Peter ZOOK, Jr., Appellant ... Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ... Argued Oct. 24, 1991 ... Decided June ... This evidence was merely a link in the chain of circumstances tending to show appellant's guilt. See Commonwealth v ... Bassi, 284 Pa. 81, 130 A. 311 (1925). The fact that this address book was in appellant's possession at the time of his arrest and that there was an ... ...
-
Gregury v. Greguras
...v. Nolly , 290 Pa. 271, 138 A. 836 (1927) (letters authenticated by contents known only to sender and recipient); Commonwealth v. Bassi , 284 Pa. 81, 130 A. 311 (1925) (finding unsigned letter authenticated by defendant's nickname written on it, along with contents indicating knowledge of m......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 49, No. 30. July 27, 2019
...Pa. 94, ] 23 A. 718 (Pa. 1892); testimony that an item of evidence was found in a place connected to a party, see Commonwealth v. Bassi, [ 284 Pa. 81, ] 130 A. 311 (Pa. 1925); a phone call authenticated by evidence of party’s conduct after the call, see Commonwealth v. Gold, [ 123 Pa. Super......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 49, No. 12. March 23, 2019
...Pa. 94, ] 23 A. 718 (Pa. 1892); testimony that an item of evidence was found in a place connected to a party, see Commonwealth v. Bassi, [ 284 Pa. 81, ] 130 A. 311 (Pa. 1925); a phone call authenticated by evidence of party’s conduct after the call, see Commonwealth v. Gold, [ 123 Pa. Super......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 46, No. 29. July 16, 2016
...Pa. 94, ] 23 A.718 (Pa. 1892); testimony that an item of evidence was found in a place connected to a party, see Commonwealth v. Bassi, [ 284 Pa. 81, ] 130 A. 311 (Pa. 1925); a phone call authenticated by evidence of party’s conduct after the call, see Commonwealth v. Gold, [ 123 Pa. Super.......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 49, No. 47. November 23, 2019
...Pa. 94, ] 23 A. 718 (Pa. 1892); testimony that an item of evidence was found in a place connected to a party, see Commonwealth v. Bassi, [ 284 Pa. 81, ] 130 A. 311 (Pa. 1925); a phone call THE COURTS PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN, VOL. 49, NO. 47, NOVEMBER 23, 2019 authenticated by evidence of part......