Commonwealth v. Larkins

• Decision Date: 24 June 1975
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Larkins, 235 Pa.Super. 19, 341 A.2d 204 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Francis LARKINS, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

341 A.2d 204

235 Pa.Super. 19

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Francis LARKINS, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

June 24, 1975.

Neil Carver(Court appointed), Philadelphia for appellant.

Steven H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals, Div Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN CERCONE, PRICE VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.

CERCONE Judge:

Appellant who was tried in a non-jury trial and found guilty of criminal conspiracy, burglary, and theft by unlawful taking or disposition now contends that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him on the above charges.

In reviewing this case the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.Commonwealth v. Cimaszewski,447 Pa. 141, 143, 288 A.2d 805(1972);Commonwealth v. Miller,445 Pa. 282, 284 A.2d 739(1971).With this standard in mind the evidence against appellant can be stated as follows.At 7:30 p.m. on September 15, 1973appellant was observed standing in front of a closed laundromat with a group of eight or nine other boys.The appellant and several other boys walked around to the back of the laundromat where there is a small yard, which leads into the laundromat, completely enclosed by a brick fence with a wooden gate.Shortly thereafter the appellant and two other boys were seen leaving the yard behind the laundromat.At 8:00 p.m. the manager of the laundromat discovered that the laundromat had been broken into however there was no evidence that anything was taken.At 8:50 p.m. appellant and another boy were arrested.The boys had some change in their pockets and one had a half of brick wrapped in a belt sticking out of his pocket.The above is not simply a summary of the facts but is a complete account from the record of all the relevant evidence introduced at trial against the appellant.

'To sustain a conviction, the facts and circumstances which the Commonwealth prove must be such that every essential element of the crime is established beyond a reasonable doubt.Although the Commonwealth does not have to establish guilt to a mathematical certainty, and may in the proper case rely wholly on circumstantial evidence, the conviction must be based on more than mere suspicion or conjecture.'(Footnotes omitted.)Commonwealth v. Roscioli,454 Pa. 59, 62, 309 A.2d 396, 398(1973).

Theft by unlawful taking or disposition is defined as follows: 'A person is...