Commonwealth v. De Masi

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: FELL, C. J.
• Citation: 234 Pa. 570,83 A. 430
• Decision Date: 05 February 1912
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. DE MASI.

83 A. 430
234 Pa. 570

COMMONWEALTH
v.
DE MASI.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 5, 1912.

Appeal from Court of Oyer and Terminer, Philadelphia County.

83 A. 431

Sabatino De Masi was convicted of murder of the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FELL, C. J., and BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART, and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

Charles J. Roney, Jr., and E. B. Rockwell, for appellant.

William A. Gray, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Samuel P. Rotan, Dist Atty., for the Commonwealth.

FELL, C. J. The murder of which the prisoner was convicted was committed in the perpetration of a robbery. There is therefore no question as to the degree of the crime. The duty imposed upon us by the act of February 15, 1870 (P. L. 15), is limited to ascertaining whether there was competent evidence at the trial, which if believed by the jury would sustain a verdict of guilty. Grant v. Commonwealth, 71 Pa. 495; Commonwealth v. Morrison, 193 Pa. 613, 44 Atl. 913; Commonwealth v. Danz, 211 Pa. 507, 60 Atl. 1070.

The facts developed by the commonwealth were that a masked man entered a saloon late at night, and, after demanding money of the barkeeper, shot and killed him. Two other men who were in the saloon were shot, one fatally. No one who saw the shooting was able to identify the prisoner. The testimony directly connecting him with it was that of an accomplice to whom he expressed his intention to enter the saloon and rob the bartender and to whom he said when he came out of the saloon that he had shot two men and had got $30. This testimony was corroborated by proof that the witness and the prisoner were together during the day, that they had visited the saloon together two or three times a few hours before, and were close to it a short time before the shooting. The corroboration extended to every important fact testified to by the witness except the prisoner's expression of an intention to rob and his admission that he had shot the deceased. The testimony of the witness was submitted to the jury with great care by the learned trial judge in a charge to which no exception was taken.

There is no rule of law in this state that forbids a conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Ettinger v. Commonwealth, 98 Pa. 338; Cox v. Commonwealth, 125 Pa. 94, 17 Atl. 227. The duty to examine such testimony with care, and to accept and act upon it only when convinced of its truthfulness, was pointed out in the charge.

The assignment based on...