Commonwealth v. Parker
| Decision Date | 15 June 1972 |
| Citation | 292 A.2d 454,221 Pa.Super. 334 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Robert D. PARKER, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Smith B. Gephart (Submitted), Harrisburg, for appellant.
Marion E. MacIntyre, Deputy Dist. Atty. (Submitted), Harrisburg, for appellee.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING CERCONE and PACKEL, JJ.
Defendant Robert Parker, ws convicted of conspiracy and unlawful sale of narcotic drugs and sentenced to a term of one year in prison. His motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment was denied.
His two principle complaints are that the verdict was 'contrary to the evidence, contrary to the weight of the evidence, and contrary to law' and in addition, that the trial judge erred in refusing to sustain defendant's demurrer to the evidence, and erred in his instructions to the jury in making prejudicial comments relative to defense attorney's reasons for putting defendant's prior criminal record into evidence.
A co-defendant in the case, William Stone, gave a juvenile worker and a juvenile who accompanied her two 'reefer' cigarettes at a gasoline station and then asked if they wanted to buy 'anything'. The two girls said they did and then Stone said he would have to take them 'up the street, a friend of his was working up there'. The three persons went to the place of defendant's work and while the two girls waited outside Stone went into the building and appeared shortly thereafter and handed the girls two plastic packets of marijuana. At the trial the plant manager where defendant worked testified that he saw co-defendant Stone come into the building, carry on a conversation with defendant Parker, shake hands with Parker in an 'unusual' manner, and then leave the building. It was after this encounter with Parker that Stone again joined the juvenile worker and her juvenile companion, and handed them the marijuana. From the attendant circumstances of the case this evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of the crimes charged. Commonwealth v. Williams, 443 Pa. 85, 87, 277 A.2d 781 (1971); Commonwealth v Nasuti, 385 Pa. 436, 445, 123 A.2d 435 (1956).
Defendant's narration of facts in his brief which might have led the jury to a not guilty verdict was never a consideration at trial and no evidence pointing to two equally reasonable and mutually inconsistent inferences was presented at the trial. If accepting as true all of the evidence, be it direct or circumstantial or both and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom, upon which, if believed, the jury could properly have based its verdict, such evidence is sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime of which he had been convicted. Co-defendant Stone's visit to defendant Parker's place of work immediately after which he gave two packets of marijuana to the juvenile worker and her juvenile companion was a substantiation of Stone's assertion that he had to take them 'up the street, a friend of his was working up there', in order to get what they wanted.
At trial after the Commonwealth closed its case, defendant took the stand and defense counsel introduced defendant's prior criminal record into evidence. Defendant complains that the trial court erred in its reference to this criminal record in charging the jury. We find no prejudicial error in the charge in which the court stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial