Commonwealth v. Snopek

• Citation: 200 Pa.Super. 455,190 A.2d 161
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Paul SNOPEK, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 18 April 1963
• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

190 A.2d 161

200 Pa.Super. 455

COMMONWEALTH v. Paul SNOPEK, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

April 18, 1963.

William P. Farrell, Scranton, for appellant.

Joseph J. Cimino, Dist. Atty., James E. O'Brien, Asst. Dist Atty., Scranton, for appellee.

Before RHODES, P. J., and ERVIN, WRIGHT WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY and FLOOD, JJ.

RHODES, President Judge.

This is an appeal by Paul Snopek from a conviction and sentence on an indictment charging him with forcible rape.

Paul Snopek Douglas Reilly, and John W. Singer were indicted separately and, on motion of the district attorney, were tried jointly in Lackawanna County. They were convicted and each was sentenced to a minimum term of six years and a maximum term of fifteen years.

Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were refused summarily by the court in banc. Defendant Paul Snopek has appealed.

The evidence establishes the following: The victim was walking along Main Street in the Borough of Blakely, returning from a night high school football game. A car driven by Reilly, with Snopek in the front seat and Singer in the rear, stopped along side the victim. Snopek jumped out, forcibly seized the victim, pushed her into the front seat with the aid of Reilly, got in beside her and drove away. During a brief stop at a parking lot the victim was thrown into the back seat with Singer. She fought screamed, and attempted to leave the car but was forcibly detained. Reilly then drove to what was described as a mountain or wooded strip mining area. Upon arrival they discovered they had a flat tire. Snopek and Reilly proceeded to fix the tire. While the tire was being fixed the girl was in the back seat alone with Singer, where, she testified, Singer pulled a knife on her, tore off her jeans and undergarment, abused her and then raped her. The girl testified that, after the tire was fixed, Snopek got in the back seat with her and also raped her. She testified that a fight then began between Reilly and Singer. She quickly put on her clothes and watched the fight from outside the car. She testified that during the fight Reilly was stabbed by Singer. After the fight, Snopek assured the victim that he would not molest her further and drove her to a spot near the area from which she was abducted. During this ride she was alone in the back seat. Reilly, who was wounded, was in the front seat with Snopek. Singer was left unconscious on the ground at the scene. Upon being let out of the car, the victim reported the incident to the Pennsylvania State Police. She also reported the stabbing but when the police arrived at the scene Singer had recovered and left. She was taken to the Scranton State Hospital where she was examined and evidence was found which supported her story of the attack. The doctor's immediate examination also disclosed several scars and scratches. She testified she did not remember whether Reilly raped her.

The only other witnesses to the rape were the three defendants. All three admitted they had been drinking heavily for several hours prior to the assaults. Singer accused Reilly of instigating the abduction. He also accused Reilly and Snopek of violence and threats to the girl on the ride to the woods and on arrival there of the most degrading sexual assault by Reilly, aided by Snopek. Reilly, on the other hand, accused Singer of instigating the abduction and of performing an act of perversion on the girl, following which he said Singer made an unprovoked attack on Reilly. Snopek professed little detailed knowledge of anything, saying he was too drunk to remember, but he did admit he was able to drive the car away, leaving Singer to his fate. All three defendants denied personally raping the victim. The police investigation found the three defendants in a matter of hours. They were arrested and charged.

From this testimony the jury concluded that the girl was a victim of rape, and found each of the defendants guilty.

On appeal appellant Snopek raises the following issues: (1) whether the court abused its discretion in consolidating the indictments for trial; (2) whether the court erred in refusing to grant his motion for mistrial because of a newspaper article published during the trial; and (3) whether the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment without hearing argument.

We find there was no prejudicial error in allowing a consolidation of the indictments for trial.

In Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 378 Pa. 412, 415, 106 A.2d 820, 822, the Supreme Court said: 'The trial Judge because of his position and for other obvious reasons has been given a discretion to determine whether a number of bills of indictment should be consolidated and tried together, and his exercise of discretion in such matters will not be reversed by an appellate Court unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion or a joint trial is so unfair as to be clearly unjust and prejudicial to one or more of the defendants. Especially is a joint trial permissible, if not advisable, when the crimes charged grew out of the same acts and much of the same evidence is necessary or applicable to both defendants.' See, also, Commonwealth v. Mattero, 183 Pa.Super. 548, 552, 132 A.2d 905; Commonwealth v. Grosso, 192 Pa.Super. 513, 521, 162 A.2d 421.

In Commonwealth v. Danaleczk, 85 Pa.Super. 253, 255 where the question presented was whether two indictments charging separate felonies (rape upon...