Commonwealth v. Sumrak
Decision Date | 15 April 1942 |
Docket Number | 149-1942 |
Citation | 25 A.2d 605,148 Pa.Super. 412 |
Parties | Commonwealth v. Sumrak, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued October 6, 1941
Appeal fro judgment of Q. S. Allegheny Co., Dec. Sessions, 1940, No 365, in case of Commonwealth v. Mark Sumrak.
Indictment for perjury. Before Graff, P. J., specially presiding.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict of guilty and judgment and sentence thereon. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the action of the court below in overruling defendant's demurrer.
Judgment affirmed.
William S. Burleigh, for appellant.
Russell H. Adams, Assistant District Attorney, with him Andrew T Park, District Attorney, for appellee.
Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.
Mark Sumrak has appealed from a conviction of perjury under the Penal Code. [1] The indictment alleged that on June 2, 1940, while testifying under oath before a Grand Jury, he swore falsely that he did not know what he was signing when he signed a Communist Party petition. To support the conviction, the Commonwealth proved: (1) That when he subsequently testified at the trial in Commonwealth v. Antico et al., 146 Pa.Super. 293, 22 A.2d 204, he testified under oath that he did know what he was signing when he signed the petition; [2] and (2) that the petition he signed clearly indicated on its face that it was a Communist Party Nomination Petition, from which the Commonwealth argues the inference may be drawn that he knew what it was. The question is whether this evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The general rule is that to sustain a conviction of perjury the Commonwealth must offer either two witnesses to the falsity of the matter on which the perjury is assigned or one witness and corroboration. Commonwealth v. Bradley, 109 Pa.Super. 294, 296, 167 A. 471, and cases cited. In discussing the rule as applied to a case where, as here, defendant is shown to have made two conflicting statements under oath, Professor Wigmore says: [3] We said (Trexler, P. J.) in Commonwealth v. Bradley, 109 Pa.Super. 294, 297, 167 A. 471: In that case, defendant testified before an alderman that he had purchased intoxicating liquor from one Alexander, who was charged with the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. He subsequently made an affidavit to the effect that he had not made such purchase. Alexander testified that the statement before the alderman was false and this court held that his testimony, together with the conflicting statement under oath, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
If the person who circulated the petition and procured defendant's signature to it had testified that he had definitely told him what the petition was, this case would be on all fours with the Bradley Case. But if we adopt the premise that there is no doubt that a person making conflicting statements under oath has committed perjury, and accept Professor Wigmore's suggestion that the "two witness" rule has no application, the problem is freed from any entanglement with it and becomes the simple one of determining whether there is some competent evidence from which the jury might find that the perjury was committed on the occasion charged in the indictment -- July 2, 1940, when defendant testified before the Grand Jury, and not at the subsequent trial. And we agree with the lower court that the evidence was supplied by proof of the circumstances under which the petition was signed. Even though in a criminal case there may be no presumption, when a man who is an adult, who is apparently possessed of all his faculties and who is apparently able to read and write, signs a paper clearly indicating on its face what it is, the jury may properly infer that he knew what he was signing. People v. Dunbar Contracting Co., 215 N.Y. 416, 109 N.E. 554; Bettman v. United States, 224 F. 819, 828, cert. denied, 239 U.S. 642, 60 L.Ed. 482, 36 S.Ct. 163.
Appellant points out that in the Bradley Case defendant's affidavit was treated as corroboration of the testimony of the witness Alexander and not itself the evidence to be corroborated. But we have indicated what we consider to have been the true basis of the decision. The point is, we repeat, that the commission of perjury is proven by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hogan v. State
...rule has not been without criticism, and in some jurisdictions the difficulty has been obviated by statute. 3 In Commonwealth v. Sumrak, 148 P.Super. 412, 25 A.2d 605 (1942), the defendant signed a Communist Party petition. Thereafter, before a grand jury he testified he did know what he wa......
-
Com. v. Russo
...corroborating evidence: Williams v. Commonwealth, 91 Pa. 493; Commonwealth v. Mudd, 176 Pa.Super. 250, 107 A.2d 599; Commonwealth v. Sumrak, 148 Pa.Super. 412, 25 A.2d 605; Commonwealth v. Gore, 171 Pa.Super. 8, 90 A.2d 405. This rule is comprehensively stated and pinpointed in Commonwealth......
-
Commonwealth v. Russo
... ... Pennsylvania, i.e., in order to convict of perjury there must ... be two witnesses or one witness plus corroborating evidence: ... Williams v. Commonwealth, 91 Pa. 493; ... Commonwealth v. Mudd, 176 Pa.Super. 250, 107 A.2d ... 599; Commonwealth v. Sumrak, 148 Pa.Super. 412, 25 ... A.2d 605; Commonwealth v. Gore, 171 Pa.Super. 8, 90 ... A.2d 405. This rule is comprehensively stated and pinpointed ... in Commonwealth v. Billingsley, 160 Pa.Super. 140, ... 50 A.2d 703, which was affirmed by this Court in 357 Pa. 378, ... 54 A.2d 705, on the ... ...
-
Com. v. Russo
...evidence from which the jury might find that the perjury was committed on the occasion charged in the indictment. Commonwealth v. Sumrak, 148 Pa.Super. 412, 25 A.2d 605. The evidence necessary to identify the perjured statement may be direct or circumstantial but it must be Appellant Tanser......