Commonwealth v. Szukics
| Decision Date | 14 June 1968 |
| Citation | 243 A.2d 198,212 Pa.Super. 517 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Leslie SZUKICS, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
W. Hamlin Neely, Allentown, for appellant.
William C. Worth, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty Allentown, for appellee.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, MONTGOMERY JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING and HANNUM, JJ.
This is the defendant's appeal following a conviction of forgery.
On September 27, 1965, attorney Robert Kleckner, late of the Lehigh County Bar, was found dead in his office by his secretary. The death was unattended and therefore the Allentown Police were summoned and they commenced an investigation relative to the unattended death of Mr. Kleckner, as is the practice in Lehigh County. Later that day the defendant, Leslie Szukics appeared at the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Lehigh County with a deed conveying premises, 224 North Ninth Street, Allentown, and 1617 Hamilton Street in the City of Allentown, from Attorney Kleckner and his wife to the defendant.
Further during the course of the investigation it was discovered that Mrs. Kleckner never signed any such deed although a signature purporting to be hers was on the deed which was in the possession of the Recorder of Deeds of Lehigh County. It was later discovered that this deed was prepared at the instance of the defendant by a Mrs. Margaret Toth.
The defendant had also taken the same deed to the office of Paul Delong, a notary public, in order to have an affidavit affixed thereto and told the notary that the signatures on the deed were those of both attorney Robert Kleckner and his wife.
During the course of the investigation the Allentown Police secured from the wife of the defendant a deed to another property which had previously been conveyed to the defendant by Mr. and Mrs. Kleckner.
Sergeant James D. King, who qualified as an expert in the field of handwriting, testified that in fact the signatures on the deed which the defendant tried to record on the date of Mr. Kleckner's death had, in fact, been traced from the bona fide deed whereby Mr. and Mrs. Kleckner had conveyed other property to the defendant. The signatures were declared to be forgeries by the Sergeant.
Subsequently the defendant was arrested and charged with the crime of forgery and the case went to trial before President Judge Kenneth H. Koch on June 15, 1966, and the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged.
Subsequently motions in arrest of judgment and motions for a new trial were filed and heard by the court sitting en banc and denied. This appeal followed.
The appellant raises seven questions in connection with this appeal, as follows: 1. Did the court err in admitting Commonwealth's Exhibits 2 and 3 into evidence?
2. Was it basic fundamental error to instruct the jury that defense counsel admitted the forgery in his closing address and that, therefore, the jury need not determine whether or not the Commonwealth's Exhibit 1 was a forged document?
3. Was it basic fundamental error for the court to instruct the jury that Commonwealth's Exhibit 1 was an admittedly fraudulent document?
4. Was it basic fundamental error to instruct the jury that certain of the testimony of James D. King, Elizabeth E. Kleckner and Rosa Szukics was unimportant?
5. Does the court's charge on circumstantial evidence contain basic and fundamental error?
6. Did the court err in not permitting the testimony of Donald Miller and Raymond Scheffy?
7. Should the court have sustained defendant's demurrer and is there sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict under the facts and the law of the case?
The circumstances as to how the Commonwealth obtained Exhibits 2 and 3 appear to be as follows: The record discloses that on September 29, 1965, the defendant appeared voluntarily at Allentown Police Headquarters pursuant to a request made of him by the police. He remained at Allentown Police Headquarters for several hours and apparently was interrogated in connection with an investigation being made into the circumstances surrounding the death of Robert Kleckner, which had occurred two days before.
Some time between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., while the defendant was at Headquarters, the First Assistant District Attorney of Lehigh County, Wallace Worth, Esq., accompanied by Detective Robert Sperling and two or three other police officers, went to the defendant's apartment, where the defendant and his wife resided, [243 A.2d 200] at 223 North Fountain Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania. Detective Sperling carried with him Commonwealth's Exhibit 2, which has been identified as a 'Consent to Search,' which read as follows: 'Consent to search: I the undersigned agree to the search of my apartment located at 223 N. 9th St., 2nd floor by officers of the Allentown Police Dept. and representatives of the District Attorney's Office of Lehigh Co. Penna.
'I further agree and give my consent to have any of my property removed from my apartment by Officers of the Allentown Police Dept. that they may feel they need in the investigation of a possible crime they feel has been committed in the city of Allentown.
'It is understood that any property removed from my apartment will be listed on this consent to search and that the Officers of the Allentown Police Dept. will have their names affixed to this document.'
After the law enforcement officers gained entrance to the apartment, the 'Consent to Search' was presented to the defendant's wife and she was requested to sign the same. The defendant's wife admittedly did not understand English well and in particular understood nothing written on the face of the document. She was visibly upset, scared and emotional. She was also aware that her husband had gone to police headquarters and had not returned to their apartment. According to her testimony, Detective Sperling told her that the police had come there to help her husband if she would cooperate.
When she was requested to sign the 'Consent to Search,' she testified, she was confused and she asked a friend, Mrs. Toth, what to do. Mrs. Toth undertook to explain certain things to the defendant's wife, apparently making these explanations in the Hungarian language. According to Mrs. Toth's testimony, she suggested to the defendant's wife that the document should be signed if Detective Sperling said it was all right to sign it.
The defendant's wife signed the 'Consent to Search' under the circumstances hereinabove set forth, after which time the apartment at 223 North Fountain Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania, was searched and Commonwealth's Exhibit 3 was removed therefrom.
At the trial the defendant objected to the admission in evidence of Exhibits 2 and 3, Exhibit 2 because the signature of the defendant's wife, which which was obtained through the use of deceit and misrepresentation, was not a waiver by him of his constitutional rights, and Exhibit 3 because it had been unlawfully obtained as a result of the coerced consent of his wife.
Apparently the only case in Pennsylvania dealing with this Question is Com. v. Wright, 411 Pa. 81, 190 A.2d 709 (1963). There Mr. Justice Eagen said: 'Two questions are raised in this appeal: (1) Does the Commonwealth have the right to appeal from the order of suppression? (2) Was there a valid consent by the defendant's wife to a search of the apartment so as to waive any constitutional guarantees the defendant personally enjoyed against unlawful search and seizure of his home? * * *.
'The second question requires attention and is determinative.
'Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), ruled that 'all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority inadmissible in a state court.' (page 655, 81 S.Ct. page 1691, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081). Such rule of exclusion being 'an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments * * *.' (page 657, 81 S.Ct. page 1693, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081). Save in certain cases as incident to arrest, there is no sanction in the decisions of the courts federal or state, for the search of a private dwelling without a warrant: Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145 (1925); United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1956). However, it is likewise the law that the constitutional right prohibiting an unreasonable search and seizure may be waived...
To continue reading
Request your trial