Commonwealth v. Weiner, 220-1930

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: Whitmore, J.
• Citation: 101 Pa.Super. 295
• Decision Date: 27 December 1930
• Docket Number: 220-1930
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Harry Weiner, Appellant

101 Pa.Super. 295

Commonwealth
v.
Harry Weiner, Appellant

No. 220-1930

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

December 27, 1930

Argued: September 30, 1930.

Appeal by defendant from judgment and sentence of O. & T., Schuylkill County-1929, No. 662, in the case of Commonwealth v. Harry Weiner.

Indictment charging the defendant with receiving stolen goods. Before Houck, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Verdict of guilty upon which judgment of sentence was passed. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was the charge of the court.

Cyrus M. Palmer, and with him Joseph G. Seesholtz, for appellant.

Jas. J. Gallagher, Dep. District Attorney, and with him C. A. Snyder, District Attorney, M. M. Burke and Otto E. Farquhar, for appellee.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, Cunningham and Whitmore, JJ.

OPINION [101 Pa.Super. 296]

Whitmore, J.

The defendant appellant was convicted in the court below on an indictment charging him with having received stolen goods, to-wit, a lot of copper wire, knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen, taken and carried away; he was sentenced and the court [101 Pa.Super. 297] below made an order that this appeal should operate as a supersedeas.

The appellant assigns as error (1) the court's refusal to quash the indictment, (2) that the court erred in refusing to withdraw a juror due to a remark of the district attorney in his opening address to the jury, (3) that the court erred in its charge to the jury relative to the doctrine of reasonable doubt, and (4) that the trial judge erred in pronouncing sentence upon the defendant.

As to the first assignment of error, it appears from the record that the information against the defendant was made on February 6, 1928 and on April 1, 1928 he entered bail for his appearance at the next term of court. The indictment, however, was not presented to the grand jury at the next term of court on the first Monday of May, 1928, as the alderman's return was not filed until April 25, 1929, more than a year after the bail was entered. The indictment was presented to the grand jury and a true bill found on May 9, 1929. Before a plea was entered or the jury sworn the defendant moved to quash the indictment on the sole ground that no notice was given to the defendant that the indictment was to be presented to the grand jury at May Sessions 1929. As the record did not disclose service of notice on the...