Holmes v. The Commonwealth
| Citation | 25 Pa. 221 |
| Parties | Holmes versus The Commonwealth. |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1855 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Kaine, for plaintiff in error.
Howell and Patrick, for the Commonwealth.
Although the first count in the indictment charges that a burglary was committed by Jacob Clement and Samuel H. Fisher, it is apparent from the whole record that the indictment was against Andrew H. Holmes, as accessory before and after the fact, and for receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen. The pleader has set forth the commission of the burglary in apt and technical terms, but it is merely as inducement to the charge against the prisoner as accessory, and not with the intention of indicting principals and accessory together. The bill is endorsed as against Holmes alone, and so was it docketed. It is a common law principle that an accessory shall not be tried before the conviction or outlawry of the principal; but it does not follow that he may not be indicted before either conviction or outlawry. On the contrary, it is clear that principal and accessory may be indicted at the same time, and that the conviction of the principal may be given in evidence upon the trial of the accessory, without being averred in the indictment. The guilt of the principal must be averred, and the evidence must establish that the guilt was legally ascertained before the trial of the indictment against the accessory. We are satisfied from the paper-book of the defendant in error that the principals were convicted of burglary before this indictment was tried; and as we cannot examine the evidence, we are bound to presume that legal proof was given to the jury of that conviction, upon the trial of the indictment against the accessory.
In Stoops v. The Commonwealth, 7 Ser. & R. 491, the record shows that principals and accessories were indicted together, and that but four of the seven principals had been tried. The trial and sentence of the accessories was held to be erroneous, because the record showed that they were indicted and convicted as accessories to the whole seven principals, when the guilt of but four of the principals had been established. It will be seen that here, instead of its appearing from the record that the principals had not been convicted, the necessary inference is just the contrary, and therefore the case of Stoops and the Commonwealth is an authority in favour of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Craig
...of felonies not capital it need not appear from the record that the prisoner was present when the jury rendered their verdict; Holmes v. Com., 25 Pa. 221; v. Com., 18 Pa. 103; Stahl's App., 1 Pa.Super. 496. Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, W. W. Porter and W. D. Porter, JJ. Opinion by Ri......
-
Wood v. State
... ... defendant, only one judge was present when the defendant was ... arraigned. See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 2 Mass. 303 ... We must confess to a want of sympathy with precedents of this ... character. They have no more application to the law ... State, 23 Ind. 24; Brown ... v. State, 13 Ark. 96; Smith v. State, 60 Ga ... 430; Harriman v. State, 2 G. Greene (Iowa) 270; ... Holmes v. Commonwealth, 25 Pa. 221; Grimm v ... People, 14 Mich. 300; State v. Craton, 28 N.C ... 164." Sewell et al. v. People, 189 Ill. 174, ... ...
-
Com. ex rel. Milewski v. Ashe
...of error, and was not such a basic and fundamental error as to require defendant's discharge on habeas corpus. In Holmes v. Commonwealth, 25 Pa. 221, referred to by the Superior Court, the indictment charged Holmes with being an accessory before and after the fact of burglary and with recei......
-
Com. ex rel. Milewski v. Ashe
...on the proposition that it would be error to try a person for felony in his absence, even with his consent.' But in Holmes v. Com., 25 Pa. 221, involving a charge of burglary, the Supreme Court refused to reverse the conviction because, in felonies not capital, it was not necessary that it ......