Commonwealth v. Chester
Citations
- 77 Pa. Super. 388
- 1921 Pa. Super. LEXIS 281
Syllabus
<p>Criminal law — Larceny and receiving stolen goods — Burden of proof — Evidence—Character evidence — Weight—Charge of court.</p> <p>The possession of property recently stolen is evidence that the possessor is the thief. The force of the presumption of guilt is one of fact to be inferred by the jury, not of law, and the jury must pass on all the evidence, including the explanation of the possession by the accused. In order to warrant conviction upon evidence as to possession of a stolen automobile the possession must be recent, taking into consideration the nature of the property and all the circumstances. The case is for the jury and it was error to give instructions that the unexplained possession of the automobile, thirteen days after the theft, must require a verdict of guilty.</p> <p>Evidence of good character is to be regarded as a substantive fact, like any other, tending to establish the defendant's innocence and ought to be so regarded by both court and jury.</p> <p>A charge to a jury that character evidence is introduced for the purpose of raising a doubt as to the man’s guilt, and must be considered in that connection with all the other testimony introduced in the ease, is not a proper instruction as to the value of character evidence, and constitutes reversible error.</p> <p>Trials — Bemarhs <of counsel — Grounds for withdrawal of a juror.</p> <p>In the trial of an indictment for larceny and receiving stolen goods, it is.error not to withdraw a juror, when the district attorney referred to the failure of the court to allow the Commonwealth to introduce evidence as to other transactions of the defendant, which had no connection with the offense charged, or the automobile which was the subject of the larceny.</p> <p>The court having properly rejected the evidence there should have been no mention of the matter, yet the jury was invited to draw its own conclusions from the very fact that the evidence improperly offered had been rejected.</p>
Judges: Henderson, Keller, Linn, Orlady, Porter, Trexlbr
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Oldham v. StateWyoming Supreme Court· 1975-04-23· cited 71×
- Commonwealth v. NewmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1923-03-12· cited 21×
- Commonwealth v. FinchSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1923-03-02· cited 8×
- Commonwealth v. WeaverDauphin County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1922-10-09
- Commonwealth v. GrandoneDauphin County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1922-12-30
- Commonwealth v. JohnsFranklin County Court of Oyer and Terminer· 1947-05-23
- Commonwealth v. YoblickDelaware County Court of Common Pleas· 1970-01-26
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Commonwealth v. StonerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1919-06-21· cited 36×
- Turner v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1878-05-06· cited 30×
- Commonwealth v. HavrillaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1909-02-26· cited 24×
- Graves v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court· 1860-06-15· cited 22×
- Hanney v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1887-05-09· cited 19×
- Smith v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1882-05-12· cited 14×
- Commonwealth v. DeitrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1907-04-29· cited 13×
- Commonwealth v. BerneySuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1905-04-17· cited 13×
- People v. LaMunionMichigan Supreme Court· 1887-02-03· cited 11×
- Commonwealth v. DeeganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1884-11-26· cited 6×
- Commonwealth v. DevineSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1901-12-02· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.