Commonwealth v. Fencez

Citations

• 226 Pa. 114
• 75 A. 19
• 1910 Pa. LEXIS 723

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Murder—Trial—Continuance—Discretion of court.</p> <p>1. The appellate court will not review the discretion of the trial court in refusing to continue the trial of a murder case in order that counsel, who ten days before had been assigned to the defense, might have further opportunity to acquaint themselves with the case.</p> <p>Criminal law — Murder—Charge of court — Mistake in stating testimony — Harmless error.</p> <p>2. The appellate court will not reverse a judgment on a verdict of guilty in a murder trial because the trial judge made a manifest mistake in attributing to a witness a remark which did not appear from the testimony, where the remark itself was so foreign to the issue being tried, and so wholly irrelevant in the connection in which it occurred that it could have worked no prejudice to the prisoner, and counsel for the prisoner made no objection at the time.</p> <p>Criminal law — Murder—Evidence—Exclusion of evidence.</p> <p>3. The appellate court will not reverse a judgment on a verdict of guilty in a murder case because of the exclusion of certain questions asked of a witness for the commonwealth upon cross-examination, where the purpose of the questions manifestly was to develop the defendant’s own case, and related to nothing that the witness had testified to in chief. The circumstance that the witness in question was not in attendance when afterwards called to testify for the defense, does not affect in any way the correctness of the court’s ruling, although it may have been unfortunate for the prisoner.</p> <p>Criminal law — Murder—Evidence—Mental condition of prisoner„</p> <p>4. On the trial of an indictment for murder a policeman on duty in a hospital where the prisoner had been confined for several weeks after the tragedy, may be allowed to testify against objection, that he observed nothing in the prisoner’s conduct during that period that indicated unsoundness of mind.</p>