Commonwealth v. Gray

Citations

• 77 Pa. Super. 315
• 1921 Pa. Super. LEXIS 260

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Unlawful use of dynamite — Blowing up of store building — Evidence—Admissibility—Cha/rge of the court.</p> <p>In the trial of an indictment, charging the unlawful use of dynamite, the court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant, where evidence was produced to prove that the defendant, prior to the explosion, had in his possession a quantity of dynamite which he did not have afterwards, that he admitted his connection with the explosion to certain witnesses, and at least to one of them he made threats that he would kill the witness if he should testify as to certain facts which might establish the guilt of tbe defendant. In such ease, there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the actual preparation of the crime was inaugurated by the defendant, and a verdict of guilty will be sustained.</p> <p>Trials — Remarle of counsel — Refusal to withdraw a furor — Witnesses — Cross-examination.</p> <p>A statement by counsel for the Commonwealth that one of the witnesses had testified that he was in a position where he could not be seen, was not sufficient evidence to justify the withdrawal of the jury. The court very properly left it to the jury to ascertain what was the true statement of the facts, and while the remarks of counsel might have been inaccurate they did not constitute reasons for withdrawing a juror.</p> <p>Where a witness has been called generally she can be cross-examined and her testimony can be impeached. The order of proof is within the discretion of the trial judge, and the Superior Court will not reverse, in the absence of proof of such an abuse of discretion as would materially affect the defendant’s case.</p>