Commonwealth v. Holgate

Citations

• 63 Pa. Super. 246
• 1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 145

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Larceny—Receiving stolen goods — Evidence — Search warrant — Presumption of innocence — Reasonable doubt— Corroboration of defendant.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for receiving stolen goods the fact that the defendant and his witnesses deny that the defendant received the stolen property will not entitle the defendant to assert that he was not guilty of the crime charged, where his guilt might be inferred from his possession of the property and his failure to give a satisfactory account of the manner in which, consistent with his innocence, he obtained it. The jury is not bound to believe an incredible story because no witnesses contradicted it.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for receiving stolen goods, where a constable enters upon the defendant’s premises with a search warrant, and finds the stolen goods in a bam over which the defendant had control and which he used for his own purposes, evidence as to the legality of the search warrant, and the right of the constable to enter the premises is immaterial, and especially so where it appears that the warrant was read to defendant and he said it was all right, but when he afterwards asked to read it and was refused, said he did not care where the constable went.</p> <p>On the trial of such an indictment where there is evidence that the defendant’s actions were not frank, open and fair, the trial judge cannot be convicted of error because he said to the .jury that the Commonwealth claims that the defendant’s actions were not “frank, open and fair, which would indicate guilt on his part.”</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for larceny and receiving stolen goods, where the court inadvertently instructs the jury that they could return a verdict of guilty on both counts, and the jury returned such a 'verdict, but the court subsequently arrests the judgment on the count charging receiving, and sentences the defendant for larceny, the defendant cannot demand a reversal of the judgment becau