Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. House

Citations

  • 36 Pa. Super. 363
  • 1908 Pa. Super. LEXIS 172

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Assault and battery — Contradiction of defendant’s testimony — Incidental evidence as to another crime.</p> <p>Where the defendant on the trial of an indictment for assault and battery testified that he was at a particular place at a certain hour, and his testimony raises a doubt whether he could have reached the place of the assault at the time it was shown to have occurred, it is not reversible error to permit the commonwealth for the purpose of discrediting and contradicting the defendant to show that the defendant had not been at the place he designated, or at the time he had stated, but that he had been at another place near the place of the assault and at an earlier time, and this is so although the introduction of such evidence may incidentally show that he had committed another assault before he assaulted the prosecutrix.</p> <p>Criminal law — Charge—Adequacy of charge — Reference to evidence.</p> <p>It is not possible nor even desirable that the judge should refer to and emphasize every item of evidence on both sides in a way that counsel would consider adequate. In doing so he would run the risk of coming to speak as an advocate rather than a judge. Nor is he required to go over all the evidence on a particular point every time he refers to the point in the course of his charge. It is enough if he gives to the jury a general review of the evidence on the one side and the other, which fairly and adequately presents the respective contentions of the parties, with enough reference to the items of evidence to assist the jury in recalling it as a substantial whole, and to appreciate its bearing.</p> <p>Criminal law — Reasonable doubt — Good reputation — Charge.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for a crime it is not reversible error for the court to charge as follows: “If there is such a doubt that prevents your arriving at a satisfactory conclusion of guilt, then the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. On the other hand,— s

Judges: Beaver, Head, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Portee, Porter, Rice, Unites

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.