Commonwealth v. Rabinowitz

Citations

• 73 Pa. Super. 221
• 1919 Pa. Super. LEXIS 214

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law— Conspiracy — Practice, Q. S. — Assignments of error — Trials—Harmless error.</p> <p>The Superior Court will not reverse a judgment on a verdict of guilty because of a mere technical error which did the defendant no harm. Where the evidence is not certified with the record and the appellate court has no means of knowing the exact nature of the error complained of, the judgment will be affirmed.</p> <p>Criminal law — Procedure—Practice, Q. S. — Evidence of former crime — Admissibility.</p> <p>Evidence of another independent and distinct crime cannot be received simply for the purpose of showing the commission of the offense for which the defendant is on trial. It cannot be received to impeach his general character, nor merely to prove a disposition to commit crime, yet, under some circumstances, evidence is properly admitted which tends to establish any fact material to the issue then pending, although it may incidentally involve a distinct offense. Thus, it may be to establish identity; to show the act charged was intentional and willful and not accidental; to prove notice; to show guilty knowledge and purpose; to rebut any inference of mistake.</p> <p>In an action for conspiracy to cheat and defraud the testimony of a former attempt at defrauding was admissible which not only contradicted the allegation of the defendants that they had not been previously acquainted, but directly tended to establish a fact material to the issue that there was an unlawful combination between them, and that the negotiations with the prosecutor were a mere incident of a system, the general design of which was to defraud all persons who were victimized by the conspiracy.</p>