Commonwealth v. Weber
Citations
- 259 Pa. 592
- 103 A. 348
- 1918 Pa. LEXIS 454
Syllabus
<p>Criminal law — Statute of limitations — Misdemeanors—Flight— Return — Concealment within State — Act of March 81, 1860, P. L. 427-450, Sec. 77 — “Usual resident” — Words and phrases — Tolling of statute — Seduction—Promise to man-y — Evidence—Sufficiency —Charge—Case for jury.</p> <p>1. One who is charged with a crime committed in a rural district and floes from arrest to another state but subsequently takes up his residence in a large city within the State and lives under his proper name, may be denied protection of the statute of limitations by disavowing his identity at times for the purpose of evading arrest.</p> <p>2. The words “usual residence” within the meaning of the Act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 427-450, Section 77, requiring that all indictments for misdemeanors shall be brought within two years, provided “that if the person against whom the indictment shall be brought or exhibited, shall not have been an inhabitant of this State, or usual resident therein, during the said respective terms for which he shall be subject and liable to prosecution......such indictment shall and may be brought......against such person at any time within a similar space of time during which he shall be an inhabitant of or, usually resident within the State,” do not refer only to defendant’s place of residence but also to his manner of residence; “usual” when used in this sense means “customary” or “common”; to be a “usual resident” one must conduct himself in accordance with his customary mode óf life.</p> <p>3. One might commit an offense and move to another part of the State in an open manner, or even go from the State, if in military service, and not be barred from claiming the benefit of the statute of limitations, but this is not so where the offender flees from justice and subsequently by fraud and concealment, succeeds in avoiding arrest.</p> <p>4. Where a person indicted in 1916 for the crime of seduction committed in 1910, pleaded the statute of limitation, it appea
Judges: Brown, Frazer, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart, Walling
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Commonwealth v. GroffSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-09-20· cited 103×
- Commonwealth v. CARDONICKSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1972-06-28· cited 41×
- Commonwealth v. DunnickSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1964-07-24· cited 32×
- Commonwealth v. Smith, B., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2020-07-21
- Commonwealth v. EtterCumberland County Court of Common Pleas· 1975-04-03
- Commonwealth v. DunnickYork County Court of Quarter Sessions· 1963-08-12
- Commonwealth v. HillmanMercer County Court of Common Pleas· 1972-12-01
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Blackman v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1889-03-18· cited 24×
- Commonwealth v. WeberSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1917-07-13· cited 14×
- Rice v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1882-03-06· cited 11×
- Graham v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1866-01-15· cited 7×
- Rice v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1883-04-02· cited 7×
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.