Commonwealth v. Wheeler

Citations

• 75 Pa. Super. 84
• 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 229

Syllabus

<p>Criminal procedure — Embezzlement—Two indictments for offenses growing out of same relationship — Trial—Discretion of court.</p> <p>On the trial of indictments charging that the defendant, as an attorney, with intent to defraud had appropriated to his own use property of his client, the case is for the jury and a verdict of guilty will he sustained, where the evidence established that the defendant in the course of his employment received certain moneys which he appropriated to his own use, and also, pledged and afterwards sold a certificate of stock entrusted to his care by his client.</p> <p>In such case, it is a matter for the discretion of the court to determine whether or not two indictments charging different offenses, which both grew out of the same fiduciary relations with the same client, although in one case she acted as guardian and in the other as executrix of her husband’s estate, are to be tried at the same time.</p> <p>Criminal law — Embezzlement—Evidence—Statement of defendant — A dmissibility.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment of an attorney for embezzlement a statement made by the defendant to his client, after his defalcation has been discovered, and the explanation which he gave when the fact was called to Ms attention that he claimed credit for certain payments which had not been made, is admissible in evidence. Such statement was admissible upon the ground that it was part of the conversation, in which the defendant confessed the misappropriation of the property, specifically charged in the indictments. It was admissible also for- the purpose of showing the motives and intentions of the defendant when he appropriated to his own use the property charged in the indictments. The evidence tended to establish that the misappropriation of property was not accidental or under a mistaken claim of right. The fact that it included particular items of defalcation, which were not charged in either of the indictments, did not render it inadmissible.</