Cox v. Commonwealth

Citations

• 125 Pa. 94
• 17 A. 227
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 695

Syllabus

<p>(a) On the trial of an indictment charging the procurement of an abortion, Evans, a co-defendant, testified that he had made an arrangement with the defendant on trial by which the latter was to commit the offence: there was other testimony tending to establish the corpus delicti and to implicate the accused therein:</p> <p>1. In such case, as the corpus delicti was proven to the satisfaction of the jury by independent testimony properly submitted, and as the accomplice did not testify to the actual commission of the offence, the defendant was not and could not have been convicted upon the testimony of the accomplice alone.</p> <p>2. Wherefore, a point for the defendant, that “ corroborating evidence must not only be as to the commission of the offence by somebody, but must also be a corroboration of the fact that defendant on trial committed it,” was not supported by the facts in evidence.</p> <p>3. An instruction to the jury, as follows: “I leave the question to you as to corroboration, simply saying .... that unless the testimony of Evans is corroborated in a material part, it would be your duty to return a verdict in favor of the defendant,” was more favorable to the defendant than he was entitled to.</p> <p>i. The trial judge did his full duty, in cautioning the jury as to the danger of convicting upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, and he was not bound to instruct them to acquit in the absence of corroboration, as there is no rule of law which requires such instruction.</p>