Diehl v. Rodgers

Citations

• 169 Pa. 316
• 32 A. 424
• 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1096

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Conviction for perjury — Effect of pardon.</p> <p>A pardon does away with the future consequences of a criminal act as completely as if it had never been committed.</p> <p>The English distinction between the effect of a pardon after conviction of perjury at common law, and under the statute, cannot be sustained here. In Pennsylvania the power of pardon is given by the constitution with only one exception, and the legislature cannot make any further resfrio tions directly or indirectly.</p> <p>A witness who has been convicted of perjury but pardoned by the governor is competent, notwithstanding the acts of March 33, 1860, and May 23, 1887.</p> <p>Credibility of pardoned perjurer — Question for jury.</p> <p>The credibility of such a witness however is for the jury, if either party asks that it be submitted to them.</p> <p>Criminal law — Effect of pardon — Distinction—Statutory and common law crimes.</p> <p>The early English distinction between the penal consequences of crime, whether by common law or by statute, has no basis in sound reason; all penal consequences of crime are equally results of the transgression of the law, and even the common law consequences are historically presumed to be of statutory origin.</p> <p>Statute of wills — Signature by another when sustained.</p> <p>The conditions of the statute of wills are complied with where a decedent in extremity of last Illness directs another to write out his testamentary directions and sign them, even if he was physically able to sign his name, if such signature would have been at the risk of his life.</p>