explaining that in Rieland, “the confession was also admissible to prove the commission of the inchoate crime of criminal conspiracy, despite the lack of any common element, because the crimes of burglary and conspiracy arose from a common transaction”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that in Rieland, “the confession was also admissible to prove the commission of the inchoate crime of criminal conspiracy, despite the lack of any common element, because the crimes of burglary and conspiracy arose from a common transaction”
- stating that “while a defendant may be charged with and adjudged guilty of both burglary and theft, he may not be sentenced for both crimes.”
- defendant’s possession of motel’s television set and presence near scene of crime sufficient to establish corpus delicti of theft, but insufficient to establish corpus delicti of burglary
- identity of party responsible for act is not part of corpus delicti; all that is needed is proof that someone committed crimes charged
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BECK, Judge,
concurring:
I join Judge Spaeth’s opinion with the exception of that portion relating to suspended sentences. Use of suspended sentences in this Commonwealth has been subject to varying interpretations. In my view it would be best to have the issue squarely before the court and briefed before determining whether to abandon its use, as Judge Spaeth would have us do, or to retain its use, as Judge Tamilia would have us do. I therefore would refrain from deciding the issue since it was not raised by the parties.