# Commonwealth v. Manson

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · September 23, 1974 · 230 Pa. Super. 527

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649883

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Manson, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 23, 1974
- **Citations:** 230 Pa. Super. 527; 327 A.2d 182; 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2497
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Yoobt
- **Judges:** Van Yoobt, Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van Voort Spaeth
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649883

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Van deb Yoobt, J.:
I respectfully dissent from tbe opinion of the majority.
In this case, a Philadelphia police officer, having received a radio call instructing him to investigate a burglary at 5479 Euclid Street, proceeded there, arriving *532 at about 1:30 P.M. When he arrived at the premises, he saw a co-defendant, James White, on the porch of the adjoining property without an invitation to be there. At the side of the building he saw the appellant standing at a window looking into it. The window had been boarded up but the boards had been torn off and the window broken. When he informed the appellant that he was a suspect, the appellant said that he did not go into the premises, the other guys did. Inside the building next to the window was a pile of household goods, and parked on the street in a disabled condition was found a car loaded with clothes, tools and a box of toys taken from the premises without permission of the owner. The trial judge, sitting without a jury, upon these facts found the defendant guilty of conspiracy, theft and burglary. It seems to be obvious that the police officer came upon the scene of this burglary when it was partially completed and to some degree still in progress. The statement of the appellant Manson that he didn’t go into the premises but the other two guys did is the same as saying to the officer, “I was involved in this burglary but I didn’t go as far as these two guys”. 1
I believe the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction in this case, and that the judgment of the trial judge should be affirmed.
Watkins, P. J., joins in this dissenting opinion.
The majority opinion doesn’t mention the statement which Manson made to the police officer, which statement is an extremely important and significant part of the evidence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649883. Public record. Not legal advice.