Opinion

Commonwealth v. Knighton

  • 251 Pa. Super. 299
  • 380 A.2d 789
  • 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2932
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Dec 2, 1977
Status
Published
Author
Watkins
On the bench
Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van Voort Spaeth, Spaeth
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 69.4%

Distinguished

  • Distinguished by Commonwealth v. Miller, 293 Pa. Super. 281 (1981)

    490 Pa. 16, 415 A.2d 9 (1980), reversing this court at 251 Pa. Superior Ct. 299, 380 A.2d 789 (1977) is distinguishable from the present case.
    Superior Court of PennsylvaniaDec 18, 1981Read it

The opinion

WATKINS, President Judge:

This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County after con *301 viction of the defendant-appellant, Sidney Knighton, in a jury trial of crimes of burglary, theft of movable property, and from the denial of post-trial motion. He was sentenced to two and one-half to five (2V2 to 5) years imprisonment.

The appellant contends that he was denied his right to allocution at sentencing. The record belies this claim as it establishes that he and his counsel were afforded the opportunity to address the court prior to the imposition of sentence. He also complains because the court sought the aid of the full bench in fixing sentence as the trial judge had the inclination to sentence him to the maximum term. This benefited the appellant. His consultation with the full bench is not grounds to set aside the sentence. The sentence is within the discretion of the court. Commonwealth v. Reese, 230 Pa.Super. 471 , 327 A.2d 189 (1974).

A store was broken into on the night of June 30, 1975, and clothing of the value of $4940.76 was stolen. Statements made by the appellant in the presence of two Commonwealth witnesses who resided with the appellant of his intention to burglarize the store before the commission of the crime and statements of the same witness indicating his part in the burglary when he returned in possession of items stolen were submitted into evidence under objection. These statements qualify as admissions and are exceptions to the hearsay rules. Commonwealth v. Glover, 446 Pa. 492 , 286 A.2d 349 (1972).

The court below properly denied the appellant’s demurrer and request for binding instructions. The evidence was sufficient under the law to support the verdict. Items found in the appellant’s apartment were identified by the store manager as being part of the loot of the burglary. This was the same material that the two witnesses testified were in the appellant’s possession when he returned to his residence and which he stated that he had secured from the burglary.

The court’s charge as to voluntary intoxication was sufficient. Commonwealth v. Graves, 461 Pa. 118 , 334 A.2d 661 *302 (1975). Appellant’s point for charge, which was refused, was redundant.

During voir dire, one prospective juror in answer to a question, remarked that- everyone was a victim of crime. The court immediately dismissed the juror. The motion for a mistrial was properly refused. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

SPAETH, J., files a dissenting opinion in which HOFFMAN, J., joins.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.