# Commonwealth v. Markle

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · November 22, 1976 · 245 Pa. Super. 108

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695931

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Joseph Michael MARKLE, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 22, 1976
- **Citations:** 245 Pa. Super. 108; 369 A.2d 317; 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2156
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Spaeth
- **Judges:** Van Voort, Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van Voort Spaeth, Spaeth
- **Cited by:** 13 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/9695931

## Opinion text

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I disagree with the majority’s statement that the Commonwealth could “properly show that appellant was being held on a felony charge.” Majority opinion at p. 319. What the Commonwealth could properly show was that appellant was in “detention . . . under charge or conviction of crime.” The Crimes Code, Act of December 6, 1972, P.L.1482, No. 334, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5121(e). A “crime” may be either a felony or a misdemeanor, or even, according to the opinion of a majority of this court, a summary offense, In Interest of Golden, 243 Pa.Super. 267 , 365 A.2d 157 (1976) (Jacobs, J., dissenting, Spaeth, J., joining him). It is unnecessary to show that the crime was a felony. Thus, the question we must decide is whether, by gratuitously proving that the crime was a felony, the Commonwealth so prejudiced appellant that the motion for mistrial should have been granted. Considering the trial judge’s charge, I think not.
HOFFMAN, J., joins in this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695931. Public record. Not legal advice.