noting that an appellant’s claims related to when a fingerprint was placed on a door jamb present a credibility question for a jury to determine, and do not implicate admissibility
How later courts described this case
- noting that an appellant’s claims related to when a fingerprint was placed on a door jamb present a credibility question for a jury to determine, and do not implicate admissibility
- where defendant robbed elderly woman and stole jewelry from her home, even when defendant asked third party to hold on to some of the items for him, the fact that the defendant also gave some of the jewelry to the same third party for money and gave other jewelry with the instruction to flush it down the toilet, defendant abandoned these later items, thus losing his standing to challenge their seizures
- “It would be jurisprudentially unsound to endorse a rule of law proscribing every circumstance, whether deliberately contrived or not, which provided an opportunity for an untoward influence to be exercised, without the necessity of establishing that there was, in fact, prejudice resulting from the event.”
- where defendant robbed elderly woman and stole jewelry from her home, when the defendant later asked third party to hold jewelry pieces for him, defendant arguably retained a possessory interest in the items
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*589 ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
There is no reasonable possibility that the contact between the trial judge and the jury could have prejudiced appellant. I therefore concur in the result reached by the Court on this issue. See Kersey Mfg. Co. v. Rozic, 422 Pa. 564, 570 , 222 A.2d 713, 716 (1966) (concurring opinion of Roberts, J.); Yarsunas v. Boros, 423 Pa. 364, 368 , 223 A.2d 696, 698 (1966) (dissenting opinion); cf. Argo v. Goodstein, 424 Pa. 612, 631 , 228 A.2d 195, 197 (1967) (dissenting opinion).