Commonwealth v. Burke
324 A.2d 525
Pa. Super. Ct.
1974
Check Treatment

*1 bnt days that he had informed3 clearly Had he been he not complain; conld now to аppeal, within which a defendant must circumstances show the facts and knowingly he can before of his rights is aware v. Knuckles, waive them. telligently there In this case showing. such has been no vacated; of the court below

Order tunc pro nunc a direct appeal leave to file this opinion. the date of days this Court within attorney requested dаys, appeUant letter to forward bis former attorney attorney his retained brother. This his case file to appeUant petitioned accept ease, ‍​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‍eventuaUy declined to days sentencing appoint approximately after thе court attorney represent appeal. him in his requires 1405(b) the court inform R. Crim. P. now right limit must time within which exercise his appeal. Commonwealth v. Burke, *2 Argued 1974. Before Yan Ceecоne, Price, dee Voort, Jacobs, and L. Assistant Green, Public for Harry Defender, ap- pellant. J. Assistant Greenleaf,

Stewart District Attorney, T. First William Nicholas, him Assistant District ‍​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‍O. for Milton Moss, District Attorney, and Attorney, Commonwealth, appellee.

Opinion June 1974: guilty by was found Appellаnt sufficiency challenges appeal On goods. that under evidence, asserting оf the Commonwealth’s the facts of this case unexplained and itself, stolen goods, аgree. a conviction. We favorable light most

A view of the evidence on Octоber 10, 1971, to the Commonwealth shows had been two television sets Robert Coleman discоvered according these One of sets, his home. ‍​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‍broken, white, partially Mr. Coleman, vаlue had a less than On October ap- entered police warrant, a valid seаrch pursuant they room motel room. discovered *3 pellant’s Cole- the televisiоn set which white seized in The set was view plain man had stolen. reported in room. the thаt appellant testified preliminary hearing

At the boys brought the set from who had he had two purchased during testimony the trial this was it to his room, Coleman. Based jury upon to the by cоmmunicated and the that charge the evidence of ‍​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‍court’s “can property unexplained possession minds inference, judgments rise an give the knew the that or had rеason defendant, jury, he, the jury to know that was found stolen,” guilty. goods

The crime of requires рroof doubt that the reasonable the beyond receiver knew The element of a defendant’s guilty were stolen. goods by be established direct knowledge may evidenсe knowledge or circumstantial evidence from which had be inferred reasonаble cause it can to know that the In was stolen. this property case, knowledgе was established from the inference solely from drawn the unexplained possessiоn of the television Our set. decision turns on of that examination ference.

“Evidentiary likе criminal inferences, presumptions, are infirm unless the inferred fact constitutionally is ‍​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‍'mоre than likely not to from the on proved flow fact which it is made to Turner United depеnd.’ States, 398 U.S. 398 v. United 395 U.S. (1970); Leary States, Commonwealth v. (1869); Shaffer, 91, Commonwealth v. (1972) ; Swiatkowski, 285 A.2d 490 126, ; Commonwealth (1971) v. Owens, 441 Pa. 318, (1970). Where the inference allowed is connected the tenuously facts proved by due Commonwealth, process is Com- lacking.” monwealth v. 452 Pa. McFarland, 308 A.2d “If the infеrence the is allowed proven draw the facts because of lack of сonnection arbitrary, between the due two, process fatally lacking.” Commonwеalth Shaffer, than applying not” test,1 we dis- with the lower Possession agree involved only one used television set bad condition owner- estimated value of approximаtely It was not con- cealed appellant’s room, visible. plainly An set this condition might old television just as likely or given have been to a discarded, member young as stolеn. Possession in family, case cannot an inference of knowledge. See *4 v. Hendеrson, satisfy the evidence is insufficient Because course, satisfy is, of

than not” test a “reasonable suggested by Turner, Commonwealth standard doubt” A.2d motion in arrest of judgment The vacated. sentence judgment Dissenting Opinion J.: Van dee Voort, ma- of the opinion dissent frоm respectfully I reasons as this case for same Court jority Shep- me our case expressed (1974), Ct. Superior pard, trial the action of the I affirm would dissenting Price, joins opinion. v. Beasley, Before 1974. Submitted Ceecone, Price, Van dee Vooet, and