Commonwealth v. DeBellisCommonwealth v. DeBellis
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Cohen
Opinion by
Me. Justice Cohen,
Thе appellant, Felix DeBellis, was convicted by a jury on the first count of a bill of indictment charging him with violations of subsection (b) of Article III, §349 of “The Insurance Company Law of 1921,” Act of May 17, 1921, P.L. 682,
The facts can be summarized as follows: The appellant held an insurance policy, which, inter alia, provided for coverage fоr personal property which might be stolen from insured’s car. Appellаnt either arranged or used the instance of a genuine car burglary to submit a proof of loss under the policy setting forth that property worth $1,607.85 was stolen from his automobile. In response to a demand by the insurance *555 cоmpany for receipted bills covering the various allegedly stolen items, appellant procured a bill of sale from a neighbor for a pen and pencil writing set (valued at $33.00), and an electric razor (valued аt $33.50), although in fact appellant had not purchased either of the two items. A review of appellant’s own testimony at the trial reveals that his сlaims of value on many other items, all unsupported by receipts, werе somewhat dubious.
The indictment was brought solely under the (b) subsection of Section 349 of The Insurance Company Law of 1921, supra, which prohibits fraudulent claims. Appellant contends that under a proper construction of Seсtion 349, the statutory crime outlined therein required that both subsection (a) which prohibits the fraudulent procurement of insurance, and subsection (b) be violаted in order to maintain a prosecution thereunder. We examined thе article quite carefully and find that nothing can be more clear than thаt each subsection outlines a distinct and separate crime. While it may be true that this section is badly written, its wordiness has nothing to do with appellant’s objections and we have no doubt as to its meaning.
Appellant further cоntends that the language of the indictment is not in conformity with this section. A reading rеveals there is substantial compliance, and since the form of the indictment was not subjected to criticism or objection in the course of the trial, any minor or nonmaterial defects are waived. Commonwealth v. Heintz, 182 Pa. Superior Ct. 331, 126 A. 2d 498 (1956) ; Commonwealth ex rel. Ketter v. Day, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 271, 124 A. 2d 163 (1956), Commonwealth v. Lingle, 120 Pa. Superior Ct. 434, 182 Atl. 802 (1936).
The remainder оf appellant’s contentions suggest the grant of a new trial in the interest оf justice be *556 canse of incidents that occurred during the trial. We do not find thаt any situations occurred that would wrarrant the grant of a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Musmanno dissents.
Notes
“(a) Any persоn who is knowingly concerned in, or who, for profit, gain, benefit, favor, or othеrwise, makes any false oral statement, misrepresents, substitutes persons or realty or goods, subscribes to or prepares, or helps to prepare, any fraudulent letter, document, application, affidavit, inventory, financial or other statement, or in any method or manner attemрts to deceive, for the purpose of obtaining for himself, herself, or оthers, any of the classes of insurance provided for by this act; and (b) Any person knowingly concerned for profit, gain, benefit, favor, or otherwise, in preparing or forwarding any fraudulent application, affidavit, proof of loss, or claim, or attempting to collect or collecting аny wholly or partly fraudulent claim or money demand from any insurance company, association, or exchange, lawfully transacting business within this Commonwealth, whether any policy or agreement of insurance was lawfully procured or procured by fraud, — shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. . . .”