*1 we find that an additional per year $60.00 is required1 to make the amount of the order conform to its stated ends, and we modify therefore that order to per year month. per $1335.00 $111.25 It exceptional eases that this Court may amend a and such power is un- verdict, rarely exercised less to make the corrected verdict conform obvi- to the ous intention Gaspero Gentile, of the court below. 160 Pa. Superior Ct. 276, 50 A. 2d
Affirmed as modified. recently Septem Hue to a announced increase to be effective ber v. Dennis, Appellant. Before June Spaul- Hoffman, Jacobs, Montgomery, ding, *2 Mel- him with TP. Assistant Packet, Defender,
John I. Pol- Herman vin Assistant Dildine, Defender, appellant. for lock, Defender, Attorney, Baylson, M. District Michael Assistant Attorney, District Davis, him Alan Assistant with J. Attorney, Sprague, First Bichard A. Assistant District Specter, Attorney, Common- for District and Arlen appellee. wealth, 1967: Opinion appeal by defendant, an Lamont Dennis,
This is judgment Quarter of the from the of sentence Court Philadelphia County the denial and from Sessions of of motion for trial. Defendant was indicted new attempted conspiracy charges bur- convicted on glary. minimum of He was sentenced to serve a 11% Philadelphia County Prison. to 23 months months for trial,1 Commonwealth, witness directly who resided Mrs. Vivian across Johnson, alleged from a store to be the scene of the at- street tempted burglary, glass, heard stated she a crash of immediately out of her looked window and saw two walking. boys She was asked: 1 Jury waived. trial yon glass
“Q. Did see the door? glass pretty “A. I can door see the well. Yes, you “Q. Did see it broken?
“A. but I the door because No, knew was picture thought window wasn’t broke that was [sic]. what it was.”2 relating other evidence to the commission stipulation offense was a at the trial that an
employe testify of the owner was court who would permission given anyone try that no to “to premises.” employe break into these asked, you anything “'Miss do Wells, know this?” else about Her answer I don’t.”3 was, “No,
Defendant contends that no delicti was es- tablished. *3 injustice
“To avoid the of a no conviction where adopted crime ihe exists, law has a of caution rule corpus which proven holds that the delicti must be be- fore a conviction can stand.” Commonwealth v. Gard- 282 (1925). ner, Pa. 128 458, Atl. 463, 87 “In all proceedings criminal it is incumbent on the Common- beyond wealth to establish a reasonable three doubt (1) elements: injury the occurrence of an . . . loss (2) agency a (3) criminal ... that the defendant is responsible party the . . .” Commonwealth v. Gard- supra; ner, Commonwealth v. 180 Krzesniak, Pa. Su- perior Ct. (1956). 119 560, A. 2d 617 These es- sential elements are reiterated and restated in Com- Superior monwealth v. Bufalini, 200 Pa. Ct. 186 85, 91, (1962). Although corpus A. 2d 645 the may delicti be circumstantially may product it inferred, not be the of conjecture proved mere and competent must be evi- beyond dence a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Superior 148 Pa. Amato, Ct. 24 (1942). A. 2d 681 [2] N.T. N.T. p. p. any appellant, or
In instant no saw case, the forcefully person, or break the delicatessen enter other in any glass. Nor there evidence whatsoever is attempted burglary burglary, or other record of the crime. de- of Commonwealth’s case a the the conclusion sufficiency evi- Commonwealth’s
murrer to determining in made overruled. test dence validity a the evidence demurrer is whether reasonably therefrom the inferences drawn record and guilty. a verdict of would Superior Pa. A. 2d Wheeler, 200 Ct. 284, 295, having No delicti been established, improperly How- in this demurrer case was overruled. appeal this unneces- was not raised on ever, questions presented by sary to consider other defend- ant. discharged.
Reversed defendant Opinion by Concurring J.: ample My of this evidence review record discloses attempted burglary. the Com- to establish an prove beyond monwealth failed to a reasonable doubt appellant participant. eyewitness a that appellant positively that was not one of the testified youths at this she saw the scene of the crime. For two concurring am the result. reason opinion. join this J., *4 nwealth ex rel. Wadhams v. Wadhams, Commo
Appellant. Before Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman,