*1
417
Pa. at
(quoting McDougal
Here, by appointing court its abused discretion protecting rights receiver without adequately pellants. Perhaps, unique because of the nature property, may equitable New York sale offer solu- an tion. The taking court should not be barred from such if, proper action hearing proper protections after a with creditors, for all it is found to be The ma- warranted. jority, using procedural rule, an artificial denies the court even the possibility of such a solution. believe unjustified this is an equitable limitation on the court’s powers may be detrimental to the best interests of creditors. JJ.,
NIX join concurring in this opinion. Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH of GRAHAM, Appellant. Isaac Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Oct. 1975. May 12,
Decided 1976. *2 Lowenthal, Philadelphia, appellant. for Charles Fitzpatrick, Atty., H. Emmett Dist. Steven Gold- F. Chief, Appeals Div., blatt, Glen Gito- Atty., Asst. Dist. Philadelphia, appellee. mer, O’BRIEN, JONES, J., EAGEN, ROB- Before C. POMEROY, ERTS, NIX JJ.
OPINION O’BRIEN, Justice.
Appellant, judge sitting was tried Isaac with a and found of two counts of murder degree. the first Post-trial motions were denied pellant two concurrent life sentences. was sentenced to appeal This followed. *3 argues presented the first evidence guilt his was insufficient to establish Commonwealth viewing
beyond in a a reasonable In the evidence doubt. light Commonwealth, most favorable to the brother, following. Appellant’s established John Graham, testified for the Commonwealth that on Janu- ary 1972, appellant approached Tate John and Otis appellant Graham and him if asked he would aid and purchase handgun. agreed Tate of a and John Clinkscales, drove to the of in Phila- residence Willie Jr. delphia. appellant After some discussion and between agreement Clinkscales, an a further reached and meeting arranged possession to transfer order weapon. meeting appellant At this second and Tate paid weapon for the but not it. In an effort did receive to obtain a return of their on money John Janu- Graham ary 26, appellant 1972 drove and Tate to the Clinkscales again again residence but no one was at home. The trio p. returned to home at 1:00 m. on Janu- Clinkscales ary 26, 1972. This time the two Clinkscales, Smith and supposed weapon appellant, who were to sell the were appellant point walking street. At down the this seen their automo- into Tate forced and Clinkscales and Smith residence. parked in of the Clinkscales bile front and appellant’s broth- while then the house The four entered the home. outside er, remained in the car John the home entered time John After a short Graham sitting with Tate on a couch find Smith and Clinkscales John Gra- pointing revolver at them. a .25 or .32 caliber concealing the him of Tate accused ham stated that that Tate stat- and Clinkscales whereabouts Smith any- somebody’s off , . . head ed, “I to blow want ” Tate that way then told . . . . John Graham parked on the that must street and car was double not re- left the residence and did John move it. appel- that he saw About a week later John stated turn. inquired if home and their mother’s lant at Ap- happened to Smith and Clinkscales. heard what had January your pellant replied, own business.” On "mind Clinkscales, mother of Willie 26, 1972, Lee Pearl p. found home m. and Smith Clinkscales, returned at 4:45 her home in the to death basement shot Willie A their backs. feet tied behind with their hands and Clinks- medical examiner testified that he arrived evening p. approximately 7:35 m. cales’ house at caliber revolv- that both had been shot with victims .25 upon found evidence, this er. Based degree. in the first of two counts murder conviction In the instant case *4 believed, which, if upon circumstantial based guilt beyond prove a reason in to law was sufficient Strand, 464 Pa. able doubt. See Commonwealth (1975). attorney argues district Appellant that next jury. error in his summation committed reversible relating attorney’s remarks the district contends that in- alleged co-conspirator, were Tate, appellant’s to Otis flammatory prejudicial appellant’s The cause. attorney’s district remarks referred to made statements by Tate during to John Graham course of con- spiracy that were admitted into evidence. district attorney’s summation concerned the evidence adduced way prejudicial no trial and inflammatory. or argues also judge that since charged theory on the conspiracy, was enti tled to know already his co-felon that had acquitted been previous in a agree. trial. We do not The result that by appellant’s was obtained bearing co-felon had no in his trial and was not admissible. See Commonwealth Am 592, 297 ato, 449 Pa. A.2d 462
Lastly, appellant argues precluded that he was establishing from brother, that his testi John against fied him in by return for favorable treatment attorney’s district concerning outstanding robbery office charges against pending appellant’s John at the time of trial, At Rendell, trial. Edward attor assistant district ney, part stated as Commonwealth’s case spoken prior with John trial attorney’s that the district agreed office that in ex change testimony John’s arranged bail would be that the attorney’s judge district office would inform the who heard cooperated John’s case that he had with the Commonwealth in a murder case. Rendell stated that no promises specific or deals were made at district torney’s office testimony for John’s return at his brother’s trial. On cross-examination John stated that specific no deals were testimony. made for his Because importance issue, above a court en banc hearing was appellant presented held at which the testi mony Phyllis office, Subin of the Public Defender’s represented who John Graham. She testified John’s file going contained a notation that he was to be a wit against ness his brother in a murder trial and that John *5 get special attorney’s
was to treatment from the district signed by Winters, office. The note A. also Richard a Public Defender. addition, appellant representative
In
called
Office,
Clerk of Court’s
that John’s case
who testified
postponed
finally pled
had been
several times and that
robbery charges
years’
and received five
probation.
hearing
banc,
The court en
after
this testi-
mony,
jury
fully
found that
aware
the facts
testimony
surrounding
and that
of John Graham
pellant
way.
agree.
prejudiced
any
not
We
credibility
had sufficient facts to assess
of John
surrounding
testimony.
Graham and all the facts
Cf.
Powell,
126,
The test the of is evidence viewing light in all the the evidence admitted trial drawing most all favorable Commonwealth and Commonwealth, reasonable favorable to inferences is there evidence of fact sufficient to trier to enable every beyond find element the crime reasonable a -, Bastone, doubt.” v. -, Commonwealth 466 Pa. 827, (1976); Green, 353 A.2d 829 see Commonwealth 557, 565, 682, (1975); Pa. 347 A.2d 464 686 Common Robson, 615, wealth v. 461 Pa. 337 A.2d Here, the appellant that shows initiated trip house, present that he in to victims’ house when Tate stated desire to kill the victims and up that victims were tied to such a in- manner as person dicate that one could not have committed weapon crime alone. Tate’s either identified as a ,32 pistol or .25 caliber bullets re- .25 caliber were covered from the appellant fatal wounds. When questioned by concerning Graham whereabouts victims more than incident, a after the week forecefully told to mind his own business and Finally, told him nothing.” don’t know medi- “he expert shortly cal being estimated hour of death as departure after Graham’s from the resi- Clinkscales’ dence. together record, evidence in this with all reason- inferences, is sufficient be-
able enable a find yond participated reasonable doubt execution-style in the therefore concur murders.
these majority’s result. JJ., join in this
POMEROY, NIX concurring opinion. Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH cases). (two CULBERSON, Lawrence Supreme Pennsylvania. Court
Argued 24, Oct. 1975. March Decided 1976.
Rehearing Denied June 1976.