Defendant, Harold L. Hannan, Jr., was indicted for alleged violation of sections 3502 (burglary), 3903 (theft) and 3925 (theft by receiving stolen goods) of the Crimes Code.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
The indictment of defendant arises as the result of a burglary which occurred at approximately 12 p.m., on July 16, 1973, at the residence of Rbbert Smith lbcated at 463 Inwood Road, McCandless Township, Allegheny County, Pa. The sole incriminating witness against defendant was a co-conspirator, Raymond P. McKelvy. He testified that he resided in a home which abutted the Smith property. He was aware the Smith family was vacationing and the house was vacant.
McKelvy stated he discussed the burglary with Hannan prior to July 16,1973. On the day of the crime, he telephoned defendant and arranged a meeting within walking distance of the Smith home. McKelvy met defendant and another individual who was referred to as “Skip.” Skip was operating an automobile and drove McKelvy and defendant around the area and finally deposited him at his home. From this vantage point, he observed the driver stop the car at a
Defendant departed and went to the front door of the house. He returned with a large box and a fur coat. McKelvy observed coins and credit cards in the bag in the car. The box which defendant removed on the second entry contained silverware. The trio departed and defendant gave a credit card, which bore the name of Robert Smith, to McKelvy. He proceeded to Sears, Roebuck and Company and employed the card to purchase merchandise. A few days later, he observed the remaining stolen property at defendant’s apartment. In addition, some of the stolen items were given to the mother of Hannan.
Defendant testified on his own behalf and denied involvement in the burglary. He stated he met Mc-Kelvy for the first time on July 15, 1973, at a club at which McKelvy worked. At no time, did he discuss a burglary in McCandless Township. The first time he saw McKelvy on the day of the crime was at midnight, at which time McKelvy came to his apartment. Mc-Kelvy was carrying a fur coat and some coins which he claimed to have purchased.
Defendant also presented alibi witnesses in an attempt to account for his whereabouts during the morning and afternoon hours of July 16. His parents, sister, housekeeper and female friend testified, in essence, that defendant was not at the scene of the crime.
The trial judge believed the evidence adduced by the
III. STATEMENT OF LAW
A. Sufficiency of Evidence
Defendant contends that, because of alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of Raymond P. McKelvy, the Commonwealth has failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, we must reject this argument for, when the testimony is read in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, it reveals the participation of defendant in the burglary of the Smith residence.
It is a well-settled principle of law that the trier of fact can believe all, part or none of the testimony presented by any witness: Commonwealth v. Kirkland, 413 Pa. 48, 195 A. 2d 338 (1963); Commonwealth v. Marlin, 452 Pa. 380, 305 A. 2d 14 (1973). In Commonwealth v. Hornberger, 441 Pa. 57, 270 A. 2d 195 (1970), former Chief Justice Bell stated:
“It is well settled that a jury or a trial court can believe all or a part of a defendant’s statements, confessions or testimony, or the testimony of any witness”: 441 Pa. 57 at 61, 270 A. 2d 195 at 197.
The trial judge was required to carefully scrutinize and accept the testimony of McKelvy with caution: Commonwealth v. Sisak, 436 Pa. 262, 259 A. 2d 428 (1969). As a co-conspirator and defendant, McKelvy maintained an interest in the outcome of the case. However, the detail, clarity and forthrightness of his
B. Admissibility of Polygraph Results
Defendant’s final contention concerns the admissibility of the results of a polygraph examination. Defendant voluntarily subjected himself to a polygraph examiner which he selected. He urges the court to consider the results of the test in determining his guilt or credibility.
The appellate courts in Pennsylvania have repeatedly held that the results of a polygraph examination are not admissible evidence for any purpose: Commonwealth v. Saunders, 386 Pa. 149, 125 A. 2d 442 (1956); Commonwealth v. McKinley, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 610, 123 A. 2d 735 (1956); Commonwealth ex rel. Riccio v. Dilworth, 179 Pa. Superior Ct. 64, 115 A. 2d 865 (1955). Moreover, any expression of willingness or refusal to take such a test is inadmissible due to the unfair inference which may be drawn: Commonwealth v. Saunders, supra; Commonwealth v. McKinley, supra.
From a personal point of view, this member of the court advocates the admission of the results of a polygraph examination at trial. It appears logical that such tests are another factor which the trier of fact may
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of defendant for new trial and judgment must be denied. An appropriate order will be entered consistent with this opinion.
ORDER OF COURT
And now, to wit, August 15, 1974, after oral argument and a review of the brief of defendant, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the motions for new trial and arrest of judgment filed by defendant are denied.
Act of December 6, 1972, P. L. 1068 (No. 334) secs. 3502, 3903 and 3925, 18 Pa. S. §§3502, 3903 and 3925, effective June 6, 1973.