*1 proper procedure in instances such that a We believe appeals presented be the de- would as those these proper velopment determina- of a record which by evidentiary hearing may tion be either made, by petition and with affi- answer, the lower court any interrogatories, depositions, or other evi- davits, to the issues. dence relevant appeals before us must conclude now perfectly proper appellees’ are motions to strike adequate grounds support forth on their face set by appeals court. of the ordered dismissals as lower supported contained are the rec- facts therein appellants, ord. It burden was, therefore, to frame an issue and de- motions, answer good velop support a record which in the would cause appeal. they court to allow their late This failed lower appeals, these must fail. Therefore, too, do. February court The order the lower entered both these cases is affirmed. concurs the result. Cercone, J., Sheppard, Appellant. *2 Submitted March. 18, 1974. Before P. Watkins, J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, Spaeth, JJ. and John
Leonard Sosnov W. Packet, De- Assistant Ziccmdi, and Vincent J. fenders, for Defender, appel- lant. Dis- Richman, L. David Assistant
Albert Becker and At- J. District Gafni, Deputy trict Abraham Attorneys, Richard First Assistant District A. Sprague, torney, F. District Attor- Emmett Fitzpatrick, Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee. ney, Opinion 1974: J., June Jacobs, entered sentence, from a judgment This appeal larceny, trial on nonjury charges burglary, after a the conclusions challenges and receiving goods, trier of fact from the appellant’s posses- drawn sion of a stolen automobile. Philadel- two the evening September 5,
On Mercury Cougar phia spotted officers police in- street. parked way one-way wrong on and men terior the vehicle was two were light As the officers vehicle seated inside. approached out the car occupants two rear, jumped *3 but at ran both were off; apprehended gunpoint. nor the other could the individual appellant Neither of of the vehicle or ex- evidence produce any ownership activities. Reacting circumstances, their plain into took the further pair custody pending the officers investigation. it was learned that
The next vehicle morning other an- along items,1 had been stolen including B. White Ford in John dealership other car, director The service identi- company’s Philadelphia. serial number at automobile the Cougar po- fied The automobile later other was found and lice station. items but other were never recovered. returned, also above at evidence appellant’s After presenting rested its case. The monwealth defense the Com trial, and demurred to the no evidence burglary offered 1 premises battery items taken from included a The other buffers, cleaners, high-speed charger, 2 industrial vacuum a 3 chest tools, case of Freon. of the court to the stated:
charge. response demurrer, “He of Of course, possession recently goods. the defense didn’t overcome that Defense presumption.” “I counsel: understand.” The Court: “So, therefore, arewe him adjudging guilty.”2 [N/T 18-19]
The once
of
that
Pennsylvania,
well-established law
of
raises a pre
property
had been stolen
that the
sumption
knowledge
property
and a
that
is the
is no
thief,
presumption
See Common
the law
this Commonwealth.
longer
Owens,
wealth v.
441 Pa.
While
may
and
we cannot so assume
been inadvertent,
have
up-
placing
go
the burden
record.
must
guilt,
presumption of
a
to rebut
the defendant
fundamental di-
error of basic and
committed an
court
granted. See Com-
trial must be
and
new
mensions
Throughout I all of lifetime observed that have caught freshly goods strong getting stolen is evi- having having them or received dence of stolen them very .goods. I believe stolen still this is sound as morality. principle of law and The law relation to goods possession stolen has become so weakened virtually impossible becoming prove that it is that caught possession recently person who is stolen public goods or the The either the thief receiver. is losing in our Courts confidence because the uncer- by expanding tainty uncertainty law, that we increase loss confidence. this field un- initially certainty stems destruction of a well- principle once established Commonwealth has recently goods by proved an ac- jury Judge presume could cused, unex- goods possession of the plained that the the thief or either was receiver. The de- principle this sound was bottomed on Tur- struction (1970), Leary S., 396U.S. v. U. ner v. U. S., *5 U.S. 6 Neither these cases had anything do with stolen cases be goods, Defendants those Federal laws. ing charged violating Drag or centers around whether not there uncertainty is substantial difference any between “presumption” and an “inference” this criminal type proceeding. When has a reason- beyond proved able doubt that the Defendant freshly possessed can fact goods this unexplained, finder or De- (the jury judge) presume guilt fendant or can fact finder infer of the De- guilt fendant? we the command debate the post While supposed difference in kind of a setting this between “presumption” those the arena “inference”, of contest the trial no (in know that there is court) substantial difference in the two words. Our law should be and clear that unex- simple where proof has been plained possession goods made the fact finder but Commonwealth, can, of course does not conclude that to, have is either or of stealing guilty goods receiving them them to be stolen. should not We have knowing debate whether such facts create proven “presump- or tion” or an “inference” “whether is more something than not to flow facts.” likely proven In the instant the Defendant was case, clearly guilty of either automobile stealing receiving knowing I stolen. believe should the trial support it was found the Defendant and I court which would guilty, affirm the sentence. judgment