Opinion
September 29, 1930.
October 2, 1930.
Criminal law — Disorderly conduct — Summary conviction — Appeal to quarter sessions — Hearing — Judgment — Act of May 2, 1901, P.L. 132.
On a complaint before a magistrate charging the defendant with disorderly conduct within the provisions of the Act of May 2, 1901, P.L. 132, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine and costs. On appeal to the court of quarter sessions and hearing de novo, the court dismissed the appeal and sustained the decision of the magistrate. Although there was sufficient evidence to sustain a convicton, the trial judge inadvertently did not enter a distinct and unequivocal judgment that the defendant was guilty.
In such case, the judgment of the court below will be reversed and the record will be remitted with directions to reinstate the appeal and enter such finding and judgment as the law and evidence require.
In an appeal from a summary conviction the trial in the court of quarter sessions is de novo and the judge should find the defendant guilty or not guilty; and if guilty should impose such sentence as he deems proper within the limitation of the statute.
Appeal No. 193, October T., 1930, by defendant from judgment of Q.S., Northampton County, December T., 1929, No. 209, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Amelia Fischel.
Before KELLER, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM and BALDRIGE, JJ. Reversed.
Appeal from summary conviction. Before STOTZ, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court dismissed the appeal and sustained the decision of the magistrate. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the sustaining of the decision of the magistrate.
Orrin E. Boyle, for appellant.
Russell C. Mauch, District Attorney, and with him William G. Barthold, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Argued September 29, 1930.
All of the judges who heard this case are of opinion that the evidence in the court below was sufficient to sustain a finding that the appellant was guilty of disorderly conduct within the provisions of the Act of May 2, 1901, P.L. 132. But the trial judge inadvertently did not enter a distinct and unequivocal judgment that she was guilty. Instead, he dismissed the appeal and sustained the decision of the magistrate. This was not sufficient: Com. v. Congdon, 74 Pa. Super. 286. The trial in the quarter sessions was de novo and the judge should have found the defendant guilty or not guilty; and if guilty should have imposed such sentence as he deemed proper within the limitation of the statute: Com. v. Benson, 94 Pa. Super. 10, 14.
The judgment is reversed and the record is remitted to the court below with directions to reinstate the appeal and enter such finding and judgment as the law and evidence require.