From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Farrington

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 22, 1971
219 Pa. Super. 104 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1971)

Opinion

March 22, 1971.

June 22, 1971.

Criminal Law — Evidence — Sufficiency — Identification of defendant — In-court identification vague and uncertain — Reliance upon identification of photographs made two years prior to trial.

1. In a criminal case, the test of sufficiency of the evidence is whether accepting as true all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which if believed the jury could properly base its verdict, it is sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

2. The identity of a defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the same as any other essential element in a criminal prosecution.

3. In this case, the victim's in-court identification of defendants was vague, tenuous, and uncertain. He relied upon the identification of photographs made two years prior to trial.

4. It was Held that the Commonwealth had failed to establish defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, and CERCONE, JJ.

Appeals, Nos. 205 and 142, Oct. T., 1971, from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Sept. T., 1967, No. 417, in cases of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Thomas Farrington; and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Alfred Sebastian Pereria. Judgment of sentence vacated and appellants discharged.

Indictments charging defendants with burglary, conspiracy and loitering and prowling at nighttime. Before TOOTHMAN, P.J., specially presiding.

Verdicts of guilty and judgments of sentence entered thereon. Defendants appealed.

Daniel C. Barrish, Assistant Public Defender, and Herbert K. Fisher, for appellants.

William T. Nicholas, Executive Assistant District Attorney, with him Stewart J. Greenleaf, Assistant District Attorney, Parker H. Wilson, First Assistant District Attorney, and Milton O. Moss, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.


Argued March 22, 1971.


Appellants were charged with burglary, conspiracy, and loitering and prowling at nighttime. The victim of the burglary testified at trial that he was awakened at 3:30 a.m. by the sounds of someone breaking into his car parked outside the window. While he observed two men trying to pry open the trunk of the car, his wife called the local police. Upon arrival of a police cruiser, the burglars fled and were not apprehended.

At trial the victim testified that he went to the police station later that morning and there, from a large number of pictures submitted to him, he identified two as those of the burglars. When asked on direct examination if the defendants were the men he saw breaking into his car, the witness replied as to appellant Farrington, "This is the face but not the body". As to appellant Pereria, he indicated, "He too looks like the man, looks like the photograph, but I am not a hundred percent sure." As to both "identifications" the witness mentioned that it had been two years since the burglary, and that his identification of the photographs the same day was more positive since the events were fresh in his memory.

On cross-examination, the victim again indicated that he could not positively identify the appellants, and that "I am not testifying to that, that these two men were at my house. I am testifying that the pictures I saw were the two men who were at my house, indisputable. . . . [T]hese two men as they sit here today are different than the two men who were hacking at my car. The resemblance is there, yes."

The case was submitted to the jury after appellants' motion for a demurrer on the basis of insufficient evidence was denied. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; from judgment of sentence this appeal followed.

The test of sufficiency of evidence is whether accepting as true all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which if believed the jury could properly have based its verdict, it is sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Commonwealth v. Commander, 436 Pa. 532, 260 A.2d 773 (1970). Of course, the identity of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the same as any other essential element in a criminal prosecution.

The identification testimony in the instant case is quite similar to that in Commonwealth v. Sharpe, 138 Pa. Super. 156, 10 A.2d 120 (1939). In that case, as here, the witnesses could testify as to a vague resemblance, but refused to say under oath that the defendant was the felon. In Sharpe this Court reversed the conviction because the testimony did not show "in the mind of the witness a well founded belief that the defendant is the man." Id. at 161, 10 A.2d at 122.

Here the victim's in-court identification of appellants was vague, tenuous, and uncertain. His reliance upon the identification of photographs made two years prior to trial does not meet the standards necessary to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the Commonwealth relied solely upon identification testimony and there was no other probative evidence connecting appellants with the crime, the Commonwealth has failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment of sentence is vacated and appellants are discharged.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Farrington

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 22, 1971
219 Pa. Super. 104 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1971)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Farrington

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth v. Farrington, Appellant. Commonwealth v. Pereria, Appellant

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 22, 1971

Citations

219 Pa. Super. 104 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1971)
280 A.2d 623

Citing Cases

Com. v. Babbs

He would liken this case to Commonwealthv. Farrington, 219 Pa. Super. 104, 280 A.2d 623 (1971). There the…

Commonwealth v. Grillasco

Appellant argues that pre-trial photographic identification evidence is insufficient, standing alone, to…