From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Trapp

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 22, 1971
280 A.2d 404 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1971)

Opinion

March 15, 1971.

June 22, 1971.

Criminal Law — Practice — Application of codefendant for particulars — Failure of district attorney to supply defendant with the information supplied to codefendant — Evidence — Testimony as to statements of codefendant implicating defendant in crime of which defendant was acquitted.

1. In this case, it was Held that the district attorney did not violate any of defendant's rights in failing to supply all the information requested in a codefendant's application for particulars, where it appeared that the codefendant had petitioned, in his own behalf, for such information and defendant was not a party to that request, and that the order of the court below had specifically stated that the district attorney was to provide the codefendant with a bill of particulars.

2. Defendant's contention, that the court below committed error in permitting a witness to testify as to codefendants' statements implicating defendant since those statements were not made in the presence of defendant, was Held to be without merit, where it appeared that those statements had reference to defendant's participation in another offense of which defendant was acquitted by the jury.

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

Appeal, No. 1462, Oct. T., 1970, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Nov. T., 1968, No. 10, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Samuel P. Trapp. Order affirmed.

Indictment charging defendant with burglary. Before LITTLE, J.

Verdict of guilty and judgment of sentence entered thereon. Defendant appealed.

Anthony S. Blasco, for appellant. Nicholas M. Zanakos, Assistant District Attorney, and Charles H. Spaziani, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.


MONTGOMERY and HOFFMAN, JJ., would grant a new trial and therefore dissented.

Submitted March 15, 1971.


Samuel Trapp was tried and convicted of burglary, larceny and receiving stolen goods in connection with a burglary committed at the North End Republican Club, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. He was at the same time tried but found not guilty of, burglary, larceny and receiving stolen goods in connection with a burglary committed at the home of one Herman Friedman, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Trapp filed a motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial with respect to the guilty verdict, which motions were denied by the court below. He was sentenced to not less than five years and not more than ten years' imprisonment. This appeal followed.

It is appellant's contention that he is entitled to a new trial because the District Attorney failed to supply all the information requested in a co-defendant's application for particulars, which information the court below had ordered be supplied. It is a sufficient answer to this contention merely to note that the obligation of the District Attorney to supply the information was to the co-defendant who had, in his own behalf, petitioned for such information. Appellant was not a party to that request and the order of court compelling the District Attorney to answer the co-defendant's request for particulars specifically stated that the District Attorney was to provide "the defendant Edward Sthrol with a bill of particulars". The appellant did not make any application for particulars and in the absence of such request we cannot hold that the District Attorney had violated any of appellant's rights in failing to submit to him information in his possession. See Commonwealth v. Neill, 362 Pa. 507 (1949) at

Appellant also contends that the court below committed error in permitting a witness to testify as to co-defendants' statements implicating appellant since those statements were not made in the presence of the appellant. A reading of the record reveals, however, that those statements had reference to appellant's participation in the Friedman robbery, of which appellant was acquitted. Since the jury did not find the appellant guilty of the burglary to which the witnesses' testimony related, it would be illogical to find that the jury may have been influenced by this testimony in finding him guilty of the burglary to which the testimony had no relation.

Appellant next complains that the evidence adduced by the Commonwealth was not sufficient to support the verdict of guilty. However, a reading of the transcript of the testimony reveals the evidence to be more than sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt with respect to the Republican Club burglary and the other charges arising therefrom.

We necessarily conclude, therefore, that the court below properly refused appellant's motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment.

The judgment of conviction and sentence at No. 10 November Term, 1968 is affirmed.

MONTGOMERY and HOFFMAN, JJ., would grant a new trial and therefore dissent.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Trapp

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 22, 1971
280 A.2d 404 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1971)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Trapp

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth v. Trapp, Appellant

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 22, 1971

Citations

280 A.2d 404 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1971)
280 A.2d 404