Opinion
April 14, 1965.
June 17, 1965.
Criminal Law — Forgery — Evidence — Sufficiency — Identification of defendant — Comparison of signatures by witness not handwriting expert — Cross-examination of alibi witness as to prior felony convictions — Impeaching credibility — Charge to jury — Opinion of trial judge as to credibility of witness — Practice — Sequestration of witnesses — Continuance.
1. On appeal by defendant following conviction on three indictments charging him with fraudulently making and uttering written instruments, in which it appeared that there were three checks involved each of which was cashed by defendant in a different transaction in a different market on the same day, it was Held that the court below properly concluded, in the circumstances, that the sequestration of the three different identification witnesses offered by the Commonwealth was not required.
2. It was Held, in the circumstances, that the court below did not commit reversible error in refusing defendant's motion for a continuance.
3. It was Held that the charge of the trial judge in respect to the credibility and accuracy of the Commonwealth's identification witnesses, in which the trial judge stated that it seemed to the court that probably the witnesses were telling the truth, but also made clear to the jury that they should draw their own inferences from the testimony, did not remove the issue of credibility from the consideration of the jury and did not contain reversible error.
4. Where it appeared that a witness who had cashed one of the checks in question was asked in cross-examination to compare the signature appearing on a membership card in a fraternal society and to see whether it was the same signature which he saw on the back of the check which he had cashed, and that the Commonwealth's objection to this testimony was sustained; that the witness was not a handwriting expert; that defendant was permitted to sign his name in court and on cross-examination the witness said that the signatures were different; and that defendant's signatures on the bonds he gave to the magistrate for his appearance in court were available as admittedly genuine signatures; it was Held that the court below did not commit reversible error in excluding the signature of defendant on the membership card.
5. It was Held that the court below did not commit reversible error in permitting the Commonwealth to cross-examine defendant's alibi witness as to two prior felony convictions for the purpose of impeaching his credibility.
6. It was Held that the court below did not commit reversible error in overruling defendant's contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Argued April 14, 1965.
Before ERVIN, P.J., WRIGHT, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, and HOFFMAN, JJ. (FLOOD, J., absent).
Appeals, Nos. 108, 109, and 110, April T., 1965, from judgment of Court of Quarter Sessions of Cambria County, Sept. T., 1963, No. D-63; Dec. T., 1963, Nos. D-73 and D-75, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Abe Zeid, otherwise known as Bernard Puzas. Judgment affirmed.
Same case in court below: 36 Pa. D. C.2d 101.
Indictment charging defendant with fraudulently making and uttering written instruments. Before GRIFFITH, P.J.
Verdict of guilty and judgment of sentence entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
John N. Scales, with him Clarence F. McBride, Caram J. Abood, and Scales and Shaw, for appellant.
W. Louis Coppersmith, Assistant District Attorney, with him Ferdinand F. Bionaz, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
The judgment of sentence is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge GRIFFITH, as reported in 36 Pa. D. C.2d 101, and the appellant-defendant is directed to appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called, and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence, or any part of which had not been performed at the time the appeal was made a supersedeas.