Case ID: pa-super_223/html/0156-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam, Spaulding, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth v. Johnson, Appellant.
    Submitted September 14, 1972.
    Before Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, and Packed, JJ.
    
      
      Michael L. Levy and Jonathan Miller, Assistant Defenders, and Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, for appellant.
    
      Milton M. Stein, Assistant District Attorney, James 1). Crawford, Deputy District Attorney, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    November 28, 1972:
   Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion by

Spaulding, J.:

I respectfully dissent.

Appellant contends that, taken together, the charge in this case, which urged the jury to attempt to agree on a verdict, and the instructions of the trial court on applying the standard of reasonable doubt deprived him of a fair trial. We were faced with the identical issue in Commonwealth v. McCoy, 219 Pa. Superior Ct. 298, 279 A. 2d 237 (1971), which was an appeal by-appellant’s co-defendant. I would reverse the order of the court below and grant a new trial for the reasons stated in my Dissenting Opinion in McCoy, id., in which Judges Montgomery and Hoppman joined.

Hoppman, J., joins in this dissenting opinion. 
      
       Although not identical in wording the charge constituted an “Allen Charge”, Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501-2 (1896), which our Supreme Court has now prospectively overruled. Commonwealth v. Spencer, 442 Pa. 328, 275 A. 2d 299 (1971), upholding the decision of this Court at 216 Pa. Superior Ct. 169, 263 A. 2d 923 (1970).