Case ID: pa-super_85/html/0442-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth v. Belote, Appellant.
    
      Criminal law — Narcotic drugs — Sale and possession — Evidence —Sufficiency.
    
    In the trial of an indictment for the sale and possession of narcotic drugs a verdict of guilty will be sustained, where the Commonwealth produced evidence of several witnesses who testified that they had purchased the narcotics from the defendant.
    Argued December 4, 1924.
    Appeal, No. 288, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment and sentence of Q. S. Phila. Co., Aug. T., 1924, No. 406, on verdict of guilty in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bernard
    Belote. Before Orlady, F. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Indictment for the sale and possession of narcotic drugs. Before McDevitt, J.
    From the record it appeared that the Commonwealth produced several witnesses who testified that they had purchased cocaine or heroin from the defendant; and also that other witnesses had seen him selling or attempting to sell drugs.
    Verdict of guilty on which judgment of sentence was passed. Defendant appealed.
    
      February 27, 1925:
    
      Errors assigned were various rulings on evidence, the charge of the court, answers to points and refusal of defendant’s motion for a new trial.
    
      Edward O. Thomas, for appellant.
    
      Warren C. Graham, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
   Per Curiam,

The evidence in this case is limited to the few. witnesses who testified very convincingly as to the material facts. The verdict rendered was the only one consistent with the testimony, and there is nothing in this record to justify a reversal of the judgment. The case was fairly submitted in a charge that was free from error.

The judgment is affirmed.