Case ID: pa-super_84/html/0073-01.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. Bandel, Appellant.
    
      Criminal law — Vending narcotic drugs — Evidence—Sufficiency.
    In the trial of an indictment charging the defendant with possessing and selling narcotics, a verdict of guilty will be sustained, where the evidence produced by the Commonwealth was sufficient to warrant a conviction and the case was submitted to the jury in a charge of the court which was free from error.
    Argued April 14, 1924.
    Appeals, Nos. 81, 82 and 83, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of O. and T. and Q. S., Phila; Co., July Sessions, 1923, Nos. 467, 468 and 469, on verdict of guilty in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Simon Bandel.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Indictment for possession and sale of narcotic drugs. Before McMichael, J.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
    Verdict of guilty on which judgment of sentence was passed.
    
      Errors assigned were various rulings on evidence and refusal to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant.
    
      Herbert W. Salus, for appellant.
    
      
      Lemuel B. Schofield, and with him Warren C. Graham, Assistant District Attorney, and Samuel P. Rotan, District Attorney, for appellee.
    July 2, 1924:
   Per Curiam,

Simon Bandel was convicted on an indictment in several counts charging him with possessing and selling to named persons, a narcotic (heroin) contrary to the statute. He complains (1) that an acquittal was not directed; and (2) that certain drugs were admitted in evidence.

The appeal is without merit. There was evidence from which the jury could find that appellant possessed and dealt in the drug quite extensively, not alone, but even with the aid of others; that he assisted in moving the drugs (which he contends should not have been received in evidence) from the house of one confederate to the house of another; there is no dispute about the identity of the drug received in evidence, as his counsel frankly admitted at the oral argument; the evidence was submitted to the jury by an impartial charge of which no complaint is made.

The judgment is affirmed and the record remitted to the court below and it is ordered that the defendant 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 it which had not been performed when the appeal in this case was made a supersedeas.