Case Title: Com. v. Davis

Citation: 383 A.2d 891, 477 Pa. 197

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1978-03-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
477 Pa. 197 (1978) 383 A.2d 891 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Julius A. DAVIS, Appellee (two cases). Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued November 15, 1976. Decided March 23, 1978. *198 F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Dist. Atty., Steven H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., Gaele Barthold, Philadelphia, for appellant. *199 Michael A. Seidman, Philadelphia, for appellee. Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ. MANDERINO, Justice. Appellee, Julius A. Davis, was found guilty in a nonjury trial of murder in the third degree, criminal conspiracy, possession of an instrument of crime generally, and possession of a prohibited offensive weapon. Post-verdict motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed. The trial court did not consider the motion for a new trial but granted appellee's motion in arrest of judgment concluding that the evidence was insufficient. The prosecution appealed to this Court from the order arresting judgment of appellee's murder conviction. Appeals involving the other crimes were taken by the prosecution to the Superior Court and certified to this Court. Both the prosecution and appellee agree that on the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence, and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner. The effect of a motion in arrest of judgment is to admit all the facts which the prosecution's evidence tends to prove. Commonwealth v. Froelich, 458 Pa. 104, 326 A.2d 364 (1974); Commonwealth v. Terenda, 433 Pa. 519, 252 A.2d 635 (1969). The parties disagree, however, as to whether the evidence is sufficient or insufficient. We hold that the trial court erred in concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. The relevant portions of the trial court's opinion are as follows: *202 "Owens' first hiding place for the gun was his own house, 3201-B Henry Avenue but because he was apprehensive the police might search the house and find it, he hid it a second time in a different place, 812 Diamond Street where he had a room. From there, eventually, on April 25, he took it into the Police Administration Building, 8th and Race Streets, Philadelphia, and surrendered it to Detective Grace. At the end of his questioning by the Court he said he hid the gun at 812 Diamond Street immediately on receiving it from defendant and denied having testified to two different hiding places. He also testified to having seen the gun long previously in the possession of one of his friends but first balked at naming the friend, and then asserted he could not remember. *203 Although the above facts make it clear that, without the testimony of Charles Ramel Owens there was no evidence linking appellee to the crime, and further, that a serious credibility question existed as to Owens' testimony, his testimony viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution must be accepted as true. Since Owens testified that appellee admitted that appellee and a friend were responsible for the shooting and further testified that appellee gave him the murder weapon, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions. The motion in arrest of judgment should not have been granted. The trial court however did not consider the appellee's motion for a new trial stating the following: The trial court was correct in refusing to consider any issues not specifically assigned in the motion for a new trial. In this case, however, item no. 2 in the motion for a new trial stated that "the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence." This Court has said this is a proper ground for relief in a motion for a new trial. Commonwealth v. Meadows, 471 Pa. 201, 208-09, 369 A.2d 1266, 1270 (1977). See Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 467 Pa. 50, 354 A.2d 545 (1976); Commonwealth v. Vogel, 458 Pa. 200, 321 A.2d 633 (1974); Commonwealth v. Dennison, 441 Pa. 334, 272 A.2d 180 (1971). Although the appellee was not entitled to have issues considered which were not specified in his post-verdict motions, he was entitled to have the trial court consider issues specifically raised which included whether the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. For this reason we remand the matter to the trial court to consider appellee's motion for a new trial. After the disposition of that motion appropriate appeals, if desired, may be taken. *204 The order of the trial court granting appellee's motion in arrest of judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded for a consideration of appellee's motion for a new trial. JONES, former C.J., did not participate in the decision of this case.