Case Name: Commonwealth v. Hoffman, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1974-12-11
Citations: 230 Pa. Super. 444
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 719
Parties: Commonwealth v. Hoffman, Appellant.
Judges: Before Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Yoort, and Spaeth, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 230
Pages: 444–447

Head Matter:
Commonwealth v. Hoffman, Appellant.
Argued September 11,1974.
Before Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Yoort, and Spaeth, JJ.
Robert V. Ritter, Jr., with him Victor F. Cmacini, and Snyder, Doll & Schantz, for appellant.
Salvador J. Salazar, Assistant District Attorney, with him Charles H. Spaziam, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
December 11, 1974:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Pbice, J.,
Appellant was indicted for maliciously soliciting and inciting another person to commit sodomy. However, in his charge to the jury at the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge charged on the crime of assault and solicitation to commit sodomy. Appellant was then convicted of the crime as charged by the judge, and later sentenced for it.
We are concerned that a person could be indicted for one offense and convicted of another entirely different crime. An examination of the indictment form reveals that the crime listed on the back cover is at odds with the crime actually charged in the formal indictment. It is possible that everyone involved with the case in the lower courts simply relied on the caption typed on the back cover to frame the charges and failed to read the actual indictment. Considering the consequences, it is essential that all parties involved with the cases read the indictment and ascertain exactly with what the defendant is charged.
A defendant cannot be convicted and sentenced for a crime of which he is not indicted. Commonwealth v. Lee, 454 Pa. 526, 312 A. 2d 391 (1973). We have no difficulty reversing the lower court decision on this point. Further, we cannot determine from the record if the convictions for solicitation and for corrupting the morals of a minor may have been based on and tainted by the improper conviction for assault. As the possibility for prejudice is very real, we are constrained to reverse those convictions as well. Cf. Commonwealth v. Wadley, 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 490, 83 A. 2d 417 (1951).
The judgment of sentence is reversed and a new trial granted on all charges.
Appellant was also indicted for and convicted of corrupting the morals of a minor.
Although the crime indicted for and the crime convicted of are both defined in the same statute section, they are two different crimes and are not randomly interchangeable. See Act of Juno 24, 1939, P. L. 872, §502 (18 P.S. §4502).