Case Name: Commonwealth v. Dong Lee
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1917-07-13
Citations: 67 Pa. Super. 168
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 25
Parties: Commonwealth v. Dong Lee.
Judges: Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 168–169

Head Matter:
Commonwealth v. Dong Lee.
Criminal law — Evidence—Charge.
On the trial of an indictment for sodomy a judgment on a verdict of guilty will not be reversed, where it appears that the only testimony as to the crime was that of the prisoner and of the boy agginst whom the offense was alleged to have been committed, and this evidence is fairly submitted to the jury, with proper instructions as to the evidence of character and the effect to be given to the testimony of the boy, an admitted accomplice.
Argued March 14, 1917.
Appeal, No. 25, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Northumberland Co., Sept. T., 1916, No. 3, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v.. Dong Lee.
July 13, 1917:
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
Judgment for sodomy. Before Cummings, P. J.
Verdict of guilty upon which judgment of sentence was passed. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were various instructions.
Charles C. Lark, with him Ernest L. Tustin, for appellant.
C. K. Morganroth, with him Frank H. Strouss, District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Orlady, P. J.,
Every question raised by the assignments of error has been so fairly considered and convincingly answered in the charge of the court, and in the opinion refusing a new trial, that it is not necessary to consider the alleged error in detail. The jury was clearly and adequately instructed in regard to every phase of the defense. The effect to be given to the evidence of good character; the degree of proof required to establish the defendant's guilt, and the effect to be given to the testimony of an admitted accomplice, were carefully and adequately explained to the jury.
After a fair trial the defendant was convicted, and on further consideration by the court a new trial was refused.
The judgment is affirmed.