Court Opinion

ID: 9646221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:53:07.320375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:35.715314
License: Public Domain

Schettino, (T.
(dissenting). I join in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Francis.
Additionally, with respect to Justice Francis’ mandate to the trial courts concerning their duty to charge specifically, when an accused claims that he was elsewhere, I suggest for the sake of clarity, that a trial court should pinpoint this mandate by some reference to the conflicting factual claims of the State and the defendant. For example, here, the State introduced evidence that defendants, Peetros and Koskinas, stopped Daly in Collingswood, Camden County and held him *559up at gun point. Peetros offered counter testimony through himself and his dentist that Daly was mistaken in identifying Peetros, since at the time the alleged crime occurred, he was in Philadelphia at his dentist’s office. Thus, the trial court could have cleared any possible confusion in the jury’s minds and properly advised it in its determination, if it pointed out in its charge that the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was at the exact scene of the alleged crime and did in fact participate in it and that the jury taking into consideration Peetros’ and his dentist’s contrary testimony might find that reasonable doubt existed in favor of defendant. Similar reference could have been made to defendant Koskinas’ testimony that he was in Philadelphia at the time of the alleged crime, but that he could not remember precisely where.
For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Proctor, Hall and Haneman- — 5.
For affirmance■ — Justices Francis and Schettino — 2.