Court Opinion

ID: 9752929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:45:40.377921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:25.443483
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Ervin, J.:
Barry Pouls appeals from judgments of sentence after a verdict of guilty by a jury on the charges of rape, solicitation to commit sodomy and indecent assault.
Geraldine Galazyk, a 19-year old girl, the prosecutrix, testified that she and a girl friend by the name of Kathleen McGuire went to a dance in the City of Philadelphia; that during the evening they danced several times with the defendant and his friend, Sheldon Friedman; that the two boys invited the girls to go out and have something to eat; that the girls accompanied the boys in a car driven by Friedman; that after having something to eat they got in the car and the girls believed they were being driven toward their homes; instead the car was driven to an uncompleted building project, where it was stopped; that Friedman directed Miss McGuire to get out of the car; the prosecutrix asked Miss McGuire not to leave her and Friedman took her by the hand and led her out of the car; that prosecutrix sought to leave the car but was stopped by the appellant; that appellant began indecent advances toward prosecutrix, who resisted and screamed; whereupon defendant threatened her and finally accomplished both sodomy and rape; that defendant thereafter led prosecutrix to one of the unfinished dwellings where once more he compelled prosecutrix to submit to intercourse; that the girls were driven to the home of the prosecutrix at about 1:30 a.m.; that the prosecutrix immediately told her mother of the occurrence. The police were informed and the prosecutrix was taken to a hospital at once and she was examined in the hospital by a Dr. Marcello. The appellant admitted the *606intercourse but said it was with Geraldine’s consent. The only real issue in the case was whether the admitted intercourse was with Geraldine’s consent or was against her will. This was a question for the jury and they believed the girl.
In his motion for a new trial the defendant in the court below argued only the refusal of the trial judge to withdraw a juror when the prosecutrix likened herself to “Mary Mitchell,” victim in the notorious Elmo Smith murder case. During the cross-examination of the prosecutrix it was developed that when she and defendant entered the unfinished house defendant fell through the floor. The cross-examination then proceeded as follows: “Q. How long did it take him to climb out? A. A few seconds. Q. It might have been as long as a few minutes? A. Yes. Q. What were you doing in this time? A. I stood there. Q. You stood there and watched him climb out? A. Yes. Q. Why didn’t you run away? A. Because I was so terrified and I was afraid I would wind up like Mary Mitchell if I ran. Q. Weren’t you afraid of your life in remaining as you testified before? A. Yes, I was.” Following this reference counsel for the defendant moved for the withdrawal of a juror. The motion was denied, at which time the court said: “The motion is denied because I not only heard nothing prejudicial but I was watching the reaction of the jury during the entire cross-examination of the witness, and when she testified in that respect, and I noticed no sign of any recognition given by any of the jurors to that particular pori ion of the testimony. I am sure no prejudice will result. Your motion is denied, and you have an exception.” This was not an emotional outburst by the victim. It was a responsive reply to a question propounded by counsel for the defendant. What counsel for the defendant really wanted to know was the state of the prosecutrix’s mind. The reply was entirely proper and gave him the inf or*607mation which he sought. He should not be permitted to complain. Com. v. Duca, 312 Pa. 101, 165 A. 825.
What was said in Com. v. Jerko, 98 Pa. Superior Ct. 34, 39, is apropos: “The disposition of the question, whether a juror should be withdrawn for causes of the character under consideration is largely one for the discretion of the trial judge and the appellate courts will reverse only in cases of manifest error: Com. v. Striepeke, 32 Pa. Superior Ct. 82.”
After a consideration of the entire record I am of the opinion that the jurors were not unduly influenced against the defendant on account of the reply given by the prosecutrix. It is worthy of note that the witness did not even recall the correct name of the victim in the Elmo Smith case. In that case the name has never been written as “Mary” but always “Maryann” or “Mary Ann.”
Counsel for appellant has raised two other points, which need not be considered because they were not raised in the court below: Com. v. DiCarlo, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 611, 101 A. 2d 410. I have, however, given consideration to both of these points and am convinced that neither one warrants the reversal of the court below. While the sentence of the court was severe, I do not believe that we should interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial judge. Townsend v. Burke, 334 U. S. 736, 741, 68 S. Ct. 1252, 92 L. Ed. 1690, 1693; Com. ex rel. Dempsey v. Martin, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 274, 124 A. 2d 430.
I would affirm the judgments of sentence.
Bhodes, P. J., joins in this dissenting opinion.