Court Opinion

ID: 9697292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:11:28.585027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:16.500973
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
Although the question is close, in my judgment this case is ruled in principle by Commonwealth v. Sellers, 130 Pa. 32; Commonwealth v. Holstein, 132 Pa. 357; Commonwealth v. Zelt, 138 Pa. 615; Commonwealth v. Johnston, 2 Pa. Superior Ct. 317; Commonwealth v. Jackson, 146 Pa. Superior Ct. 328 (affirmed 345 Pa. 456); Commonwealth v. Zasloff, 137 Pa. Superior Ct. 96; Commonwealth v. Borek, 161 Pa. Superior Ct. 200. I believe that the distinction which is drawn by the majority is of insufficient weight to distinguish and govern the instant case.
I would affirm the judgment and the sentence on the opinion of Judge Hirt, speaking for a unanimous Superior Court.