Court Opinion

ID: 9634607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:17:59.706349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:06.424406
License: Public Domain

WICKERSHAM, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent.
The appellant, Alvin Chip Wiley, was convicted by a jury of his peers of burglary and theft by receiving stolen goods. *414The jury was properly instructed that they were required to find evidence supporting such conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Part of the Commonwealth’s evidence pertained to identification testimony. The jury heard the identification evidence and resolved the issue of the witness’s credibility under proper legal instructions from the trial judge.
Now comes the majority of this Panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and determines in their wisdom that the jury could not have found as they did. The trial judge after hearing post-verdict motions affirmed the jury action.
I do agree with that limited portion of the majority opinion, page thirteen, which reads as follows:
Here, no suggestive pre-trial procedure occurred. Craig spontaneously informed the police that the burglar was appellant, and he did so despite Barbara Carnino’s belief that it was Butchy Deas. No police officer exhibited appellant to Craig in a show-up or line-up, or showed Craig a photograph of appellant, or otherwise suggested to Craig that appellant was the burglar. This being so, the Commonwealth’s burden . . . was ‘simply to introduce evidence solid enough to avoid conjecture.’ (citations omitted).