Court Opinion

ID: 9636858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:45:40.667156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:50.253805
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Watkins, J.:
I join in the dissent of Judge Gunther but would add that the decision of the majority in this case fulfills the prediction made in my dissenting opinion in Com. v. Rogers, 187 Pa. Superior Ct. 471, 485, 144 A. 2d 662 (1958), “The majority rely on the authority of the opinion in Com. v. Prep, 186 Pa. Superior Ct. 442, *125142 A. 2d 460 (1958). I believe this to be an unfortunate opinion and represents sheer judicial legislation, .... However, I do not believe any overt act of conspiracy was committed by the defendant in the Prep case or by the appellants in this case, in Dauphin County. The extension of the Prep decision to this case most certainly establishes the doctrine that in any case involving an agency or instrumentality of the Commonwealth, where a conspiracy is charged, venue will lie in Dauphin County.” (Emphasis the writer’s.)
Here, the majority extends its reasoning beyond the Prep and Rogers cases so that the law that the locus of the crime is always in issue and that a court has no jurisdiction of the offense unless committed in the county where tried, Com. v. Tarsnane, 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 265, 85 A. 2d 606 (1952), no longer has validity.