Court Opinion

ID: 9760405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:52:52.842394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:11.700391
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Weight, J.:
I respectfully dissent. It is my view that the majority decision contravenes two rules of criminal procedure which are well settled in this Commonwealth.
(1) Although it is better practice to do so, the district attorney was not required to aver in the instant indictments that the defendant had not been “an inhabitant of this state, or usual resident therein” in order to comply with the terms of the proviso clause in Section 77 of the Act of Miarch 31, 1860, 19 P.S. 211. It was expressly so ruled in Blackman v. Commonwealth, 124 Pa. 578, 17 A. 194. An indictment which did not contain such an averment was sustained in Commonwealth v. Bishop, 71 Pa. Superior Ct. 255. I mention this case in particular because Judge (later President Judge) Trexler distinguishes and in effect overrules Commonwealth v. Werner, 5 Pa. Superior Ct. 249, upon which the majority opinion relies. In Com*361monwealth ex rel. Patterson v. Ashe, 154 Pa. Superior Ct. 397, 36 A. 2d 249, President Judge Keller said: “It is well settled that it is not essential to aver in an indictment, found more than two years after the perpetration of such an offense, the facts relied upon to bring the case within the terms of the proviso to section 77 aforesaid”. This language was quoted with approval by Judge Ditiirich in Commonwealth v. Boyer, 168 Pa. Superior Ct. 16, 76 A. 2d 230.
(2) This defendant should not have been permitted to appear by counsel only and attack the validity of the indictments. He had neither been arrested, nor surrendered himself, nor entered bail for his appearance. Such a defendant is in no position to assert his rights. It was expressly so ruled in Commonwealth v. Feuerstein and Stern, 98 Pa. Superior Ct. 201. See also Commonwealth v. Rehrer, 1 Pa. D. & C. 2d 666; Commonwealth v. National Gypsum Co., 4 Pa. D. & C. 2d 169.