Court Opinion

ID: 9542782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:38:46.811754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:00.196518
License: Public Domain

*562Concurring Opinion by
Me. Justice Pomeroy:
I also would reverse the present conviction, but on different grounds than those indicated in the plurality opinion of Mr. Justice O’Brien. The plurality opinion concludes that the Commonwealth failed to prove possession in appellant of the stolen typewriter, and that for this reason it had failed to make out the crimes of burglary and larceny. This, however, is a non-sequitur. Larceny by definition is the taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the specific intent to deprive the owner permanently of the goods. See Penn Air v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of N. A., 439 Pa. 511, 269 A. 2d 19 (1970), and cases therein cited. Burglary is the entering of a building with intent to commit any felony, including larceny. Act of June 24, 1939, P. L. 872, §901, 18 P.S. 4901. Neither of these crimes includes any element of continuing possession of the stolen property, which might be and often is immediately disposed of. It was the necessary elements of entering, asportation and criminal intent which the Commonwealth failed to prove in this case. The result reached by the Court is, therefore correct.
In this view of the case, the issue of possession becomes academic. If we had to reach it, I would conclude that defendant was in actual possession of the typewriter. Commonwealth v. Tirpak, 441 Pa. 534, 272 A. 2d 476 (1971) and Commonwealth v. Davis, 444 Pa. 11, 280 A. 2d 119 (1971), relied upon by the majority opinion, are readily distinguishable from the case at bar.
Mr. Justice Jones joins in this opinion.