Court Opinion

ID: 9697887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:36:05.825792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:36.624425
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Ci-iidsey:
The tools being carried by Clinton and Houser at the time of their apprehension were undoubtedly such as Avould bring this case within the Act of June 24, *2211939, P. L. 872, §904, 18 PS §4904, if the prerequisite “intent to use such tools . . . for any . . . felonious purposes . . .” can be shown. Intent, of course, being a state of mind, can only be determined by a consideration of all of the relevant circumstances. The majority opinion fails to set forth that at the time of apprehension Clinton denied, knowing Houser or being with him. Houser denied knowing Clinton. Houser, it was later admitted, ivas in fact Clinton’s brother-in-law! Clinton’s possession of the drills, crowbars, etc., in his car was explained to some extent as being connected with his brother’s television repair business, but the possession of the bits to fit these drills on Houser’s person remained quite unexplained. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I find myself in agreement with the unanimous Superior Court (opinion at 183 Pa. Superior Ct. Ill) that the court below had sufficient facts before it to find that the necessary intent had been established and that defendants were guilty of the crime of Possession of Burglary Tools under Section 904 of The Penal Code of 1939.