Commonwealth v. Scott
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 17, March T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Luzerne Co., Jan. T., 1907, No. 58, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. John Scott. Indictment for failure to deliver election returns to the prothonotary. Before Staples, P. J. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 17, March T., 1909, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Luzerne Co., Jan. T., 1907, No. 58, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. John Scott. Indictment for failure to deliver election returns to the prothonotary. Before Staples, P. J. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Errors assigned were as follows: 1. The court erred in refusing to quash the indictment'. 2. The court erred in charging the jury as follows: “We say to you that under all the testimony in this case it is the opinion of the court that this defendant did not exercise such care and caution…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
This case was argued with Commonwealth v. John Havrilla, ante, p. 292, and arises out of a similar state of facts. The decision in the latter case disposes of the first assignment in this case.
The second assignment brings into question a part of the charge in which the court expressed the opinion that under the evidence the defendant was guilty of neglect of duty. There was no error in this. It has been frequently held that the judge may indicate to the jury the weight of the evidence, provided the jury is permitted to render a verdict uncontrolled by his opinion. The…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. GartmanBerks County Court of Quarter Sessions · 1922
- Commonwealth v. WeiserthSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911