Commonwealth v. Buckman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Medical testimony was competent to prove under the facts that it was impossible for the defendant to have committed the offense charged: People v. Clark, 33 Michigan 112,1 Am. Crim.
Read the full summary
Medical testimony was competent to prove under the facts that it was impossible for the defendant to have committed the offense charged: People v. Clark, 33 Michigan 112,1 Am. Crim. Reports, 660 (cited in Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, Vol. 1, Tenth Ed., page 829, note 8); Hardtke v. State, 67 Wis. 552 and 30 N. W. 733 (cited in Wharton and Stilles Vol. 3, 5th edition, section 543, note 17); Wharton and Stille’s Medical Jurisprudence, volume 3, 5th Edition, Section 543; People v. Baldwin, 117 Cal. 244, 49 Pac. 186 (cited in Wharton and Stille’s Jurisprudence, same'edition, volume 3, section…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Gawthrop, J.,
The appellant, a married man, about sixty-two years of age, by occupation a farmer, was convicted in the Oyer and Terminer of Bucks County of the crime of statutory rape committed on the person of a little girl, Lucille McKenna, of the age of twelve years. In order to discuss intelligently certain of the assignments of error a statement of the material facts is necessary. The child resided with her mother and stepfather, John B. Margerum, at Washington’s Crossing, Bucks County, and the defendant lived within a half mile of the child’s home. The Commonwealth’s case…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. BencCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- State v. PetersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- State v. PerryWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1896
- Chambers v. Mesta Machine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1916
- Gandy v. KlawSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
3Cited by3 opinions
- Knights of Joseph B. & L. Ass'n v. Mechanics' Fire Ins.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1917
- Commonwealth v. WALKERSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1928