Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. ROMITO

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 12, 1950No. Appeal, 107PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Dithkich, J.,

The first question involved in this appeal from the judgment of sentence of Arthur Ventura, following his conviction of the crime of burglary, is whether the court erred in admitting the testimony of John Eomito, an accomplice, and in its charge in respect thereof.

The defendants were charged with having burglarized the Snee Dairy Company plant in Washington, Washington County, Pa., October 21, 1916. Eomito entered a plea of guilty to the charge, and the case against Ventura is based almost entirely on the testimony of his accomplice. At the conclusion of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. ElliottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  2. Commonwealth v. BillingsleySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
  3. Commonwealth v. BubnaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  4. Commonwealth v. MorrisonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  5. Tanner's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1880

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Ventura v. CavellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API