Commonwealth v. Honigman

Dissenting Opinion by

Hoffman, J.:

In the instant case, appellant, David Honigman, was convicted of arson and conspiracy to defraud an insurance carrier as a result of a fire which occurred at a restaurant. Honigman was not at the scene nor was he accused of actually setting the fire.

*304The fire was started by Norman Prnssel, a professional arsonist, who sustained severe burns during tbe course of the blaze and died several days later. The Commonwealth’s case depended primarily on the testimony of a single witness, Edward Klayman, who was a coconspirator. Klayman seriously implicated Honigman when…