Criminal Law — Practice — Evidence — Evidence against co-defendant substantially identical — Order granting co-defendant's motion in arrest of judgment vacated — Reinstatement of verdict.
In this criminal case, where the evidence presented was substantially identical as to both defendants, and the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and where the Superior Court had previously vacated an order of the court below granting the co-defendant's motion in arrest of judgment and reinstated the verdict as to the co-defendant, the appellant's judgment of sentence was affirmed.
VAN der VOORT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Argued December 5, 1974.
OPINION BY JACOBS, February 27, 1975:
This appellant was convicted following a bench trial on charges of aggravated robbery and burglary. Arguing in this direct appeal that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the verdict, the appellant urges that this Court cannot in good conscience refuse his claim because a co-defendant's motion in arrest of judgment was granted by the judge "when the evidence introduced [was] identical as to both defendants."
We agree that the evidence presented was substantially identical as to both defendants. In Commonwealth v. Meadows, 232 Pa. Super. 292, 331 A.2d 827 (1974), we vacated the order of the court which granted the co-defendant's motion in arrest of judgment; and, finding the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict, we reinstated that verdict. We make the same finding as to the appellant herein.
Judgment affirmed.
VAN der VOORT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.