Commonwealth v. Crews, 260 A.2d 771 (Pa. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
Commonwealth v. Crews, 260 A.2d 771 (Pa. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
108 citation events (63 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Com. v. White, J. (pasuperct, 2022-03-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. White, J.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2022 · confidence medium
However, a conviction cannot be sustained where the sole evidence of guilt is only a general description of the perpetrator, as this would force the finder-of-fact to render a verdict based on “conjecture” or a mere “guess.” See generally Commonwealth v. Crews, 260 A.2d 771, 772 (Pa. 1970); Commonwealth v. Wiley, 432 A.2d 220, 224 (Pa. Super. 1981) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Heath, J. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2017 · confidence medium
Two witnesses testified that Crews was wearing a gold or an orange sweater. -7- J-S18034-17 Crews, 260 A.2d at 772 (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Bryant
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2012 · confidence medium
Our standard for evaluating sufficiency of the evidence is “whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth [as verdict winner], is sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Watkins, 577 Pa. 194 , 843 A.2d 1203, 1211 (2003) (citing Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346 , 260 A.2d 771, 771-72 (1970)). “[T]he entire trial record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered, whether or not the trial court’s rulings thereon were correct.” Commonwealth v. Harper…
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Campbell, H.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Crews, 260 A.2d 771, 772 (Pa. 1970) (holding a generic description of a perpetrator to be insufficient to prove identity); Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc) (finding circumstantial evidence sufficient to corroborate a victim’s initial identification of the perpetrator, despite inability to identify the defendant at trial).
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Little, B. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crews, 260 A.2d at 772 .
cited Cited "see" Com. v. Harper, A.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brief for Appellant at 12 (directing this Court’s attention to Commonwealth v. Crews, 260 A.2d 771 (Pa. 1970), and Commonwealth v. Wiley, 432 A.2d 220 (Pa. Super. 1981)).
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Ahner, S. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Crews, 260 A.2d 771 , 771–72 (Pa. 1970) (overturning conviction where only evidence tying appellant to crime was description of perpetrator’s complexion and gold-colored sweater).
examined Cited "see" Com. v. Nunez, J. (3×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Cousar, 593 Pa. 204, 217 , 928 A.2d 1025, 1032 (2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346, 348 , 260 A.2d 771 , 771–72 (1970)).
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Frisby, J. (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 875 (distinguishing from Commonwealth v. Crews, 260 A.2d 771, 772 (Pa. 1970) (holding evidence was insufficient to sustain first degree murder conviction where identification was based solely on defendant’s height, skin color, and gold sweater), and Commonwealth v. Grahame, 482 A.2d 256 , 259 (Pa. Super. 1984) (holding evidence was insufficient where based exclusively on victim’s identification of defendant and where victim testified she did not get good look at or know defendant, was unable to identify defendant in lineup, and testified, “[a]ll blacks look alike”)).
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Micking (3×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Cousar, 593 Pa. 204, 217 , 928 A.2d 1025, 1032 (2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346, 348 , 260 A.2d 771, 771-72 (1970)).
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Reed (3×)
Pa. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Cousar, 593 Pa. 204, 217 , 928 A.2d 1025, 1032 (2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346, 348 , 260 A.2d 771, 771-72 (1970)).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Gutierrez (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346, 348 , 260 A.2d 771, 771-72 (1970).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Diggs (2×)
Pa. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346, 348 , 260 A.2d 771, 771-72 (1970).
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Cousar (4×)
Pa. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346, 348 , 260 A.2d 771, 771-72 (1970).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Watkins (2×)
Pa. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346, 348 , 260 A.2d 771, 771-72 (1970).
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Hurd (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346 , 260 A.2d 771 (1970) (evidence that appellants’ height, coloring, and color of coat matched those of robbers held so insufficient that jury was forced to guess).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Edwards, M.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although she did not recognize Appellant at the preliminary hearing and the circumstances surrounding her initial identification are admittedly not ideal, this Court has discerned that “any uncertainty in an eyewitness’s identification of a defendant is a question of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.” Commonwealth v. Cain, 906 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Super. 2006) (deeming identification evidence sufficient, even though the witnesses expressed uncertainty in their identification at trial, where they had previously identified the appellant in a photo array and at a preliminary …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Edwards, M.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Although she did not recognize Appellant at the preliminary hearing and the circumstances surrounding her initial identification are admittedly not ideal, this Court has discerned that “any uncertainty in an eyewitness’s identification of a defendant is a question of the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.” Commonwealth v. Cain, 906 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. Super. 2006) (deeming identification evidence sufficient, even though the witnesses expressed uncertainty in their identification at trial, where they had previously identified the appellant in a photo array and at a preliminary …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Orr (2×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2011 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346 , 260 A.2d 771 (1970) (holding evidence was insufficient to convict appellant of first-degree murder where only identification evidence linking appellant to crime was witness' description of perpetrator as black male with light complexion wearing gold sweater, similar in height to appellant; in light of number of people who fit that general physical description and common nature of gold sweater, this evidence alone was insufficient to convict appellant); Commonwealth v. Grahame, 333 Pa.Super. 224 , 482 A.2d 255 (1984) (holding evidence based solely on…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Maisonet (2×)
Pa. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346, 348 , 260 A.2d 771, 771-72 (1970).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Taylor (2×)
Pa. · 1977 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346 , 260 A.2d 771 (1970).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Hubbard (4×)
Pa. · 1977 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346 , 260 A.2d 771 (1970).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Feldman (4×)
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
We are compelled on these facts to conclude that even when viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth the circumstantial evidence presented here is not sufficient in volume or quantity, see Commonwealth v. Goldberg, 130 Pa.Super. 252 , 196 A. 538 (1938); see also *425 Commonwealth v. Crews, 436 Pa. 346 , 260 A.2d 771 (1970), to overcome the presumption of appellant's innocence and to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant, at the time he made the representations at issue, knew they were false.
Commonwealth
v.
Crews, Appellant
Appeal, 261.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jan 9, 1970.
260 A.2d 771
Joseph I. Lewis, for appellant., Robert L. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney, with him Carol Mary Los, Assistant District Attorney, and Robert W. Duggan, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Bell, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy.
Cited by 48 opinions  |  Published

Opinion by

Mr. Justice O’Brien,

This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence of the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Allegheny County. Petitioner was convicted by a jury of the first degree felony-murder of a cab driver in Duquesne. After de: nial of his post-trial motions, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal followed. [1]

[*348] The only issue raised by appellant is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. Appellant contends that the identification testimony, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was insufficient to enable a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Crews was the guilty party in this case. We agree.

The testimony, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, reveals that two blacks were seen entering a cab, the cab driver was robbed and beaten, and two blacks were seen fleeing. Crews and Tedders, a codefendant whose first degree murder conviction has already been affirmed by this Court, 431 Pa. 646, 244 A. 2d 156 (1968), [2] fit the very general description of the criminals as to height and coloration. The principal evidence on which the Commonwealth relies is clothing. A witness, Mrs. Schorr, who observed the two men fleeing from the cab, testified that the taller, lighter complexioned one was wearing a gold-colored sweater, while the shorter, darker one was wearing a black leather trench coat. When Tedders was arrested, he was wearing a black leather coat which Mrs. Schorr identified at trial as being the coat she saw. A gold-[*349] colored sweater was found in Crews’ home. Mrs. Schorr could not positively say that it was the same sweater which the taller felon was wearing, but did indicate that the color appeared to be the same.

In addition to Mrs. Schorr’s testimony, the Commonwealth produced testimony that Crews and Tedders were together in at least three different places on the night of the crime, from 6:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. There was testimony that at 7:00 P.M. they were in the Oh Bar, not far from where the two men entered the cab at about 8:30. All of the witnesses testified that Tedders was wearing a black leather coat or jacket. Two witnesses testified that Crews was wearing a gold or an orange sweater.

We hold that this evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. Although we have often held that, circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a conviction, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Finnie, 415 Pa., 166, 171, 202 A. 2d 85 (1964), such evidence must point more conclusively toward guilt than does that present in- the instant case. As stated above, the Commonwealth’s sole identification evidence was based on similar height and coloration, plus the clothing. In light of the myriads of people who fit the height and coloration description, and in light of the commonness of a gold sweater and a black trench coat, the evidence failed, to point with sufficient certitude to Crews as the perpetrator of the crime. The jury was forced to guess whether it was Crews or another light-complexioned Negro male wearing a gold sweater who. committed the crime. Our system recoils at sending a man to prison for the rest of his life on a guess. We are convinced that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crews committed or joined in this act of murder.

The motion in arrest of judgment is granted.

1

This is appellant’s second trial. His original conviction was reversed by this Court because of the improper admission of certain evidence.

2

We emphasize that the evidence introduced in Tedder’s trial was far stronger than that introduced here. There, four witnesses testified that at different times, Tedders had admitted to them that he had stabbed the cab driver.

Similarly, the evidence introduced in Crews’ first trial in which we affirmed the denial of the motion in arrest of judgment, was also much stronger than that in the instant case. For one thing, the evidence which we held improperly admitted was before the Court on the motion in arrest of judgment. Commonwealth v. Tabb, 417 Pa. 13, 207 A. 2d 884 (1965). It is true that we stated in the first opinion that even without the improperly admitted evidence, there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. However, we particularly relied upon the testimony of a fellow prisoner in the Allegheny County Jail that Crews admitted being in the cab on the night of the stabbing. The witness testified to a different effect at the second trial.