![]() In fact, there was no outboard motor in the trunk at all. Appellant's ex-wife testified that he had warned her not to go near the trunk of the car on that Wednesday afternoon, giving the false excuse that she might overturn and damage a borrowed outboard motor he had placed in the trunk. The Commonwealth sought to prove through the testimony of a variety of witnesses that the appellant planned the robbery of the Grant store well in advance of August 1 that he knew Grant's was closed to customer business regularly on Wednesday afternoons that he was heavily in debt that he deliberately lied to his ex-wife on the morning of August 1 as to the reason he was going into town and that he planned to leave with his family for Canada immediately upon returning home on the afternoon of August 1 in order to avoid involvement in any police investigation of the crime. Pursuant to a search warrant, officials discovered money and other items missing from the Grant store in the trunk of appellant's car.Īppellant did not deny killing Atwood and Rechel however, his asserted defense to the crimes for which he was tried was that of not guilty by reason of insanity. Appellant was arrested in Ontario and returned to this jurisdiction after waiving extradition. Upon learning that Vogel had left later that afternoon with his wife and child on a car trip to Canada, Pennsylvania police sent out a teletype bulletin which was picked up by Canadian border authorities. Although Vogel was on vacation from work, police investigation revealed that he had *443 been seen in the store earlier that day by a customer and was also seen by other people interviewed. Rechel was his secretary.Īppellant Vogel was also employed by Grant's at the time, carrying out the duties of stock attendant and general maintenance worker. Atwood was the store's office manager and Mrs. ![]() Upstairs, in the manager's office, police found the door to the safe open and its contents missing. Grant store located in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, and discovered in the basement of the store the fatally wounded bodies of two employees, a Mr. On Wednesday, August 1, 1962, police responding to an emergency call, arrived at the W.T. We shall discuss these three issues seriatim.įirst, however, a brief factual history is warranted. Lastly, appellant urges that the admission of certain photographs depicting the victims as discovered by police was prejudicial error requiring the grant of a new trial. Schwartz's testimony should have been excluded for failure to meet the proper evidentiary standard of certainty, is the second argument advanced by appellant that the lower court abused its discretion in denying a new trial on the grounds that the jury verdict of guilty was against the weight of the evidence. Intricately tied to appellant's argument that Dr. Schwartz, a psychiatrist, who testified in rebuttal as to appellant's mental condition at the time of the commission of the crime. Following the denial of post-trial motions, appellant filed the instant appeal.Īt issue is the propriety of the lower court's decision to admit, over defense counsel's objection, the expert testimony of Dr. The Court of Common Pleas, Clinton County, Criminal Division, Judge Lipez specially presiding, sentenced appellant to serve two consecutive prison terms of not less than ten *442 years nor more than twenty years for the murder convictions and thereafter to serve from one day to ten years imprisonment on the armed robbery count. On September 13, 1974, appellant, Dennis Vogel, was convicted by a jury of two counts of murder in the second degree and one count of armed robbery. *439 *440 *441 Saxton, McKnight & Roberts, Richard Saxton, Lock Haven, for appellant.īefore JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |