PRESENCE AT CRIME SCENE NOT ENOUGH FOR GUILT
Mere presence of an individual at scene of a crime is not a sufficient circumstance upon which a finding of guilt may be predicated. Com. v. Keller, 378 A.2d 347, 249 Pa.Super. 384, 1977; Com. v. Manson, 327 A.2d 182, 230 Pa.Super. 527, 1974. Mere presence of person at scene of crime is not sufficient circumstance upon which guilt may be predicated, nor are presence and flight sufficient, and there must be other evidence of participation in alleged crime, to sustain conviction even for attempt. Com. v. Smith, 399 A.2d 788, 264 Pa.Super. 303, Super.1979. Criminal Law 59(3)
Neither mere presence at or near scene of crime nor mere association with guilty party is sufficient to establish guilt. Com. v. Frey, 399 A.2d 742, 264 Pa.Super. 212, Super.1979. Criminal Law 59(1); Criminal Law 59(3) Evidence of mere presence at scene of crime is not sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain a finding of guilt. Com. v. Eddington, 386 A.2d 117, 255 Pa.Super. 25, Super.1978. Criminal Law 59(3)
Presence alone at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to convict. Com. v. Finley, 383 A.2d 1259, 477 Pa. 382, Sup.1978. Criminal Law 59(3) Additional element of flight, which is as consistent with fear as with guilt, does not convert presence at scene of crime into proof of guilt. Com. v. Keller, 378 A.2d 347, 249 Pa.Super. 384, Super.1977. Criminal Law 552(2)
