*1 present- prescribed by petitions form law in the filing expires, time for before the ed but thereafter, part of incorporated as and considered must be ‘surplus- petition, mere and not as nomination age’. . . .”
Although en- clerk the case at bar did petitions, supplemental al- thusiastically receive welcoming backslapping though no there was attempt dis- papers, no was at least additional there suspicions glance disregard no there was card or them, already paper In as fact, basket. toward the waste lodgment in the actually papers did find stated, they allowed expectancy. were There fateful bin the affirmance according below, to the court die, looking into thought of no one because of this Court, of unfinished business. take care the bin to bandage pictured but the blindfolded Justice happening can see what feelifted so she should being Temple are of Justice two members when peo- appear right of all the on the ballots denied the projection assuring thereby ple, idealistic further an judiciary. non-partisan concept of a the idealistic gnat tech- at the case strains The decision dep- nicality the camel of constitutional and swallows rivation.
I dissent. Appellant. v. Ahearn, *2 Before C. Mus- J., April 1965. Argued Bell, O’Brien and Roberts, Cohen, Eagen, Jones, manno, JJ. Sharp,
John B. with him Richard M. Miller, Jr., appellant. for Attorney,
John A. District Common- Harris, appellee. wealth, April Mb. Chief Opinion Justice Bell,
1966: represented by lawyers, three while Defendant, pleaded charging guilty to him the indictment *3 jury, sitting Judge, murder. found without a The guilty degree, him in and sentenced of murder imprisonment. him motion for a to life Defendant’s judgment new trial and in were dismissed arrest judgment of sentence Court. From the lower appeal. defendant took this murders senseless brutal,
This was one the most gruesome we are so committed. The details ever only outline them. shall Sharkey, Betty for met the victim,
Defendant evening of June on the bar in a Bellefonte first time drinking of morning at various several hours 1963. After early June they hours of in decided bars, night. spend Fail- room to motel for a 9th to look sug- attempts the victim ing room, to secure in their a secluded car to drive his gested the defendant Township, secondary Patton just road in off a field intercourse. County, have sexual order Centre they their cloth- both removed they there arrived When he started language defendant, of the ing in the and she up.” reason, unknown For some “loving her having and struck intercourse changed about her mind prevent un- it. For some pocketbook to him her unexplained punched and known motive or reason he Betty several on times her head and face with his fists, pushed her out of the car and then stabbed her awith penknife, inflicting body. some 90 wounds on her After this he then dressed, slashed her from her to her throat body drove his car abdomen, over her and then twice leaving body drove her off, lifeless naked, at this isolat- spot. attempt ed In a clever to avoid he detection, clothing put washed and hid his bloodstained and another suit. apprehended
When several hours de- he first later, any knowledge killing, shortly nied but thereaf- acknowledged guilt orally writing. ter his and
Defendant-appellant principal has two and several they they minor contentions; are so interrelated that together. will all be considered
We note at the outset that defendant not take did upon stand; witness instead he relied the testi mony psychologist and two one who, opinions analysis, large based their last to a ex upon self-serving, tent uncorrobo unsworn, defendants prior them about his rated statements to his and life some which are Nei actions reactions, fantastic. nor con ther defendant his counsel nor his witnesses M’Naghten Rule. he under tend that was insane (1) there no motive he contends Instead, (2) mental condi that because of his crime, *4 by feeling of his induced the breasts which tion, pleasure got by hear he from or the tremendous victim, up,* agony ing beat them when he women scream In other intent kill. words, not form an he could * psychiatrists was stimulated that defendant testified The breasts, parts their by feeling in other but women’s to violence opinion “as- testimony they of defendant’s their to base seemed analysis beating up women. Prom an from stimulation saultive” motivating, testimony, it is not which was clear all their cause, Stimulating defendant contends that because of his mental con- dition, his and his excitement, reactions when women impossible were involved, was him to a form specific intent to take a human consequently lifeand he any could higher not be convicted of crime than degree. murder in the second Defendant further con- plea guilty (a) pre- tends that a under there is a sumption only of fact that the murder was murder in (b) the second that must be by so found the Court unless the Commonwealth es- beyond requisite tablishes, reasonable all the doubt, elements of degree, (c) murder in the first the Commonwealth failed to do. any
Neither defendant’s nor of his wit- repeat, nesses, we testified that defendant was insane M’Naghten under the Rule. The of defend- experts, if ant’s believed, would establish an irresisti- impulse ble violence certain sexual situations. Psychiatric vary change or definitions or names almost rapidly “bridge as conventions”; and the use of impulse,” terms such as “irresistible or “diminished responsibility”, “inability to control oneself”, partial “temporary insanity”, psy- or various kinds copaths, change psy- not sufficient are what legal language, chiatrists to call and used what, has always impulse. been an called, irresistible ques- in his
We note defendant statement appeal, on this does not call or charac- tions involved his actions and his terize aforesaid emotional reac- by impulse”, name “irresistible tions but thus phrases it: de- above, “Under circumstances where insanity neither the defense under fendant asserted M’Naghten impulse, nor irresistible but Rule, deep-seated by anxiety, were motivated actions pre-adolescent repeated arising traumatic, sexual from repetitive pro- experiences their character, which, type erupt- reflex which conduct, a conditioned duced *5 816
ed triggered specific when in a by resulting stimuli, mental state which temporarily destroyed ability to form premeditate specific and such evi- is intent, dence admissible to disprove the of existence intent and premeditation?” Premeditation and specific a intent to kill as we shall essential elements are, see, murder. degree (non-felony) (cid:127) The defendant and the differ Commonwealth so wide- in- pertinent about and correct ly legal principles doubt- Judge volved and the trial seemed so ease principles ful as well law, about several applicable as the effect of that shall testimony, we psychiatric Penn- and the established law in briefly review reiterate of defend- all In this we shall answer sylvania. way ant’s contentions. pleads if a defendant
It
is well established
gen
to murder
plead
must
guilty
to
he
guilty
murder,
to either murder
plead guilty
and cannot
erally,
A
or murder
the second degree.
murder constitutes
to an indictment
plea
guilty
of mur
crime
guilt
or confession
an admission
and
of murder
to be determined,
with the degree
der,
clearly
Court. The
is not
law
fixed,
the penalty
a
plea
presump
there is
such a
toas whether
settled
dis
murder —the
of second
tion or an inference
and
inference
of fact
an
presumption
between
tinction
the cases
Nevertheless, all
shadowy.
and
slight
is often
burden
murder,
plea
guilty
after
agree
direct
produce
the Commonwealth
upon
and/or
cir
from the facts
which,
evidence
circumstantial
therefrom
inferences
reasonable
all
cumstances
a reasonable doubt,
to prove, beyond
sufficient
legally
degree:
murder in the first
amounted
killing
v.
31? *6 In Commonwealth v. Pa. the Court Finnie, 415 166, epitomized law murder : “In (pages 170-172) Commonwealth v. 412 supra A. Carroll, 194 Pa., [525, 2d from v. Commonwealth Court, quoting 911] 410 530- Gooslin, Pa., pertinently (pages said supra, : ‘. 531) . . . . . an “is defined as “Murder”, unlawful of another hilling with malice express aforethought, or implied.” The divided murder legislature into two murder in the and murder classifications, in the second provided all murder degree; (1) perpetrated poison or in by wait; or other lying by any hind of premeditated deliberate or wilful, hilling, [and] murder in any which shall be committed the perpetra- tion of or attempt perpetrate certain felo- specified nies [arson, rape, robbery, burglary, hidnapping], in hind is murder other (2) every is murder the second Act degree: L. June 24, 1939, 872, [P. amended]. ‘“ “ express implied ‘Malice is hallmarh] [the murder. criterion and essential absolutely ingredient there sense exists not where is legal only Malice its but whenever there a wiehed ill also is particular will, hardness of conduct, wanton disposition, heart, ness re mind consequences and a rechlessness cruelty, Kirkland, v. duty: of social gardless [Commonwealth v. Carroll, 2d Commonwealth 338; A. Pa. 195 48, 413 Commonwealth v. 400 Pa. supra; Kravitz, 198, 412 Pa., Commonwealth v. 365 Pa. Buzard, 511, 2d 861; A. 161 v. Boden, Commonwealth 399 394; 2d 76 A. be inferred and may malice Legal A. 2d
159 894.] circumstances. is attending from the found [Malice (to intent hill to do or) had an defendant if the present Commonwealth v. harm: bodily serious deceased Pa. 291, Dorazio, supra; Drum, 2dA. 125.] “ ““ of the evidence— sufficiency “The test direct or circumstantial— is of whether irrespective is whether all accepting as true upon evidence which, if could believed, jury properly have based its ver- it is dict, prove sufficient law beyond a reason- able doubt the defendant crime guilty ’ ” ’ . . . . numerous . [citing charged, authorities]. “ A. ‘In Commonwealth v. 400 Pa. Kravitz, 2d the Court said Proof (page 208) corpus or direct evidence of the delicti by eye witnesses or of identity or commission the defendant by ‘It necessary. of the crime is not set charged clearly tled that man circumstantial evi may be convicted and a criminal intent be inferred may dence alone, *7 circumstances are of from facts and which jury a ” ’ ” to prove guilt beyond a nature defendant’s such [citing doubt: numerous reasonable authorities].’ “ 174 A. ‘In Commonwealth v. 405 Pa. Tyrrell, 210, : “The essential 212-213) 2d Court said (pages 852, mur between murder-killing in a non-felony difference degree murder in the second degree der in first a specific in the degree requires is that murder first :* being another human Commonwealth intent to take Ufe of Com 728; 123 A. 2d 386 Pa. 20, Ballem, v. supra; Commonwealth 365. v. Dorazio, Pa., monwealth Chapman, v. supra; Commonwealth 354 Pa., Malone, v. A. 2d Commonwealth v. 433; 58 164, [Samuel] 359 Pa. 2d v. 317; A. Commonwealth Pa. 522, 50 355 Jones, A. 823.” 178 Pa. 65, 319 Iacobino, “ necessary to kill which is intent specific ‘The murder nonfelony murder, ain constitute con or from a defendant’s words found be may degree, together circumstances with the attendant fromor duct be in therefrom, may inferences all reasonable a weapon use deadly intentional from ferred human Com another being: the body part vital a supra; Commonwealth Pa., 405 Tyrrell, v. monwealth A, 65; 2d Commonwealth 157 198, 398 Moore, v. throughout, ours. * ItaUcs
319 v. A. 398 Pa. 2d Commonwealth Nelson, 913; 359, v. 386 Pa. 123 A. 2d Commonwealth Ballem, 20, 728; v. 369 Pa. 2d Heller, 287; 87 A. v. 457, Commonwealth 355 Pa. A. 2d 317.’” Accord: Jones, 522, [Samuel] Commonwealth v. supra Kirkland, Pa., (pp. 63-65); Commonwealth v. Carroll, supra. Pa.,
In Commonwealth v. 406 Pa. 378 A. 2d Melton, the Court said : aptly (pages 349-350) “There is not the remotest merit to defendant’s con- tention that deficient because of Ms mentality, Mm of Court did not have the convict murder power in the first degree.
“In v. 405 Pa. we sus Commonwealth Smith, a of murder in the tained verdict first guilty sex defendant was a though with even penalty death, : “This 459-460) ual there said (pages We psychopath. Court a verdict lias sustained had allegedly defendant of death where penalty or mental de a moron a
an irresistible
impulse,
personal
pervert
psychopathic
fective
a sexual
hospital
confined
previously
or had been
ity,
schisophrenic
or was
for 14 years,
the criminal insane
mo
defective
mentally
an unstable,
or was
psychopath
Leamer,
feeble-minded:
or was
ron,
*8
Cole,
v.
Commonwealth
409;
2dA.
126
These cases not and only support justify ver- dict and in sentence this case but indicate that less- any er verdict would be a travesty Justice. Neverthe- we and analyze shall consider defendant’s conten- less upon tions which are based his two and psychologist a who testified that stirred-up their condition opinion defendant’s mental specific a intent to kill prevented Betty. his forming In Commonwealth Tyrrell, Pa., supra, of first murder with Court a verdict sustained and said pertinently penalty imprisonment life Dr. Coleman deter- : a result 219-221) “As (pages age since teen psychotic mined the defendant was that on March upset emotionally that he so and was up pick an loaded impulse that ‘he react would wife, fire at his elbow and at his shotgun resting intent to take wife’s he had no at that time life.’ mod- impulse’ or ‘irresistible
“The doctrine one’s to control ‘inability vernacular psychiatric ern or a de- as legal insanity, to denote used whether self’, one's acts responsibility criminal to escape vice re- has been always its degree, the crime reduce In v. Neill, Pennsylvania. jected Mr. Chief Justice Steen said: 2d 276, Pa. 507, A. ap- insanity” is that “confusional the fact from ‘Apart theory and discarded antiquated an parently be could such a thing there proposition ex- sharply challenged by an insanity momentary
321 pert witness Commonwealth, would seem quite obvious that dif defendant’s witness failed to frenzy temporary ferentiate mere between a emotion or insanity meaning legal al and excitation, within the namely inability, of that disease mind, term, from quality to understand the nature and and the act distinguish right wrong respect between and to it: 416, Commonwealth v. Pa. Szachewicz, 303 410, 154 A. 485; Commonwealth v. 325 417, 483, Lockard, Certainly Pa. A. 757. neither 60, 188 . . . social 56, 755, impulsive maladjustment, nor lack nor self-control, psycho-neurosis, instability, nor nor emotional ness, nor chronic nor combined, all such conditions malaria, conception insanity constitute within the criminal-law [Emphasis original] of that in term.’ “In Commonwealth 164 v. Pa. Woodhouse, adopted daugh- A. killed his 2d defendant shot and this conviction of ter; Court affirmed his imprisonment]. penalty of life [with time at the Three testified that defendant, suffering killing, from of the commission paranoid psychosis, a severe delusion, from a from accompanied psychosis or was delusions, serious schizophrenic paranoid did times not know and at right wrong acted under an and and difference between impulse Court, insane. This and hence was irresistible analyzed opinion by at Mr. Justice in a learned Eagen, pre- firmly rejected, often Court had length as this impulse theory a de- viously irresistible done, again Once for murder. in an indictment fense adopt- M’Naghten approved which ‘was Rule, Court (Commonwealth Pennsylvania Mos- v. the law ed as firmly established (1846)) and has become Pa. 264 ler, body Common- of the law this imbedded including since, many [citing cases, ever wealth Novak, case recent (1959)].’” 2d 102 A. *10 supra, In Commonwealth v. 412 Pa. the Carroll, 525, aptly (pages 534-536) Court said : “Defendant’s most pressed earnestly psychiatrist’s contention is that the opinion of what state mind must have defendant’s of clearly been and\ was at the time the estab crime, of only legal impossibility the lishes lack but the also premeditation. psychiatrist Dr. of Alle the Davis, of gheny County gave opinion . Behavior . . his Clinic, ‘panic’ produced ‘rage’, ‘desperation’, ‘an im pulsive op type automatic ... as homicide, reflex of posed premeditated type to an intentional homi of feeling gun cide. . if had . . Our was that fallen pick up been to the floor he wouldn’t have able to I think if he had and consummate that homicide. And gun is a to load he wouldn’t have done it. This opinion opinion, it.’ but this our about matter of is First, to this contention. “There are three answers Judge nor neither a hereinbefore stated, as we have testimony part any jury or believe all a has to of opin- any Secondly, the or of witness. of the defendant upon large based to a extent was ion of the by need which made to them defendant, statements op- are in instances some believed which not be Thirdly, psychiatrists posed by themselves. the facts impulse intent or opinion or lack defendant’s very entitled to case, in this class mind is, state especially defendant’s weight, so when and this little testimony or the facts confession, or or actions, own opinion. belie themselves, testimony expert weight regarding
“The rule
“[E]xpert
. ‘.
.
settled.
is well
of case
class
in this
posi-
weight
against
to little
testimony
entitled
opinions
especially
Expert
are
en-
medical
facts.
tive
upon
weight
based
insuf-
when
no
or
to little
titled
feigned
or a
state
facts
(partly) erroneous
ficient
upon
past history,
unrea-
inaccurate
anor
mind
v. Gossard,
[Commonwealth
.”
. .
deductions,
sonable
385 Pa.
123 A. 2d
312,
258; Commonwealth v. Patskin,
368,
100 A. 2d
375,
Commonwealth 472].’
407 Pa.
Jordon,
575,
“In Commonwealth v. 401 Pa. Woodhouse, A. 2d we held jury disregard free expert psychiatric was in- defendant sane at the time commission the hilling,— which would have acquitted under defendant M’Naghten Rule —in the face of testimony lay wit- nesses who observed him and actually considered him *11 to be sane at Mr. times when he was insane. allegedly Justice for the speaking (pages said Court, Eagen, : 259-260) kept It must be mind that an opinion It no opinion. an creates fact. Be- only cause of opinion evidence is considered a this, low and not entitled to much grade weight against positive of actual facts such as statements by ’ defendant and observations his actions.” See the same effect: Commonwealth v. Melton, Pa., supra.” supra; Pa., Commonwealth v. Heller, in criminal trials the It forgotten is too often extent large is based to opinion of a psychiatrist him by statements given unsworn upon self-serving and prior thoughts, to his prior as life defendant there is no no proof, to which as reactions, actions and no cor- and usually cross-examination opportunity of in this present are especially factors roboration. These Dr. based Clark, psychiatrist, Defendant’s case. instant form an intent could not defendant his conclusion uncorroborat- unsworn, following largely to kill, defendant: him given ed statement women into or 100 about He . . escorted “. can recall. But he near as
compound Korea] [in explains 30 and lie 25 or about with out went only them into he would take though even that because after take over men would other compound, These women he beat companions. their become and up, exception all these women with the of three. These three he any had intercourse not with, but he did have preliminary having intimacies with them. After rela- tions with the first three the other men told women, they preparatory- him what he had did, reference to urge intimacies and so on. He had the to heat a woman feeling her breasts. Mr. Ahearn stated that some after heatings good women liked the and that him made feel orgasm and sometimes he had an at the time. After beating he started he did want to not woman, any he have sexual relations more because women, got by beating hearing felt he more out of it them help.” yell and scream for clearly any-
This demonstrates more than almost Pennsylvania thing why be- else could the Courts opinion psychiatrist based that the which is lieve part upon self- uncorroborated unsworn, substantial serving or an accused defend- of a criminal statements self-serving sub- which are even statements ant — escape ject con- desires to cross-examination—who weight rarely forms little ever entitled viction, psychiatrist. the conclusion basis a sound upon agree what cannot defendant’s *12 Even crime— impelled to commit this terrible defendant they feeling first breasts, victims’ it was whether up in to beat them it a desire was or whether testified, help. enjoy We hold for screams their to order testimony ad- in case is not offered psychiatric the exculpate acquit a de- (1) and or to absolve missible specific prove (2) in- a lack to or crime, fendant thereby prohibit murder of a verdict and kill, tent always Penn- the law been degree. This has the supra. Tyrrell, 405- v. Pá., sylvania. Commonwealth 1959, Act of December 1, that since hold further We (popularly known as the §4701, P.S. 1621, L. P. psychiatric is in- Act), unless Split Verdict insanity showing under the purpose for troduced M’Naghten (a) is Rule, admissible after guilt only has been determined or by and jury Court, (b) relevant and thereafter admissible for only the limited purpose of or aiding Court in jury penal- fixing ty-
In Commonwealth v. 371 Pa. A. 2d Elliott, (which decided Split was before the Verdict Act) the Court said pertinently (pages 75-76) : “Defendant contends that because a criminal or murderer a weak, unstable, moron aggressive, dangerous who is mentally deficient sentencing Judge Court con- (1) must sider his record entire during his life and particularly reports and has every psychologist who psychiatrist examined and must him, (2) be controlled re- these by ports and impose sentence the case of murder not than life higher imprisonment. This contention carries the or doctrine of ‘diminished theory to an extreme and responsibility* would vest a psy- chiatrist and not in the Courts the right power to determine and fix punishment for crimes. Such a would soon theory philosophy punish- transfer ment criminals Courts to from result in a would brealcdown inevitably law further and eventual and chaos. For- confusion enforcement are an our cases such tunately opposed undesirable result.** also contends since there no
Defendant either he should be excused en- killing, motive could amount to murder in or the crime any tirely has often been rejected contention This degree.
the Court. v. 161 A. Kravitz,
In Commonwealth : “In 216-217) Common (pages Court said 2d 861, the Court said (page 204) : supra, Novak, wealth ‘ plan or intent, design are prove motive, “Evidence *13 Commonwealth v. Homey [citing cases].”: admissible 2d 743. 94 A. “proof However, 159, Pa. er, always necessary.”: motive is relevant but never 354 Pa. 47 A. 2d Malone, ” 445.’ exceptionally dangerous Defendant is an criminal society. law-abiding who is a subtle but serious threat to penalty The and verdict, sentence the lower Court undoubtedly justified were and all con- defendant’s tentions are devoid of merit. Judgment
Verdict and of sentence affirmed. Dissenting Opinion by Me. Justice Cohen: pleaded guilty Defendant to murder. homi- The and Defendant .met the cide was bizarre barbarous. upon mutually in- decided sexual victim at bar and a in to a secluded- went defendant’s car tercourse, field, began suggestion, at undressed in car victim’s and preliminaries. Suddenly began pounding the defendant pushed grabbed her car, in out victim the face, ninety- pen her from the dash stabbed board, knife rapid concentrating on the breast succession, times got open car and ran over cut her chest, area, all confessed to Defendant the victim twice.
pleaded guilty unlawful homicide with i.e., murder, malice. to determine trial was held statute,
Pursuant defend- Commonwealth and murder. The majority, agree, Common- as does ant beyond prove a reasonable doubt that must wealth degree, the Comomnwealth i.e., beyond the murder prove doubt that a reasonable must premeditated, sometimes deliberate willful, was capsulized specific with the “murder the formula into In other words, human life”. .Com- to take intent prove beyond a reasonable doubt must monwealth time of the murder- mind at state defendant’s required of mind for first the state conformed murder.
The Commonwealth built its case the classic way showing a first mind of from state — objective weapon deadly circumstances—use of a on part length body, a vital the of time it took pre- giving commit the crime time for deliberation and (the de- Commonwealth admits that before meditation, kill) fendant struck the first he had no intent to blow subsequent and defendant’s to the homicide. actions dispute There is no serious that the Commonwealth’s support finding evidence is de- sufficient gree murder. testimony of a clinical
The defense introduced the qualifications psychologist psychiatrists. Their and two objected admissibility of their not testi- were to. The mony objected judge conditionally to. The trial ad- was admissibility ruling postponed its until mitted it psychologist and the the trial. The conclusion of personally examined defendant. had all may In as follows. Their summarized be preadolescent years into a forced defendant was relationship awith sexual continuous and unnatural per- person person opposite him had This sex. upon painful her breasts sexual acts form sadistic manipulated genitals they and while others’ each while pain. experiences yelled were traumatic These she principles pleasure-pain confusion and caused a reflex hostile an unconscious mind and in defendant’s fondling by triggered was which defendant, analysis confirmed psychiatric was This breasts. objective his- psychologist’s and the tests the clinical sadistic. was which tory life, adult sex defendant’s experts opinion that defendant’s of these It was the time at personality that, was such disorder specific to take intent not have did he homicide, deliberate and homicide life—that human premeditated.
There was no attempt to use this evidence to show that defendant was insane legally under the M’Naghten rule at the time of the crime. the experts Indeed, testified that defendant knew the nature and quality his acts and that were they wrong. Nor does de- fense us to The request change the rule. M’Naghten is not defense asserting legal a state insanity i.e., — mind would relieve criminal respon- defendant of *15 All that the is sibility. is that the evi- ashing defense dence be admissible the purpose determining for of whether there is a reasonable doubt that the state of mind the required accompanied for first homicide. In other the defense is that words, saying of must prosecution the state mind is fact which the in- a reasonable and the evidence prove beyond doubt, troduced is relevant to the existence nonexistence fact should be admitted that and, therefore, purpose. in opinion:
The trial said “The acts judge bizarre —so sense- so unusual —so the defendant were explana- motive —that the devoid of completely less—so ex- the only logical of the furnishes psychiatrists tion body The who is the fact planation. court, finding ex- to believe the psychiatric has chosen instance, the situa- dealing We are therefore planation. accept- of the is testimony tion the where swept not their where ed at face value of belief.” follows, There rug unworthy under the of whether, a discussion opinion, in the trial judge’s in ques- the testimony its notwithstanding credibility, for the limited purpose admissible legally tion is of mind did murder state first degree that a showing of the exist in defendant at time in fact, not, the lack clarity noted judge The trial homicide. cases con- question citing law on
Pennsylvania — indicate either that would result. statements taining I cannot readings opinion after several Frankly, judge tell for certain whether the trial admitted the but found it-did doubt, not create a reasonable evidence, or whether he decided under it could not our law legally be not relevant to the ulti- was admitted, i.e., any mate fact in In found defendant issue. he event, guilty parties pro- have of first murder. The assumption judge ceeded on the that the trial refused weigh to I suf- evidence. think there is defendant’s ficient did to send the case back doubt as what he should to him if that defendant’s evidence we decide have been considered. opinion majority any rec-
I do find in ognition problem. One defendant’s state- of this guilty plea questions “On a ments of involved is: psychiatric testimony charge to a murder, ability negated his mental condition of Defendant homi- premeditate, that the admissible establish degree?” cide not murder ques- of that The counter-statement Commonwealth’s plea charge guilty of murder, to a tion is: “After a *16 M’Naghten insanity Rule, under the defense absent an negate testimony first de- psychiatric be used can gree murder?” of counter-statement and the
Both the statement Com- and the questions defendant the involved court refused the lower that indicate monwealth opinion ignores majority testimony. But admit if problem the case decides and that admissibility sanctioning its admitted without had been in fact admit- not the evidence that decides then weight the Com- to overcome of not sufficient ted was degree murder. of first evidence monwealth’s psychiatric evi- psychological and that I believe showing purpose of for the be admitted should dence did not mind exist of state murder first a that insanity. legal show not it does that spite fact of finding of fact, is for the trier weight ultimate The 330
but I think the evidence should be
I
considered.
base
my belief on the following
(1)
reasons:
Defendant’s
argument
is
impeccable. The
logically
prosecution is
required to prove
doubt
a
beyond
reasonable
cer
tain specific
mind (cold
state of
existed
bloodedness)
in defendant at the
of
time
and defend
homicide,
ant’s evidence is
relevant on that
issue.
logically very
(2)
jurisdictions
Other
adhere
firmly
M’Naght
en’s rule,
complete
as a
defense to
regarding insanity
criminal
admit
this kind
responsibility,
nevertheless,
of evidence to show
of mind specifically
the state
did not
of
murder
required by the definition
first degree
exist in
at the time of the crime. See e.g.,
defendant
P. 2d
v.
386
People
Henderson,
California decisions:
;
336
2d
(1959)
677
v.
P.
492
(1963); People
Gorshen,
v.
Iowa:
;
v.
I would hold that the should be admitted, evidence the we should remand case with the direction that judgment judge the is affirmed if the trial states that weighed not rea- and it did create a he the evidence if for a sonable doubt in his but reverse new trial mind, weigh he states did not the evidence. that he I dissent. Dissenting Opinion Me. Eobeets: Justice commonplace law, hard bad
It is a cases make yet be it is we need remember. There can one that Court faced a hard no doubt that is now my opinion, Unfortunately, in the reached result case. Despite brutality represents crime, the of the bad law. overwhelming despite of the evidence existence the despite my degree, elements psychiatric dis- here evaluation own pute, majority my In unwise- view, I must dissent. psychiatric purpose for evidence ly which restricts thereby may of this binds courts be admitted, contrary enlight- rule which is to a Commonwealth authority. modern ened psychiatric testimony conceding
Although
penalty following
fixing
assist
admissible
degree,1 ma-
finding
guilty murder in the first
competent
in-
evidence
jority
such
holds that
accused acted
whether
issue
on the
admissible
(1952) ;
Elliott,
371 Pa.
with that mind state of con- necessary support to such a I viction. am unable to with the agree con- majority’s clusion. I such competent deem evidence and admissi- ble for both purposes.
When an pleads accused to guilty murder generally, the offense in the charged becomes indictment duly established as murder in the second degree. Common wealth, v. 355 Pa. A. Jones, 2d 522, 525, 50 319 317, In order to (1947). raise the to in offense murder the degree, Commonwealth has the burden es tablishing beyond reasonable doubt the slaying ,”2 premeditated. was deliberate and “willful, . . Act L. June P. as 18 P.S. 24, 1939, 872, amended, §4701; Commonwealth, rel. ex Andrews v. 420 4, Russell, A. (1986 ); 215 2d 858 Commonwealth v. 6, Kurus, 857, 371 Pa. 92 A. 2d 198 633, 196, Common 637, (1952); wealth v. A. 355 Pa. 50 2d Jones, 522, 525, 317, (1947). citation of for the authority necessary propo-
No pleaded an who has sition that even accused guilty to adduce right to has the evidence generally murder if rebut believed would evi- by factfinder, which, that all the elements nec- dence of of murder in a conviction to support essary I fail understand present. why therefore were degree statutory is: in the first of murder definition full The by by poison, perpetrated or means of be “All which shall murder pre willful, by any wait, lying kind of deliberate other or in perpetration killing, committed be which shall or meditated burglary, robbery, any -arson, rape, perpetrate attempting of, or degree. kinds All other in the first kidnapping, murder be shall degree.” June Act of in the second murder be shall of murder amended, not here are Since we §4701. P.S. L. P. by lying poison or means of committed presented murder perpetration one of committed murder wait, awith only be felonies, in the first could enumerated willful, killing finding deliberate aon predicated premeditated; majority, though recognizing even that the state
mind of the accused is the additional factor in this case which the Commonwealth establish in order must prove degree, murder in the first con- nevertheless psychiatric testimony cludes that competent is not may issue. While reasonable men differ as to *19 weight the psychiatric to testimony, be accorded it can- reasonably testimony legally be said that such is incompetent legally irrelevant the issue of state of Particularly testimony mind. is this so such when competent insanity is the when defense of is raised and the sufficiently issue is whether the accused was re- sponsible for his conduct to be held accountable in the eyes psychiatric of testimony the law.3 To hold that competent purpose competent for this but not for the purpose negating lesser of the existence of that state required support of mind to a conviction of degree unjustified. the first is inconsistent and long Legislature So distinguish as the has elected to degrees between of murder and to define murder in degree slaying as a which was de- “willful, premeditated”, liberate and I believe that this Court preclude psychiatric should not testimony the use of negate to the inference that the accused acted with that of state mind. The most realistic rule devised problem presently deal with the before this Court is that of The American Law Institute: “Evidence from the defendant suffered a mental disease or defect prove is admissible it is relevant whenever that the defendant did or did not have a state mind which is an element of the offense.” A.L.I. Model Penal Code, however, noted, It should be this area of the law could judiciary. review from a fresh the also benefit One court which adopted recently area has reviewed the the has A.D.I. Model Penal insanity. legal Freeman, See United States v. F. test Code 1966). ( step right I believe this to be a 2d 2d Cir. direction. 1982).
§4.02(1) relevant (Official Equally Draft, “if the comment immediately which rule: follows this states of mind such as or premeditation deliberation are accorded evidence legal psychiatric significance, be prove disprove should admissible when relevant their existence to the same extent as other relevant any evidence.”
Since it opinion is not clear from the of the court below that admitted evidence was for the purposes I here en- indicated, judgment would vacate there tered and remand con- so could hearing judge sider the on the psychiatric testimony issue after admitting psychiatric testimony guilt. If, for the considering purpose determining con- defendant, hearing guilt judge cludes that such is insufficient to rebut deliberation Commonwealth’s evidence willfulness, affirm of mur- I would the finding and premeditation, *20 entered since the record below, first degree der sufficient evidence adduced is indicates clearly if consider- after However, support finding. such con- hearing judge testimony, psychiatric ing rebuts the Commonwealth’s the testimony cludes and premeditation, deliberation willfulness, evidence be second should finding entered. duly opinion. dissenting joins Jones
Mr. Justice Pennington Trust.