Commonwealth v. Archambault

deliberate withdrawal of his earlier objection. Thus it is clear that defendant’s second degree murder convic- tion was amply supported plea and the evidence the record. See the ABA Project on Mini- mum Standards for Crimial Justice, Standards Relat- ing Pleas of Guilty, (Approved 1968) §1.6 Draft, which states: of a “Notwithstanding acceptance plea of the court guilty, should not enter judgment such without upon plea such making inquiry it that there satisfy factual for basis the plea.” The record here provides indeed a solid “factual basis for the plea.”5

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

The former Mr. Chief Justice Bell and the former Mr. Justice Barbieei took no part the consideration or decision of this case. support There is no record defendant’s contention involuntary. that his confession was Defendant concedes that

police practiced physical psychological upon him, coercion only argues that at time of his arrest he was under the impression employer mistaken that his mother and had also been unsupported allegation purely subjective Such an arrested. impression involuntary does not serve render an otherwise voluntary confession. Appellant. Common wealth v. Archambault, Argued reargued January December 2, 1970, 1972. Before Jones, C. J., Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts, and Manderino, JJ. Nix Pomeroy, John W. him Packet, Assistant with Defender, Vin- appellant. cent J. Ziccardi, for Defender, Milton M. Stein, Assistant Attorney, District Deputy him James D. Crawford, Attorney, District Sprague, Richard A. First Assistant Attorney, District Specter, and Arlen Attorney, District for Common- appellee. wealth, by

Opinion 1972: April Robeets, Me. Justice trial by jury after Archambault, Leonard Appellant and sen murder of first degree was convicted from taken No was tenced to life appeal imprisonment. in 1968 However, appellant conviction that time. Hear to the Post filed a Conviction petition pursuant of Ms right that he had been Act,1 deprived ing alleging 372 U.S. by Douglas California, guaranteed appeal, His was dismissed (1963). petition 83 S. Ct. but this Court court, the common pleas appeal file be appellant permitted post ordered if that Ms filed could establish timely motions failure to was motivated prosecute appeal previous v. Archam of the death penalty. fear 250 A. 2d 811 Such a show bault, 433 Pa. 336, after motion argument but made, appellant’s ing denied. direct trial was Appellant appealed new this Court, and on March Court, 25, 1971, by tMs toly of two, affirmed the sen judgment of three a vote for reargument timely A was and filed, petition tence. on 1971. The then rear May case was granted a full Court. before gued that the contends trial court erred in

Appellant I the think jury during charge: the it would telling find justice of this defendant miscarriage abe and agree We him appellant grant a guilty.”2 (1965) 25, 1966, seq., January U. §§1 P. et 19 P.S. Act of 1970). (Supp. seq. et §§1180-1 jury charge: the told the in course of court also the 2 The trial jury—and my say you, here is members comment— “I voluntary manslaughter ease, is in this and I think I don’t degree is in the second this case. I think it murder don’t think degree say guilty, question first or not murder the and of ais way.” By is that this statement and his the evidence all because it statement, justice” “miscarriage the trial court effect directed guilty degree first jury verdict murder. a to return trial.3 new To the same effect see (1972), Motley, decided 289 A. 2d 724 day. jury judge expresses a

We believe that when guilty, he invades the that the accused is province jury thereby and accused’s violates right right jury, fundamental to trial a that has guaranteed by been of this Constitution Common- wealth since 1776.4

In a criminal case direction of a verdict judge a trial is not allowed.5 For an accused has by jury, judge to trial if a trial directs the jury guilty, to return the accused has had system Our trial at all. constitutional of trial by jury upon is founded the firm conviction that the peace dignity society of our are best maintained, highest degree justice criminal achieved, power solely convict individuals crimes lies jury. with the

Justice Brandéis’ the question of observations whether of an accused, expressed over fifty years ago, still “[I]t is still the rule . . . that true today:

ring grant appellant Because we new trial on the basis of Ms contention, unnecessary appellant’s for us to first consider charging contentions trial court additional erred present, by admitting no defense of intoxication was photos certain into evidence deceased. Pennsylvania, of the Commonwealth of See Constitution Art. accompanying Purdon’s, I, §9, Historical Note in Constitution 2, at 311-12. 1 to Articles 5 Bonomo, See, e.g., 222, 230, v. Commonwealth 151 ; Orr, (1959) 276, 283, 138 445 Pa. 2d 20 Atl. Bloom, Superior ; (1890) v. 88 866 Ct. 97-98 Havrilla, Superior ; (1926) 38 Ct. 297-98 (1940) ; Wigmore. Kessler, ; §2493 1 (1909) Evidence 9 The Law of Pennsylvania (1961) ; Anderson, 136 5 Procedure Whar Criminal (1957) ; Henry, Procedure 230 2 haw and Criminal Criminal ton’s Pennsylvania (2d 1937). 651 ed. Sadler Procedure 94

is without to direct a verdict power guilty although in dispute. fudge What fact forbidden do he not do The directly, indirection. may by there- may enlighten jury and understanding inflence by their but he not use undue judgment; may influence. He he he but may advise; may persuade; not command or coerce. He does coerce may when without the will convincing judgment overcomes 6 of his by weight authority.”

Justice Brandéis has not been alone in his observa tion a cannot effect a indirectly directed verdict of As the guilty. Ap United States Court for the First “In crim peals Circuit noted: a recently inal a case court not order the to return verdict of no matter how guilty, overwhelming evi dence guilt. This is so well established principle its basis is not normally matter discussion. There undercurrent of is, however, reasons. Put deep be tried simply, of one’s peers from the exacted would be finally king meaningless could call the turn. king’s judges Bushel’s Case, 124 1006 (C.P. 1670). the exercise its Eng. Rep. must the fury be direct con only functions from free verdict, trol its but must be judicial pres free from sure, both contemporaneous Common subsequent. wealth 71 Mass. Anthes, 1857, (5 Gray) 185, 209-10; Rex v. Larkin, ^[1943] K.B. 174; P. Devlin, Trial (3d impr. 75-91 Jury 14, 56, addendum, T. 1966); A the Common Plucknett, History Concise Law 137- Howe, Juries as 1956); ed. (5th Judges Criminal L. Rev. (1939).” 52 Harv. Law, Columbia, Horning 135, 139, v. District 254 U.S. S. Ct. opinion) (1920) (dissenting (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Spock, (1st 1969) 416 F. States 180-81 United Cir. omitted). States, (footnotes Buchanan See v. United 244 F. 2d 1957). (6th Cir.

95' in some of previous The weakness our now-apparent could judge decisions8 was the the trial supposition his on accused, personal opinion tell here, even as the trial court did that: jury, “I it of find justice think would be a miscarriage “the defendant not somehow still leave yet guilty,”a,nd ultimate decision to and not “interfere jury” its This fails to recognize responsibility.”9 assumption of actualities the judge-jury relationship.

An in expression by judge accused is leaves an indelible imprint minds undoubtedly The is jury. jury going attribute because judge, experience criminal cases, special expertise determining guilt or innocence. As Mr. Justice Kep Justice) Chief (later stated for this Court: “The judge occupies hart exalted and he is the dignified position; person one whom the with rare jury, looks exceptions, guid and from ance, whom the absolute im litigants expect An partiality. indicative favor or con expression demnation is reflected box. ... quickly jury To from the line of depart clear duty through questions, expressions conduct, contravenes the admin orderly justice. istration of It has the to take from tendency one of the parties the to a fair and impartial trial, our guaranteed under system jurisprudence.”10 as the United Or, States Supreme Court recognized Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 66 607, S. Ct. 612, “ 405 ‘The 402, (1946): influence the trial 8 See, e.g., Rundle, Commonwealth ex rel. Smith v. 423 Raymond, (1966); Commonwealth v. 223 A. 88 2d 412 Pa. Cisneros, (1963) ; A. 2d 150 381 Pa. A. (1955). 2d 293 Raymond, Commonwealth v. 194, 208, (1963). Myma, 123 Atl. weight/ and properly great necessarily that fall . words . . are ever watchful jurors the judge’s in a criminal trial, from him. Particularly be the decisive word.”11 last apt word on the guilt of his opinion A expression judge’s on the effect even coercive an accused has an greater be a would here the states when as not guil find the defendant of to justice” “miscarriage a judge with “A not mind ty. juror may disagreeing much placing very factual but he would dislike matters who has participated the category person himself Com judicially proclaimed.” in a of justice, miscarriage 150, 194 2d 412 Pa. 194, 210, monwealth v. Raymond, 158 (dissenting opinion).12 (1963) is likely effect that a jury

In of the decisive light his opinion statement that to to give judge’s instructions cautioning it is clear that accused is guilty, the final arbiter that is jury to the effect the impact to vitiate are insufficient the one such as charge a lengthy statement. judge’s trial, to the at jury appellant’s given that was “I a miscar- it would be that think statement judge’s not guilty” find this defendant justice riage that no juror forget will charge one part un- instructions will be Cautionary understand. fail to a statement. indelible such impact able to remove monwealth misconduct Pilot attaches use of Cir. Cisneros, (dissenting ^[12] 11 1968) ; “they Project, One For 381 additional former v. opinion) themselves phrase see also judge’s Pa. Cisneros, they acquitted Justice “miscarriage ; O’Mara, Bar Ass’n United States observations opinion might of this 113 have to Standard the defendant.” 447, 460, Q. A. 2d on the v. 166, justice” guilt Smith, answer 293, 173 Jury 113 great weight suggested of an 297 (1972). 399 F. 2d indicates A. 2d Charges—Findings for some (1955) accused, Commonwealth 293, that a 896, that a 300 (dissenting species see 898 judge’s (1955) Com (6th v. opinion).

97 Ct. 88 S. States, 391 U.S. Bruton v. United Cf. Ct. 84 S. (1968) 378 U.S. Denno, Jackson v. ; (1964). today, holding a trial

In. do as we directly guilty nor suggest or not a verdict of the de or innocence on the merely reaching result which arewe fendant, harmony general area— in this our latest decisions 254 A. Wilmer, v. (1969) Holton, and Commonwealth , the trial In both of these cases A. 2d 228 responsi jurors charge their in his had reminded proper bility Almighty bring We in a verdict. “ ‘jurors might grounds have on the reversed threatening them with . . . concluded that the Court was they bring of not in a verdict the wrath of Cod should ” guilty.’ supra, 434 Pa. at Wilmer, (quoting from Commonwealth A. 2d 232). supra, Cer 247 A. 2d at Holton, 432 Pa. at 19, tha,t tainly by judge in his a direct statement province the the of the accused is invades just judge’s much if more a statement as, as than, Almighty implying that he the can discern will upon jury and that Cod’s wrath will be the visited they guilty. fail to return a holding in

Our case a number also eliminates opposite exist under the rule. anomalies would example, recently For we held in v. Commonwealth (1971), 445 Pa. Potter, 285 2d 492 that a new 284, required prosecutor expressed trial the when his personal opinion credibility of the defendant’s presence jury. prosecutor of the We reasoned that the “thereby clearly improperly upon intrud[ed] the jury’s evaluating credibility function exclusive prose- 285 A. Id. at 2d at If witnesses.” 493.13 a 13 Project set forth American Bar The standards Association Justice, (Ap- for The on Criminal Prosecution Function Standards of a defend- cutor cannot Ms personal opinion express func- jury’s ant’s intruding upon without credibility cannot whose tion, permit judge, opinion we fortiori a far on of an accused has guilt greater impact of an such an jury, opinion guilt express accused. we have held times new addition, many

trials would he in a where case granted evidenced a or attitude the de- prejudiced biased toward or his conduct acted as an for fendant,14 advocate If are Commonwealth.15 new trials cases required such these where the indicated judge only indirectly belief in can his how we refuse guilt accused, here the new where as grant judge directly his specifically expressed personal opinion accused was guilty.16 proved 1970), §5.8(b), upon Potter, pro- Draft which we relied unprofessional prosecutor conduct

vide : “It is personal falsity any testimony as to the truth belief or or evidence of the defendant.” Responsibility provides: ABA of Professional “In The Code professional capacity tribunal, appearing lawyer in his before a personal credibility [a]ssert not . . ... as to shall . of a witness ... or as innocence of an accused. . .” . Special American Bar Association Committee on Evaluation of Eth- Standards, Responsibility (Final of Professional Draft ical Code 1969), 7-106(0) (4). DR Hales, e.g., See, Commonwealth 384 Pa. 119 A. 2d ; Trunk, 555, 565-66, (1956) Commonwealth v. 311 Pa. 167 Atl. generally Annotation, (1933) ; (1970). 34 A.L.R. see 3d 1313 McCoy, See, e.g., 162 A. 2d Myma, ; (1960) 123 Atl. Project Bar of the American Association on Mini §5.6 Cf. Justice, Relating Standards to Trial for Criminal mum Standards 1968). provides: Jury (Approved Draft That section “Judicial appropriate it is court While to thank Verdict. Comment service, public jurors of a trial for their conclusion such at the praise or criticism of their include verdict.” should comments

99 with, oar liere in accord Flually, result is view jurisdictions.17 of other majority overwhelming The trial and a new judgment sentence vacated is granted.

Mr. Justice joins Nix majority opinion filed a concurring opinion.

Mr. Justice joins Manderino the majority opinion joins of Mr. Justice Nix. concurring opinion Mr. Justice Eager filed a dissenting opinion. Concurring Opinion Mr. Justice Nix: I am pleased to today witness demise of doc- trine that have long believed have been inconsistent 17 See, e.g., State, (Fla. App. Robinson v. 161 So. 2d 578 D.C. 1964) ; People Chatman, App. 481, v. 67 Ill. 2d 214 N.E. 545 2d (1966) ; Cox, (Mo. 1961) ; People v. State 2d 352 S.W. 665 v. Mul vey, (1956); State, 1 A.D. 2d 151 N.Y.S. 2d 587 Tilford (Okla. App. 1968) ; 437 P. 261 Crim. Ct. Holober v. Common wealth, (1951); Loveless, Va. S.E. 62 2d 816 State v. (1955) ; generally W. Va. S.E. 2d see 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law, (1961) ; Comment, §993 Power to Comment on the Issue of by Jury by Judge, Guilt: Trial or Trial 9 Till. L. liev. 440 jurisdiction gone One has so far as to state that a trial says anything might prejudice does or which or be con- indicating guilt strued a belief in defendant’s innocence, Ethics, violation Canons of Judicial Canon Sanders, (Mo. occurred. See State has S.W. 2d 1962). Murdock, (1933), States v. United 290 U.S. 54 S. Ct. 223 Supreme power the United States restricted of federal guilt judges an of an accused to “exceptional cases.” Id. 54 S. Ct. at 225. Intermediate courts, interpreting applying Murdock, generally federal have agreed only as to the defendant war undisputed, only the facts are and the issue ranted when is whether ques a violation conduct constitutes of the statute defendant’s Smith, e.g., See, (6th States v. United 399 F. 2d 896 tion. Cir. States, 1968) ; (10th 1963) v. United F. ; 2d 75 McBride Cir. Woods, (2d 1958) ; 252 F. 2d 334 Cir. United States Davis v. (10th States, 1955) ; 2d 568 227 F. Cir. United United States v. 1953). (3d Link, F. 2d 592 Cir. To have unfair. manifestly and with realities practical of of a held that a direction consistently and improper criminal case was in a judge trial created to guilt as opinion his yet expression condone or reason logic. in in an our law anomaly unsupportable majority of the which opinion in the join I, therefore, has been overdue. long result its that however, reaching regret, down those find it strike necessary did not

majority of the judge the statement decisions where The trial the former standard. even under offensive ex rel. at bar as in Commonwealth in the case judge A. (1966); 2d 88 Com Rundle, Smith v. Raymond, monwealth and Commonwealth v. Cisneros,

(1963); in addition expressing 113 A. 2d 293 (1955), went further defendant, as to the guilt opinion failure to view jury’s and that his accept suggested The former justice.” been a “miscarriage would have re comment “the provided only rule, permitting while he must advise the that any being striction in that connection is not binding he states upon thing is their sole power responsibility them but that it defendant, innocence of the to determine murder . . .” degree guilt. and in cases Simmons, 65 A. 2d 391, 407, clearly requirement It was should be done fairly temper expression at no time should the ultimate decision be ately from implicitly province expressly removed jury. the observations of with the late Justice agree We Mtjsmanno dissenting opinion “But this even rule, stated the Ma- v. Raymond: it a very important within carries jority, modification; must express judge namely, ‘fairly him- not express The there did temperately’. self he held ‘fairly temperately’. Metamorphically over He told them that the heads whip jury. did not their would they contrary with view agree him, to a of lan- justice’. amount This kind ‘miscarriage A juror may seems smacks coercion. guage, me, not mind tactual matters disagreeing but he would much very dislike himself placing category who has a mis- person participated carriage justice, judicially proclaimed.” ex- (1963). This was not an of an but rather an pression indictment of any who would dare to differ.

By abandoning the former rule the will majority many injustices. avoid future However, by failing reach and overrule Commonwealth ex Run rel. Smith v. supra; dle, supra; Raymond, Commonwealth v. Cisneros, supra, they perpetuate former inequities permitted within the allegedly ambit I that doctrine. this cannot With agree.

Mr. joins. Justice Manberino Dissenting Opinion Eagen Mr. Justice : On March 1971, majority who heard the originally appeal, former speaking through Mr. Chief Justice affirmed Bell, judgment sen- tence. Although reargument was subsequently granted, advanced second nothing during round has persuad- ed me that our order original of affirmance was erron- I would eous. still affirm the Hence, judgment for the reasons articulated persuasive of our former Chief Justice. take privilege setting forth the opinion of in Justice Bell

former Chief pertinent part: August 10, 1962, “On Edward Bleecher, a blind man a hotel night manager who was Philadelphia, de- to death strangled beaten and then badly in the vic- Leonard Archambault, fendant-appellant, Archam- tim’s hours of the early morning. room, bault and later writ- orally lengthy confessed, signed ten on every confession at the end and also thereof, He his written confession after page. having signed been warned of his and after stated duly rights having therein that his confession was free and vol- absolutely and was without threats untary given any force, fears, inducements kind. his con- any promises Archambault admitted that he fessions, went in order Mm, hotel room to rob and that after keeper’s he blind man’s he found room, left the his pocket $45 he could not account which for. a witness Moreover, for the Commonwealth testified before this that, shortly Archambault him him robbery-murder, join asked the hotel robbing keeper. “In his Archambault confessions, said that earlier had committed evening sexual intercourse with another man. Archambault further stated both his (in confessions) oral and written that when he thereafter hotel room in went to victim’s order rob him, Archambault to victim asked have sexual relations with this infuriated Archambault so him, much that, he after him striking Bleecher, to strangled death. a “On December jury found Archambault had not taken witness (who stand) guilty murder and fixed the punishment the first degree, at life im- At his trial, Archambault prisonment. was represented court-appointed experienced two No attorneys. post filed motions were his trial nor behalf, was any from the judgment taken sentence. appeal January “On Archambault filed a petition hearing relief, for post-conviction alleging that he had and intelligently waived knowingly not his right to a a After hearing, his appeal. petition direct was dis- to this Court. he took an appeal whereupon missed* 250 A. 2d Commonwealth v. Archambault, below we remanded the case to the Court an failure take whether Archambault’s to hearing or his fear of was due to his lawyers’ advice, appeal the death trial. The Court receiving penalty at second Division) peti- Common Pleas denied (Trial tion for as as motion for a new trial. relief, well to file a him the However, granted direct appeal.

“Archambault’s contention is principal error charge trial constituted reversible because the Judge expressed therein his as appellant’s He our guilt. urges us to overrule prior decisions and our abandon rule this long-established that a opin- Judge ion as to the if he guilt innocence defendant, leaves solely the determination of innocence and the crime, of which the defendant any, This guilty. we decline to do. More particularly, portions charge which, contends constitute such prejudicial error as to a reversal of require jury’s and the verdict, grant of a new are trial, follows: “ are the three I ‘They crimes. say members you, of the jury—and here is my I comment—that don’t think in this voluntary manslaughter I case, don’t think murder in the second is in degree I case. think it is question murder degree or first I it say because all guAlty, the evidence is that I ... make comment way*. but that again, comment can be totally disregarded you, because it is entirely for be you. think would miscarriage justice to find this defendant not guilty.’

* ours, throughout Italics unless otherwise noted.” this: did the “The real issue before us boils down to on Archambault’s Judge’s guilt comments the crimes possible impair improperly unfairly absolute determine innocence or any, as as of which crimes, well guilty?

“This has many reviewing Court held times that and reversible we must charge prejudicial error, consider whole. Commonwealth v. charge 442 Pa. 272 A. 2d Butler, 916; Commonwealth A. 2d Whiting, 409 563; 381 Pa. In Lance, 113 A. 2d 290. Pa., this Court said Butler, supra, pertinently ‘: “It is (page 34) elementary instructions be read whole must as a and correctness thereof from

adequacy determined Com reading: monwealth v. 184 Atl. 97 Thompson, (1936); Commonwealth v. 76 A. 2d Gibbs, (1950).’” Lance, 381 Pa., the same supra, expressed principle slight ly different ‘The language 298): charge must be (page considered in its and error cannot be entirety predicated on certain from isolated excerpts (Commonwealth v. Moyer, which what 736); defendant attempts do court contending his evidence. . . .’ disparged examine “When we the Court’s in its charge entirety, we find that defendant-appellant was unfairly The unjustly prejudiced. above-quoted from excerpts were covered charge Court’s and explained instructions Judge’s repeated jury that it and it alone was to determine ultimate innocence or guilt For example, the Court charged: defendant. me the you complete, ‘. . . And final, unequivocal no matter arbiter verdict, what I say. “ ‘I am make a going comment, but the last have the only you, analysis you, ultimate, final re- ease and to to this unequivocal decide responsibility four verdicts. of these possible turn and one, only one, “murder”, . Do that? . . Under you understand murder can find one of these three verdicts: you in or voluntary murder the second degree first degree, are you / I but think, will tell what manslaughter. you I ex- say, I what not bound matter think, what as to the cept law. “ ‘ in I later on I will make a comment when get, I as to what direction to to my charge you, you, my on you, all binding but what I think is not at think, un- I and that, say again, remember because please com- case is this determination equivocally, final . . . you. with entirely the hands pletely jw~y, understand, jury, members of the Nevertheless, please I so will you my finger you me—and am pointing what I am saying—it understand the emphasis of verdict. any to your entirely, completely, power find “ a will exercise intelli- hope ‘We always but and and gence wisely intelligently, use its power to I take from you power this cannot case, away if you a in the second degree return murder man- voluntary decide or a verdict unanimously, so I remember, . But if so decide. . . slaughter please you am, but it is entirely, completely, giving you my thought, and it be, to the verdict shall shall be you say what for . But it is entirely, one those verdicts. . possible four think it it is yon. you differently, completely, If for for and it will be controls, you say your thought four one these verdicts will possible you bring which deliberated and decided unanimously in after have you in. . . . But, verdicts members bring what I say emphasis, is en- that, too, again, jury, and, can’t yon else nobody tirely, completely, for so you, you or prevent unanimously de- stop you cam if in a verdict murder in the cide, second bring from . and whether asserts, . The Commonwealth degree. . for you, you the assertion not is entirely is so . if you can is. . . But only decide what evidence you doubt, find a reasonable those be the facts beyond defendant finding then would be warranted you find of murder in the first because degree, you rob, to be facts you agreement those find in, pockets out, money taken, turned going robbing, radio taken, death, bruises, strangulated throat with around the towel throat. “ ‘But whether that is so entirely, completely, finally of the have you. Then, jury, you members for for or right, you so decide unanimously any reason, if your evidence, reasons establish from the themselves to find this defendant not This is guilty. entirely for But that it is you.... again say entirely, emphatically completely, because finally, you, unequivocally yours for is the power of a full, honest, intelligent impartial, consideration of case to the the what verdict shall say be. And it shall one be verdicts, these four and sheet will out go you.’

“In the the light and repeated crystal clear state- ments the Court’s we are charge, convinced the was not or jury coerced unfairly and influ- improperly enced to in a verdict of bring murder first degree. we note that

“Furthermore, appellant’s experienced counsel trial made the time of objection, the trial to the comments Court’s and instructions to the jury he complains. which now

“In Commonwealth v. Chambers, 367 Pa. A. 79 said this : (page 2d ‘It 161) is the exclusive of the the jury, court, province decide all inferences facts, therefrom, credibility of the and the and weight witnesses effect be given to all of the main testimony. While purpose is to

107 evi- review the briefly state the law and explain duty and sometimes it is always dence, privilege including his own opinion, of the evidence weight effect the guilt or even its weakness points strength in his which verdict, and the innocence of defendant there (1) render, provided should judgment, make; he may statement any is reasonable ground to decide (2) leaves clearly in the case, all the involved every facts question Com- court thereon: regardless any opinion A. 711; 81 Pa. 609, monwealth v. 232 Cunningham, A. 2d 72 Pa. 288, Commonwealth v. 364 Foster, 391, 407, Commonwealth v. 279; Simmons, 92, 97, 353; Watts, Commonwealth Pa. 541, 551, A. 2d 81; Jones, Pa. 418, A. 2d Nafus, 389; 154 A. 485.’ 420-1,

“More ex rel. Smith recently com A. 2d Bundle, appellant comment that a not guilty trial Court’s plained rejected of justice’. would be We 'miscarriage 'In of this 97): and said view contention, (page Smith’s own trial we record, particularly testimony, find no merit in the that the trial argument judge’s be a that a not verdict would miscar comment, guilty unwarranted or unfair. This is justice, was riage since it also that the received especially so, appears careful the determination of all fac instructions that for its and questions solely decision, tual that verdict could be returned.’ This same lan not guilty of justice’* was used guage, i.e., 'miscarriage specifically * complaints language, In of the numerous about this and view possibility avoiding strong language the that such in the interest of jury, unfairly prejudice phrase might the Court believes that this Judge a trial not hereafter be used his comments or should jury.” charge the to a trial Com Judge approved by and this 293; mon-wealth v. 113 A. Cisneros, 381 Pa. Commonwealth A. 194, 194 v. Pa. 2d 150. Raymond,

“In the record in reviewing case, particularly this Archambault’s we find confessions, prejudicial reversible error in the trial Judge’s charge.

“The cases are relied dis- upon by appellant clearly tinguishable. Ott, 417 Pa. A. 2d 874, this Court trial because the granted new stated in Judge that he without charge duty had any qualification to comment on The Court held guilt. use of these words result may jury’s that a choice concluding they is the only have. the Court said However, 272-273): (pages “ ‘In connection right an express on the opinion and effect of the weight evi- this dence, Court said Commonwealth Cunningham, 81 A. supra, Pa. at 712: “It the undoubted often right judge, duty, jury his opinion effect weight evidence.” “ ‘For the as far time, first as our research discloses, in Commonwealth v. Nafus, A. 485 held (1931), this Court that a trial also ex- as to press innocence of the defendant. And in many cases since, has right been reaffirmed (1) that it is provided exercised fairly there temperately; (2) is reasonable ground any statement judge may make; and (3) leaves to clearly decide all the every case, facts question regardless of his : Raymond, Commonwealth 194, 194 2d 150 Commonwealth (1963); v. Chester, 410 Pa. A. 2d 323 (1963); v. Patskin, 2d 704 93 A. (1953); 56 A. 2d 81 Watts, “ ‘In connection the of the trial express as to the or innocence the guilt in accused, was said Nafus, Commonwealth v. supra, at 154 A. Pa., at sometimes* 486, “that it was his duty do so.” Moyer, Pa. 53 A. 2d 736 “in held some it was (1947), cases” it such an duty opinion. express in Likewise, Common wealth v. Chambers, supra, 79 A. 2d 204, we said “. . . it is always privi lege sometimes the of a trial duty* his own opinion, including weight effect the evidence or its points strength or weakness even the or innocence guilt of the defendant and the verdict in his which, should judgment, jury render. . ..” See also, Commonwealth v. Patskin, supra. in no However, case within our been has it knowledge said that it is ahoays* the court duty to do so, clearly language this Court has ever indicated that a judge should feel to do compelled so every case, regardless nature, quality quantity the proof.’

“In Commonwealth v. Young, 211 A. we reversed and granted new trial because of following language Court’s charge: ‘“My . comment. . and have a reason good it.** making ’ . . .” This Court held that a jury could conclude that a trial was in Judge possession facts, disclosed evidence, that proved guilt defendant. In Commonwealth v. Holton, 432 11, 247 2d 228, and Commonwealth v. Wilmer, 254 A. 2d stated to the Judge its to God responsibility determining innocence of the defendant. We new granted because we believed that have could concluded that the Judge was threaten Commonwealth, * Italics Ott." Commonwealth, Young." ** Italicsin ing they bring them in a with the of God should wrath guilty. verdict of not experience

“From the centuries the several law permits, Judge under certain a trial circumstances, testimony any part comment on a witness’s or on evidence and to view evi- alleged provided dence and of the crimes and defenses, expresses opinion fairly temperately he ground any that there is reasonable statement importantly, clearly most that he make, and, leaves every all decide the facts and question regardless opinion. in the case of his The rea- justification (although rarely for this son and ever ex- Judge’s pressed) knowledge experience is that a analysis may reaching aid the times, ' just verdict.” Motley, Appellant.

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Archambault

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Apr 20, 1972

Citation: 290 A.2d 72

Docket Number: Appeal, 469

Court Abbreviation: Pa.