Commonwealth v. Campbell, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 4, 1973
451 Pa. 465 | 304 A.2d 121
In thе instant case, appellant was subjected to a trial in which evidence was produced that was related solely to crimes with which appellant had no connection.
Judgment of sentence reversed and case remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, for a new trial.
Argued November 27, 1972. Before JONES, C. J., EAGEN, O‘BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
James Shellenberger, Assistant District Attorney, with him James T. Ranney and Milton M. Stein, Assistant District Attorneys, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE POMEROY, May 4, 1973:
On February 8, 1972, appellant entered pleas of not guilty to four separate indictments charging murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter and unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license. All charges arose out of the shooting of one Wesley Nichols in the early morning hоurs of December 24, 1970. A jury trial was waived. Two days after the commencement of trial before a judge, and while presentation of the Commonwealth‘s case was still in progress, appellant notified the court that he wished to change his plea to guilty of voluntary manslaughter. An on-the-record colloquy ensued, at the conclusion of which the plea was аccepted. In due course appellant was sen-
Appellant‘s sole contention is that his plea of guilty to voluntary manslaughter was not knowing and intelligent, because it was made without an awareness of the nature of that offense. He bottoms this argument on
Appellant contends initially that the trial judge gave him a faulty explanation of voluntary manslaughter and that this misled him into believing that his plea аdmitted only that he had shot and killed Nichols, and that he would not be precluded from showing that this had been done in self-defense. The court in its recitation to the defendant of the chargеs against him, during the colloquy after the plea had been tendered, defined voluntary manslaughter as “the intentional killing of another human being with malice, with legal provocation, where there exists passion, to the extent that you cannot form what we call the sufficient mens rea to be held accountable.” (Emphasis added). The accepted
A reading of the entire colloquy also satisfies us that appellant was not misled by the court‘s statement that voluntary manslaughter does not involve “sufficient mens rea to be held accountable“. The term “mens rea” was not explained to the defendant. The court did, however, emphasize that defendant was pleading guilty to an unlawful killing, and that it was a crime more serious than involuntary manslaughter, which was correctly defined. The range of sentences for the two types of manslaughter were also correctly stated.2
Finally, the claim that the trial court erred by accepting appellant‘s plea without investigating his version of the facts must be rejected. We have recently
As stated at the outset, the Commonwealth had been presenting its case for almost two dаys before the guilty plea was tendered. The evidence adduced prior to the plea showed that at approximately 4:00 A.M. on December 24, 1970, Wesley Nichols, in his bed clothes, and appellant, fully dressed, were grappling on the porch of Nichols’ home on Chancellor Street in Philadelphia. Two shots were fired from a pistol, one fracturing appellant‘s leg in three places, the other inflicting the wound which ultimately proved fatal. The victim died on March 6, 1971, following four unsuccessful operations. While there were no eyеwitnesses to the shooting, the deceased was able to get to a neighbor‘s house and summon help. To the neighbor and again upon reaching the hospital a short time later, Nichols declared that it was appellant who had shot him, and that this had occurred while appellant was attempting to commit a robbery. These statements were admitted at trial as res gestae and dying declaration exceptions to the hearsay rule. They unquestionably provided ample factual basis for the guilty plea. Appellant, of coursе, was present when this evidence was introduced; his decision to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter was no doubt influenced by the realization that continuation of the trial and a rejеction of his purported
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Mr. Justice NIX concurs in the result.
CONCURRING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS:
I agree that Commonwealth v. Maddox, 450 Pa. 406, 300 A. 2d 503 (1973), mandates the majority‘s result. Accord, Commonwealth v. Jackson, 450 Pa. 417, 299 A. 2d 209 (1973).
However, I must reject the notion that Maddox, supra, established for the first time the requirement that before accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must first satisfy itself that a factual basis for the plea exists. In Commonwealth ex rel. West v. Rundle, 428 Pa. 102, 106, 237 A. 2d 196, 198 (1968), this Court said: “... the trial court is best advised to conduct an on the record examination of the defendant which should inсlude, inter alia, an attempt to satisfy itself that the defendant understands the nature of the charges, his right to a jury trial, the acts sufficient to constitute the offenses for which he is charged and the permissible range of sentences.” (Emphasis added) (Footnotes omitted). (The United States Supreme Court cited this language with approval in Boykin v. United States, 395 U.S. 238, 244 n.7, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 1713 n.7 (1969)).
In 1968, this Court promulgated an amendment to
“It is difficult to formulate a checklist оf questions which the judge should ask in making his determination as to whether he will accept the guilty plea. It is recommended that he at least ask questions to elicit the following information:
“(1) Does the defendant understand the nature of the charges to which he is pleading guilty?
(2) What acts defendant performed and whether these acts constitute the crime charged?” (Emphasis added.).*
....
Thus, sincе at least February 3, 1969--the effective date of amended
Indeed, this Court adhered to the factual basis requirement in Commonwealth v. LaCourt, 448 Pa. 86, 292 A. 2d 377 (1972)--decided over seven months prior to this Court‘s decision in Maddox. There, we unanimously statеd: “Thus it is clear that defendant‘s second degree murder conviction was amply supported by his guilty plea and the evidence in the record. See the ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminаl Justice, Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty, §1.6 (Approved Draft, 1968) which states: ‘Notwithstanding the acceptance of a plea of guilty, the court should not enter a judgment upon such plеa without making such inquiry as may satisfy it that there is a factual basis for the plea.’ The record here indeed provides a solid ‘factual basis for the plea.‘” Id. at 90, 292 A. 2d at 379-80 (emphasis addеd).
Mr. Justice MANDERINO joins in this concurring opinion.