*1 190 under them was submitted decide,
for the
not
will
and we
instructions,
sufficiently appropriate
not prejudice
which did
for error
disturb
verdict
127 Pa.
Pizzo et ux.,
v. Del
Santercangelo
plaintiff:
et
v. Sentle
Renner et
A.
al.,
Ct.
193
280;
304,
Superior
2d
Stady
A.
220;
Ct.
30
Pa. Superior
151
al.,
A. 2d 694.
Ct.
Pa. Superior
Martocello,
any-
over
complaint
not
plaintiff’s present
not say,—
did
what
but, rather,
the court said
thing
fault
to reversible
amounting
at most,
negative
for
instruc-
request
ignored
error in
absence of
et ux. v. Chambers,
Harman
cognate
tions in
regard:
Argued September Before C. J., Drew, Ladner and Stearne, Jones, Bell, Stern, Chidsey, JJ. appellant. Saye,
William H. for Attorney, Huette Shelley, Carl him B. with District appellee. Dowling, Attorney, F. Assistant District Opinion Mr. Justice Jones, January 7, 1952: appellant, The upon Guerino Carluccetti, tried two charging indictments respectively, him, murder of Emilio and Laura a husband Giovannetti, and insanity wife. The defense was at the time of the killings. guilty The found the defendant of murder degree in the first on each indictment fixed the penalty at death. Motions for a new trial were filed appeals overruled; took these judgments from the of sentence entered on the verdicts. early homicides morn- were committed ing April village in the Station, Swatara Dauphin Hershey County, adjoins the town years thirty-eight on the west. Carluccetti was then living minor married and with his two old, wife *4 daughters dwelling For in a at at Station. Swatara years day question, preceding in least fifteen next employed by Hershey Cor- he had Chocolate been poration. by police
The defendant was arrested short- officers ly killings placed custody after the and was in Pennsylvania training State Police at their school Hershey. complete there, While he made a full and day, the afternoon of in- statement on the same under by police terrogation perpetration as to his officers, imme- homicides and as the the attendant as well diately antecedent A State policeman circumstances. typed the statement Carluccetti signed which swore to before a signa- local his justice peace, ture State being subscribing police- witnessed three men. the State police Further which investigation, that Carluccetti promptly developed the fact undertook, had priorly acquaintances complained friends had mak- been victims homicidal his assault him. ing concerning false slanderous statements Because of on the information, police this the State took a second statement day (April 3rd) succeeding Har- at police the accused the State barracks four risburg of a detective presence county the first policemen. State confirmed That statement all matter as respects and contained the additional been circulated said had slanders Carluccetti about to typewritten was reduced him; likewise form and him. Both of statements were signed by these ob- received evidence trial the defendant’s at over any sug- nor jections. is, There neither however, ob- nor were gestion intimation the statements overreaching tained or of intimidation result in- the accused part police. Not only silent, but, formed to remain right of his police averred that expressly in the he statement, second him counsel had instructed name) (identified by if he wished to make statement any he did not have im- Nor statements otherwise do' so. were in ob- the police far as the pugned participation so statement After the second concerned. taining them is in the Dauphin lodged been Carluccetti was taken, at, on anticipated await trial Harrisburg County jail returned. duly for murder which indictments the defendant’s request On May Spear, Dr. J. Irving in jail by he examined family, Maryland; Baltimore, and psychiatrist a neurologist *5 subsequent petition and on of counsel for the defend- Oyer Dauphin the ant, Court of and Terminer of Coun- ty May on appointed commission exam- ine into capacity. the current defendant’s mental On June having commission, heard several Spear witnesses principal of whom Dr. was the one, reported to court lacked then capacity requisite mental standing to his trial; and, by order day, of court entered on the same he was trans- Hospital Waymart, ferred to the Farview State at Wayne Pennsylvania. County, He remained there until May upon petition Superin- 1949, when, setting hospital, tendent of the forth Carluceetti Dauphin Oyer the Court of Terminer sane, County releasing entered order the defendant custody Hospital Sheriff the State Dauphin County indictments trial the two await standing against trial was him. The murder already September stated. with result having killed Oiovannet-
The defendant admits indisputable fact. tis is an the evidence, under which, time His sole he was insane defense was that killings. to a A essential recital of the facts is appellant eight consideration of the reasons which aside why set be advances should now convictions granted. trial new morning Sunday, On the days March two 31st, before the homicides, defendant went to Lebanon, Pennsylvania, where he asked his cousin, Warren Philadelphia to take him to Ceresini, see doctor. agreed Ceresini the two them set out his au- En tomobile. route, defendant told his cousin that Henry Selvaggi, he wanted to their see in Phila- uncle, delphia. why, When asked “He said that there were people Hershey talking around about him [Carluceetti], that he in the Black Hands.” He said that the doing talking people Emilio and who were *6 “If and that and Pace Laura one Ottavio Giovannetti kill them.” him he about would they didn’t stop talking return the latter’s The uncle upon defendant saw his and, private, late afternoon home from work were he lived” to him that “where people complained names.” of “all him kinds him and calling bothering stay home and “go him to counselling the uncle’s Upon people,” them with tangle don’t and your family, bother people if “them told uncle the defendant his calling me and bothering on keep too if they me much, The somebody.” kill I will day Black some me Hand, then drove Ceresini and thereafter shortly ended visit the Giovannettis things home. The the defendant saying of them, other or the or one and Pace, to about were that he defendant, according him, Black that he had tried was member Hand, relations have with Mrs. improper Giovannetti, that he had been of some unnatural guilty practices. m. on
About 6:15 a. on Ottavio April 2nd, Pace, in front on the sidewalk way walking his was work, in the The defendant was of the defendant’s home. greeted a bush. Pace hole to yard digging plant small he why going him the defendant asked that he from the defendant receiving response work, or six seven Pace had walked “off When today”. he heard a shot. feet, He turned around and asked the defendant, “Bill, you what are for?” shooting Pace then ran across the street to where his brother-in-law, (a Alfonse Carluccetti brother defendant) Joe Pompino were standing urged them to “Do he is me.” The something, shooting defendant with re- volver followed “Let hand, having Pace, warned him I want to him.” He be, finish then fired three more two of shots, Pace, which struck as had also the first as evidenced that Pace three bullet shot, by fact and testi- however, wounds his body. recovered, He fied at trial. shooting proceeded
After Pace, the defendant a dis- tance some two hundred feet to a double frame dwelling occupied house the one side which was family and the Giovannettis other side a' named alleyway along Martini. An to the rear ran either side passing The the house. in front of the defendant, portion dwelling, alleyway Giovannetti used get on the side in Martini order to the rear stoop At residence. the back of Martini Giovannetti family, Basilio the father home, Martini, bending brushing trousers. over some dirt explained, he later defendant, “afraid”, *7 going going stop to the Martini [him] “was seri- him. wound not shot The house”, Giovannetti natural causes died of ous and Martini recovered but some time before the trial.
Going to the rear door of the Giovannetti home, apparently which was closed and locked, the defend- weight against ant his threw the breaking door and, open, entered. Mrs. Giovannetti came downstairs, seeing the but, defendant, who had his automatic re- upstairs volver his she ran hand, back and her hus- shotgun. band came down with a Giovannetti asked the for defendant the reason the commotion. The defend- deceptively ant told him him had shot someone go doorway leading which caused Giovannetti to to the whereupon the the outside defendant shot him sev- eral from behind. Giovannetti times wheeled around again and the defendant shot him in the chest. The proved immediately fatal and wounds Giovannetti fell up floor. The then fired a to the shot the stairway anyone. not hit He did laid but his revolver (saying it then later contained two on a table himself) cartridges to kill he had reserved and which shotgun up floor the picked from the he un- up- be loaded. He found to went and breached shotgun Mrs. Giovannetti the with stairs followed. backing she the bathroom. There, who was toward slipped the or fell into the bathtub where de- either upon the shot- fendant rained her head with blows gun he had beaten her to death. until
Having the the defendant took Giovannettis, killed and retraced table, from the left house his revolver way steps his On four- home. his his there, toward gun year daughter from his hand. old knocked teen bystander placed overpowered He at once custody police. in the insanity, support the defendant of his defense of In neurologist testimony Spear, upon of Hr. relied psychiatrist had him a examined month after who killings testified before the commission question following. On defendant’s in June time of the the Com- homicides, mental condition fifteen rebuttal some witnesses called monwealth acquaintances or had been associates most of whom many years up time of the defendant friendly him either and had been homicides or as or community he lived fellow workers where lodge members. principal appellant’s contention is that evi- of murder verdicts to warrant
dence insufficient *8 penalty In degree of death. the the in the first by testimony the light Commonwealth, adduced of the appellant undisputed, can mean is most of which preponderance only the fair evidence estab- at the of the defendant was insane time lished legally responsible not was and, therefore, homicides Assuming appellant the moment that the for them. doing assaulting when his victims knew he was what (both wrong conduct of that his which and knew jury’s established), there can be no verdicts facts the pre- question of willful, that the elements deliberate distinguishing present. The murder were meditated present. namely of The malice, feature murder,
199
di-
killings
suck,
were unlawful
malice
and, being
from
inferable
the conduct of
rectly
perpetrator:
see Commonwealth v.
Pa.
293
McLaughlin,
213. “A
A.
felonious killing
inherently
is
malicious
more,
qualifies
the crime
as a
without
as murder
and,
of
matter
Commonwealth v.
law: see
Wucherer,
Pa.
As is the normal condi legally recognized tion of human in any its existence beings, given stance the burden of presumed. Consequently, prov is ing insanity upon as a defense to criminal is charge it. It incumbent him to es upon one is asserting a fair tablish the mental condition alleged defective of v. Iaco the evidence: Commonwealth preponderance 68, 178 bino, A. 823. Throughout, issue one of fact for remains the jury to determine. As recog nized for this court Commonwealth v. su Iacobino, presumption of pra, sanity, which is the normal —“The condition 'holds man, good, is the full equivalent until it express proof is successfully rebutted [cit ’ ing ”; or, otherwise stated in the Iacobino cases] case mental at (p. 69), capacity time of —“Where the act is issue, Commonwealth is aided presumption sanity, required af prove firmatively mental capacity commit the act.”
The evidence amply supports jury’s conclusion defendant was sane the time of his commis- sion homicides. The proof which the defendant offered as to his mental condition failed to overcome testimony sanity. presumption expert, *9 Dr. he uncon- upon largely so was Spear, relied, lay wit- On the other
vincing
jury.
hand,
rebuttal
tes-
called in
nesses whom the Commonwealth
that
had never noticed
about
they
anything
tified
them
that he was
un-
that
led
to believe
defendant
was, moreover,
objective
direct
tes-
mind. There
sound
conversa-
actions,
defendant’s
concerning
timony
and on the
prior to
immediately
tions
statements
infer that
could
from which the
killings
day
he killed the Giovan-
when
doing
he was
he knew what
after
wrong,
all,
which,
that
was
and knew
nettis
than whether
rather
insanity
of legal
test
is the
viewpoint.
medical
ill
mentally
was
accused
court’s per
in the trial
error
charges
appellant
called
witnesses,
the lay
mitting
had
they
to
that
noticed
testify
any
never
rebuttal,
defendant
that would indicate that he
about the
thing
stating
mind without
first
facts ob
of unsound
was
would
their
This
justify
opinion.
them which
served
Its admission
evi
clearly
testimony
competent.
was
Commonwealth, v.
In
error.
therefore,
dence was,
A.
complaint
a like
201 Chief well stated for court hy (later this Mr. Justice v. 284 Cavalier, Justice) Commonwealth Schaffer think Pa. he —“We A. where 311, 319-320, 131 said, may that the cases much of confusion possibly dif be to to between distinguish ascribed the failure called are obtaining ferent when witnesses situations noth noticed they to on the that have hand, one testify, of a person was leads to believe that ing them opin that in their on the other, unsound mind, and, has who witness, ion A lay was insane. person of subject is the contact one mental state whose with after may inquiry, testify, his stating opportunities for observation but'without first all stating the facts justifying he has conclusion, observed nothing in the conduct or of the individual speech which would lead to the that he is not of opinion normal mind: Com. Pa. v. 190 145. It is one Wireback, thing thus testify have witnesses a different lay quite situation to give have them after the re opinion, cital of under their facts coming observation, 232 Pa. Com. person insane: Com. v. Marion, 372.” jurist Pa. What learned Henderson, clearly thus difference be was the distinct recognized norm mental tween established supporting legally testimony with that nothing out of the ordinary was in the subject’s observed conduct and attempting overcome such norm by preponderating proof contra.
Nor was there error in any the trial court’s charge wherein he instructed jury that “All the testimony that you have heard here has been competent testimony respect question this and the insanity], [of layman just as competent to testify as the expert.” In Cilione, 142 A. where the defense to a of (1928), charge murder was the late Chief Justice then a insanity, judge Maxey, of Common 45th Court Pleas Judicial Dis- at the trial. He specially presided very directly trict, recognized the equal competency lay witnesses with experts on the question insanity he charged when the jury that “In connection mental [defendant’s you will remember the testimony of the peo- condition] ple who this man before the commission of the knew homicide are charged. They what call lay we witnesses. do not claim to on They experts be the mind. . . . They are called rebut behalf the de- testimony mind. fendant that he is unsound ... You do not *11 to be a to ac- psychiatrist judge have whether man’s normal or . . tions are . the testimony abnormal. the to be considered as the laymen is well as testimony See experts.” Paper so-called Books, In Record 145 A. Commonwealth v. Gearhardt, the Pa. 54 A. 387, 391, “intelligent layman” 205 as no less than an ex recognized being capable distinction legally the between pert defining cog conditions. Possible error the por nizable mental as the instant above charge case, quoted, tion the coun itself to suggested appellant’s could have hardly thereto was specific exception Neither at trial. sel instructions request or amended other taken nor were v. Pa. Bruno, ed: see Commonwealth A. 518. appellant the charge points
Among
knowledge
following,
submitted
—“11.
is of
experts
great
ques-
of medical
value
experience
been
the ob-
given
Evidence has
insanity.
tions
of a medical
experience
expert
sufficient
servation
an intelligent
him form
and he
opinion
to
has
to enable
jury
While the
are not bound
that opinion.
testified
of an
yet
they
conclusion
must
expert,
adopt
of an
testimony
ex-
consideration
careful
give
of the human mind a
the diseases
made
has
who
pert
affirmed the
judge
The learned trial
study.”
special
of the in-
enlarging
scope
time
the same
point,
And
Court:
follows,
applicability
struction’s
—“The
say
go step
we
that that is We
further. You
so.
must
give
testimony
the same careful consideration to the
every
again,
appel-
in the case.”
witness
Here,
excepted
lant neither
to the court’s answer to the re-
quest
limiting
nor asked for a restricted answer
expert’s testimony.
instructions
However,
appellant
complains that
now
court’s
answer
request
putting
par
“. . .
effect
on a
testimony
expert,
Spear,
of the mental
Dr.
the tes-
timony
lay
of all of the sixteen
witnesses.” There was
quotation
Judge
no error in that: see
Maxev’s
charge
supra;
in Commonwealth Cilione,
supra.
v. Gearhardt,
also Commonwealth
(Common-
confessions
The defendant’s written
12)
properly admitted
wealth’s Exhibits 10
were
voluntarily given by
Having
the de-
been
evidence.
they
clearly
“Where,
admissible.
fendant,
that a
confes-
is shown
witnesses,
Commonwealth’s
voluntarily,
threat or induce-
sion is
without such
made
might
be ad-
confession,
ment as
false
it must
secure
Spardute,
mitted”:
which, from the taken that the confessions were objection The rather than question-and-an- narrative admissi- far as their form is so pertinency swer without bility is concerned. in direct exam-
A for the defense asked witness was defend- change see you any ination, [the —“Did the trial The asserts that appellant disposition?” ant’s] objec- the Commonwealth’s sustaining erred judge leading. on the that it ground tion to the question A. Zoltowski, In no the defend supports ruling. event, ant rephrased his counsel harmed; question elicited the testimony sought. raised remaining questions two appellant
togo
the same matter. When Dr. Spear
being
cross-
examined
respect
to the memory displayed by the
defendant on the
day
and the
killings
succeeding
as indicated
day,
similar
factual
con-
accounts
tained
the two
he stated that
confessions,
the de-
fendant “would
signed
have
anything
was pre-
sented to him.
If
...
told
they
him to sign it he would
it.”
have done
further
By
the doctor
answer,
implied
the defendant signed the
confessions
the direc-
tion of
police
without having known what
inwas
them. At that point
the trial
judge interposed to ob-
serve that “That
very
has
serious
implication,
pos-
sibly the policeman would suggest
to a man the an-
swers to
Do
questions.
mean
you
to convey that
to this
jury?” Without
answering
Dr.
categorically,
Spear
“I mean to
said,
this:
say
That
this
experience,
honest
definitely
and I
policemen,
assume that
to be
correct.
Having
facts
as all
case,
those who
*13
were
contact —” The doctor’s answer was so obvi-
ously meaningless that
the trial
judge broke in, say-
a minute.
ing,
They asked him where he got
—“Wait
they
got
did
gun.
it. How
the
he
He told them where
gun?”
an-
The doctor
he
know where
received
urges
appellant
“I
don’t
Sir.”
swered,
know,
Spear,
interrogation
to whether
as
of Dr.
court’s
implication
answers,
of his
he intended the serious
consequently
prejudiced
defend-
the witness,
in-
jury
court’s
likewise,
with the
ant,
quiry
that,
police
know
would
of the
how
doctor
gun if he hadn’t
had obtained the
the defendant
where
suggesting
on the
doubt
told
had
effect of
them
part
judge
respect to the witness’
of the trial
with
veracity.
inter-
court’s
If
such
the effect
polations,
himself
no
than the
was more
witness
judge
dis-
did not abuse his
invited. The learned trial
Myma,
We have record read entire and have reviewed both the law the case evidence ingredients necessary and find that the to constitute degree present. murder the first are There is no any appellant’s merit contentions all of which we have hereinabove discussed and considered. The ably case was tried marked fairness defend- *14 charge jury that was to the ant and submitted thorough impartial. and clear, by jury, penalty respect we the fixed With reviewing duty nothing limited to have to do. Our independ- determining possible for and to trial error in- ently reading the whether from our of the record degree gredients have been in the first murder proven February P. L. 15, 15, 1870, exist: Act of by Any the us with §1187. Sec. interference 19 PS 2, penalty by an unwarranted fixed be the verdicts would passage jury’s province. invasion of the Since upon May Act of conferred P. L. 759, power penalty death to fix between imprisonment upon life of murder a conviction presumed degree, the first this court has never change penalty upon jury’s fixed verdict competent finding guilt of murder the defendant’s degree: in the first see Commonwealth Taranow, Pa. 59 A. 2d 53. judgments are affirmed. sentences
Dissenting Opinion Mr. Justice M. Allen Stearne: my opinion
In improperly the defendant con- degree victed penalty of murder in the first fixed killings proven death. The and in fact were insanity. conceded. The defense was toere If defendant slightest there sane, cannot be the doubt but that he guilty premeditated of wilful, deliberate and mur- fully justified imposition der, which a sentence grant I death. (a) would, a new trial however, be- against weight cause the verdict was of the evidence (b) admitting because there was trial error in in evi- unnecessary photographs dence which were of an ex- tremely gruesome prejudicial though nature —even counsel for defendant consented to their admission, explanation jury by trial where there was no judge concerning such admission. the reason February
Under the Act of L. 15 1870 P. sec. 2, appellate required 19 PS court is review in- law and evidence and determine whether *15 gredients necessary murder the first constitute degree proven homi- to exist. a Furthermore, especially cide life case, stake, where defendant’s is may deprived and where defendant of a fair been have impartial injustice trial or manifest suffered appellate notwithstanding court will review case failure, proper excep- of defendant’s counsel to take tions : Commonwealth v. 70 A. 2d Stowers, 435, and cases therein 226, cited. April Guerino on
Defendant, Carluccetti, 2, 1935, killed Emilio Giovannetti and Laura his Giovannetti, revolting killings wife. The details of the need not again by be recited. The victim husband was killed gun by shot wounds inflicted defendant. The wife was beating killed defendant her over the head awith gun unjustifiable stock. killings, The brutal and in all revolting obviously their indicated or circumstances, suggested possible insanity lunacy A defendant. appointed May commission was on and hear- 24,1935, ing following had on June 24, 1935, which defendant Hospital was committed to the Farview State for criminal insane. Defendant was therein incarcerated years, May for fourteen until 20, when he 1949, was Dauphin County returned for trial. Defendant was commencing September tried September 1949. On 19, guilty 1949, verdict was rendered degree penalty murder the first with fixed at upon pronounced. death, which sentence was insanity The sole defense was at the date killings, April testimony viz.: 1935. After concern- no there about which ing killings, the facts Defendant pro- rested. the Commonwealth dispute, neurolo- Dr. a psychiatrist duced J. Irving Spear, commission lunacy had testified before who gist, gave positive, on June 1935. The doctor affirmative and tes- defendant insanity testimony concerning on insane defendant was tified his that, opinion, The Common- 1935. April killings date qualified was the doctor wealth conceded 403) (p. reciting professional to render such After opinion. testi- witness qualifications accomplishments, suffering fied in great detail defendant dementia praecox, paranoiac tendency; Dr. psychosis schizophrenia (split personality, i.e., on April and that de Jekyll and Mr. Hyde); fendant and did not the dif know mentally sick ference between right wrong. rested.
With the record as above, *16 wit- lay called sixteen Commonwealth then, rebuttal, during all of nesses, negatively whom testified had never they of defendant period they time knew indicate to him that would noticed about anything mind. them that unsound Such evi- of dence is admissible under Commonwealth Wireback, Cavalier, 190 Pa. A. 542 and Commonwealth 138, A. on 3rd Wigmore 229. Cf. Evidence Vol. sec. 46. ed., nevertheless, VII, 1938, pp. It, is of Furthermore negative quantity, law, character. of never takes the of The defend place quality. weight posi ample ant’s sole witness —with his professional that of the negative tive exceeds testimony greatly— of the numerous witnesses testimony Commonwealth’s in rebuttal. called The uncontradicted medical testi of the from mony was that defendant suffered expert that therefore mem or split personality; schizophrenia, of defendant’s relatives, acquaintances, bers family, ordinarily any unable to detect evidence be would etc., opinion negative lay insanity. It follows probative testimony but little value would have sanity insanity. question or of defendant’s ' attorney vigorously and ex- The district assistant haustively the doctor. He cross-exam- cross-examined knowledge person- concerning the doctor’s ined Hospital. necessary at Farview nel the staff failure to inference criticism doctor’s hospital. inquiry It and secure records make n called curious while the Commonwealth seems expert lay scientific tes- sixteen witnesses re\ut admittedly qualified timony physician, it failed of an hospital the authenticated records secure by professional opinions buttressed institution, of that physicians qualified experts, staff or other medical concerning patient (at condition of a the mental thereafter) killings and time of the who been com- to that- institution 1935 and mitted who had re- patient in mained such institution as state for the period years. criminal for a of fourteen insane that a It axiomatic verdict is warranted evidence be aside. Whether the will set evidence in- is support question sufficient to verdict a of law contrary weight A the court. verdict shocking judicial evidence or conscience is likewise question see host law: cases cited Vol. sec- Pennsylvania p. tions 77 and Standard Practice seq. 317 et regard
I trial error the admission of the Com- *17 gruesome photographs óf evidence monwealth’s of of the dead bodies exhibits X7-8-9. Num- victims, photograph body ber 7 of is the semi-nude photographs mále victim. Numbers 8 and 9 are body of the semi-nude female victim, a bath re- tub, vealing showing -that her skull been bashed and in,
bloody matter tub walls. splattered upon body, photographs unnecessary clearly These were to defendant. con- prejudicial True, defendant’s counsel sented to such admission. But the life of a de- where fendant of is stake because inadvertence, careless- ness or of ignorance this Court counsel, will intervene to an injustice. The late Chief Maxey prevent Justice (while Associate of Justice Com- Court) this said monwealth 302 Pa. Corrie, 153 A. 436: 743, p. “Should a case arise where defendant was hur- being ried to an doom undeserved reason of the by careless- ness not counsel to taking exceptions palpable his. errors which offend against fundamentals a fair impartial trial, appellate courts would, with- out being recusant this salutary find rule, a way injustice avert threatened. Some invasions amount to a rights of that deprivation due process law the federal Constitution guaranteed in dif- and, ferent by the state phraseology, . . . .” Constitution,
In 284 Pa. Scott, 130 A. said 162: p. we “No exception was taken to the charge or request be reduced to writing filed of hence it record, properly before us for review. Impelled, however, gravity the defendant’s carefully we have examined the situation, charge. . . .” See also Commonwealth v. Stowers, 70 A. 2d 226. admission in a homicide evidence, case, of the dead
photographs victim is a matter ordinarily of discretion of the trial But judge. judicial discretion must be exercised within limits. Such proper evidence, to be must be admissible, their helpful investigation and deliberation. The photographs must not be introduced solely jury’s arouse emotions. the reason the admission must be care- Puthermore, fully explained the trial In Com- jury ~by judge.
211 A. 2d Mr. Gibbs, monwealth Pa. Dew 185: “. . . photo- Chief Justice several p. said, of introduced in evidence body the were over graphs It his these ex- position objections. defendant’s introduced were of no as evidence hibits value to the That has been jury. question inflame solely in in- cases and the in to respect raised numerous law long has become well settled. So flammatory evidence as the evidence is to the their helpful jury investiga- tion not to solely and deliberation introduced their arouse the trial the exer- emotions, judge may, of admit cise his sound such but discretion, exhibits the admission must reason be ex- carefully their for to the plained cases). In the instant jury: (citing case the introduced to the photographs were position show cohdition of body the extent of the All wounds. ... of exhibits were extensively used experts the medical to their illustrate oral testi- all mony. These were proper purposes: (citing cases). the trial judge did Therefore, abuse discretion in admitting these into exhibits evidence subject which he precautionary instruction, gave, were not to allow themselves be jurors prejudiced but were to by them consider them only pur- for poses they were (Italics supplied) offered.” An examination of the evidence will disclose that there was not the slightest reason why the photographs Avere to the helpful jury their investigation and de- liberation. While perhaps unintentional, effect the jury clearly was arouse their emotions to the prejudice defendant. But trial error was fatal the trial judge explain carefully failure of reason admission the photographs. for. I am not all impressed by the Commonwealth’s apprehension expressed.at argument that, the event grant trial new and a subsequent acquittal a dan- time of the hillings, at the insanity
because community. loose might be turned gerous person Judge Mr. while President Justice Horace Stern, *19 Court of No. wrote an 2, Common Pleas Philadelphia v. & 13 D. C. opinion Ritter, 285, other has been cited this and states. widely necessity appropriate He demonstrated punishment criminal cases is in the interest chiefly of society. The Legislature protection probably in mind this under the Act of March when, 31, L. 427 66, P. sec. as amended Act of 1860, by the April P. L. 17, 19 PS 2, sec. it was enacted it is found that where insane at person was time of the commission of the and is crime, acquitted because such the court insanity, empowered to order to be kept strict custody so long as he shall continue to be unsound mind. In Com- monwealth this Winter, 137 A. Court 296: said, p. “The effect only special find- ing acquittal ground would insanity be to authorize the court order the defendant into custody while he continued of unsound mind. . .”.
For the I reasons foregoing would reverse the judg- ments award a trial. new Appellant, Philadelphia Transporta- Hoffman,
tion Co.