*1 with, consent money were made knowledge interpretation employer. This is an incorrect mere a the crime be committed statute, may offer to bribe. The at the proves that with- illegal offer was corporation made, out allow- knowledge the bribe. The arrangements ing the ob- made to employee accept the bribe were tain evidence. corroborating instance, Hence, the crime complete when the offer was original made.
I dissent. Appellant.
Commonwealth v. Cheeks, *2 Mtrs- C. J., Before 1966. Bell, January 13, Argued Roberts, O’Brien Eagen, Cohen, manno, Jones, JJ. 1966. November 7, refused
reargument Edward K. with him Alexander Brod- Nichols, Jr., for slcy, appellant. M.
Joseph Assistant Smith, District Attorney, with Mm E. Benjamin Levintow and Vincent As- Veldorale, sistant District and Arlen District Attorneys, Specter, Attorney, appellee. Commonwealth, Opinion September 27, 1966: Mr. Justice Eagen, *3 On May after a 22, 1964, appel- nine-day trial, Bernard lant, mur- Cheeks, convicted a of by jury der in the first and degree punishment at life was fixed imprisonment. Post trial and motions were overruled sentence imposed accordance the jury’s with verdict. From the of judgment was filed. sentence, appeal
The crime involved the on Oc- robbery stabbing tober of 11, Joe 1963, Howell four Henry by young males on public a street Philadelphia. Following 57 occurrence, of of Howell, years age and slow gait as the result of a stroke, walked to his directly home sister’s about five blocks distant. When he ar- appearance his rived, was described “like he had been beat” and “crying.” Very after he shortly his arrival, told his sister that four unknown had assaulted boys and robbed and that one of the him, boys wearing patch over one eye.1 Because he urinated his it clothes, was insisted that he to the go upstairs bath- room and into change pajamas. Upon from emerging 1 apparently These were the victim’s first statements coherent anyone. to
70 “those and said, sister called to his bathroom, bleeding noticed he then cut me.” She boys did His navel. in the area abdomen slightly ad- were described, to above as sister, statements of as part trial objection in evidence over mitted error. This is as assigned gestae. res be to permitting rule res declarations gestae The hearsay exception is introduced an that the rationale upon rule. The is based principle re- has individual who spontaneous declaration an and shock- emotional overpowering suffered cently Henry, 1 truthful. likely See, be ing experience limit- Such evidence is (1953). Penna. Evidence, §466 the conclusion supporting ed to declarations cre- spontaneous thought were utterances statements so ated or emanating act, by, from, litigated near in time possibility thereto to exclude the product premeditation design. they were A. Pa. 2d 760 Noble, Commonwealth 371 88 A. Pa. Rumage, Commonwealth v. 59 (1952); Commonwealth Pa. 2d (1948); and, Cupps, Ct. No definite Superior 2d 545 has time or distance from the site of the limit, crime, spontane- been fixed the courts what determining part ous utterances are admissible as of the res gestae. has been judged Each on its facts and cir- case own Commonwealth v. cumstances: Stokes, A. 2d 5 cases cited therein. length elapsed which has between when declara- *4 uttered and when the were occurrence place tions took element be is one considered only determining See Commonwealth spontaneity. their v. Noble, supra, v. 351 Commonwealth Pa. Harris, 41 325, A. 2d 688 (1945). precise case, instant the
In the sequence not the is ascertainable record. events However, the entire series of is it clear events took place
71
hour.
within
one
forty-five minutes
the
or,
most,
The de
p.m.
The attack occurred
o’clock.
after eleven
11:30
than
cedent arrived at his sister’s home no later
p.m. o’clock.
disclosed
the
as
Reconstructing
picture,
the conclusion
inevitable that
testimony,
statements were
directly
were
spontaneously uttered,
related to the event
not
of reflec
and were
the result
tion or
ad
design. Under
these
their
circumstances,
mission
evidence
error. The fact
statements were not made
after
the as
immediately
sault
is not,
See, Commonwealth
itself, controlling.
Stokes, supra,
supra.
Commonwealth v. Harris,
Court
This
has
previously approved the admission
evidence of such declarations
in
period
when the time
volved was as
long
longer than that herein.
Commonwealth v.
Superior
190 Pa.
Ct.
Soudani,
628,
2d 227
A. 2d
(1959),
aff’d
cert. denied
U. S. 886
Common
(1960);
wealth v.
Stallone, 281
A. 56 (1924) ;
and,
Commonwealth v. Werntz, 161 Pa.
The next contention is that did not es- stab tablish that wound was the cause of death. The Commonwealth’s medical trial testimony may be Upon summarized follows: Howell’s admission to the hospital at 2:10 a.m. o’clock the early morning an following occurrence, examination an disclosed obvious wound of the penetrating abdomen in the area of the umbilicus. Since the extent of the wound was from an not ascertainable exterior op- examination, necessary eration was deemed performed. It puncture disclosed abdominal measur- cavity, inch in one length, and it ing also disclosed that damage interior therefrom only was to the mesen- of tissue attached leaf tery, intestines through blood vessels course and which supply nourishment *5 operation during organs. the the However, to these manually gastrointestinal and handled tract was whole for checked wounds. prevent post-operative com- common order to a patient
plication,2
“Levin” tube
inserted
the
a
was
through
off dam-
stomach to suction
the nostril to the
might
aging
that
that
accumulate
secretions and air
coming
operation
Following
out
organ.
after
the
and
uncoopera-
patient,
the
was
of
anesthesia,
Howell,
de-
demonstrated
disorientated, resisted
tive,
treatment,
stay
and
lirium
in bed
tremens, hallucinations, wouldn’t
hospital
other
into the
halls
of
wandered
and
rooms
patients.
precaution,
of
to
Out
he
then tied
managed
pull
three
to
bed.
out
tube
However,
developed hiccups.3
times and
markedly dis-
On October
the abdomen became
15th,
period
pa-
during
tended. This
a
which the
followed
again
uncooperative
tient had continued to be
had
the tube.
extracted
the abdominal
However,
distention
“secondary
operation,
was described as
to
and.
secondary
pulling
to
out the
It
stated
tube.”
was also
operation
“produced
paraly-
temporary
that the
itself
sis
the intestine
which caused accumulation of
gas
necessary
and fluids and it
to
remove
keep
fluids to
the man alive.”
complication,
As
a result
the above described
an-
longer
other
“Cantor” tube
had a
was inserted. This
bag mercury
purposes
weight
the end
had
2 Following
operation,
such
fre
the intestines and bowels
normally
quently
causing
function
do not
air
secretions and
unduly
stomach,
possible
resulting
in the
remain
abnormal and
consequences.
serious
expert
medical
stated
this condition and behavior
One
operation
way
or
How
attributable
medication.
no
expert
testified,
ever,
retention
the abnormal
another such
produced
gases
a chemical
in the
reaction
stomach
fluids and
confusion,
in turn caused the confused behavior
which
the mental
pulling
patient
in his
out
tubes.
and resulted
machine.
x-ray
fluoroseope
to be
under
positioned
occasions,
least
two
tube on at
out this
pulled
Howell
18th,
on October
occurred
of these instances
the second
*6
the
inserting
process
in
the
just
the
x-ray room,
reaction
a gag
completed.
result,
tube
As
was about
of gas-
amount
large
causing
immediately followed,
into the
in
sucked
tric material
the stomach to be
with-
performed
A
hurriedly
was
lungs.
tracheotomy
1:30 p.m.
expired
out material
result. Howell
in
resulting
o’clock on the same
day
suffocation,
lungs.
the
heart
due to lack of
stoppage
oxygen
our
conclusion
Under this
it is
studied
proof,
to
the
for the
question
jury
of causal connection was
imme
not the
resolve.
fact that
the
was
stabbing
The
Common
not controlling.
See,
diate cause
death is
A. 2d
Pa.
204
wealth ex rel. Peters v.
415
Maroney,
304 Pa.
Williams,
459
and Commonwealth v.
(1964),
su
out in
pointed
Peters,
In stabbing the necessitated the case, was the direct cause of the stomach operation tion; and abdominal insertion distention; complication to required tubes alleviate this condition of the life. The fact that the victim, and to save victim’s in a condition and disorien- physical weakened while out created pulled mental tubes and state, tated death, immediate which resulted situation, independent intervening act suffi- such the chain of causation cient break events between 74 stabbing Proximate the death. The See, Beale, (1920);
Consequences of an 33 Harv. L. Rev. Act, Legal & Mich. Cause Proximate Cause, Cause, Levitt, (1922); Legal Edgerton, L. 72 U. Cause, Rev. (1924); McLaughlin, Cause, L. Proximate Rev. L. 39 Harv. Rev. 149 assignment next
The
of error concerns the admission
incriminating
at trial of
state-
appellant
police custody.
ments
while
participation
these
Cheeks admitted
statements,
robbery, detailed the
and said
occurrence,
stabbing
the one who stabbed
but claimed the
Howell,
appel-
Admittedly,
warning
accidental.
no
rights
lant’s
to remain silent or to
assistance
have the
given
during
questioning.
of counsel was
before or
case Escobedo
Illinois,
U.
S.
*7
support
appellant’s
is cited
contention that
(in
warnings)
evidence was
the absence of such
con-
stitutionally tainted and, therefore, inadmissible. How-
(and
since the instant
ever,
trial commenced
in fact
terminated) before June
22, 1964,
date
Esco-
apply:
bedo
that decision
decision,
does not
Johnson v.
Jersey,
(1966).4
New
U. S. 719
solely
ground
not inadmissible
on that the warn-
ings
given.
mentioned
were
Davis v.
See,
North
Carolina,
U.S.
86 Ct.
S.
How-
question
freely
ever,
were the
remains,
statements
voluntarily
they
made, were
coerced and those
Negri,
v.
In Commonwealth
The record discloses the in connection following with Cheek’s statements to police.
He questioned was first briefly investigating officer on the night although October 24th, no there was him connecting with crime. On appeared intoxicated, be occasion, wore a patch open over his and had an knife right eye, concealed with His shirt was stained clothing. human blood. He was refused to talk and belligerent, upon insisted fist officer. with the fighting questioning At no time did he indicate desire to see an attor- any He ney. was remanded to the Pennypack House, for juveniles. detention home Cheeks seventeen years of age.
On Jo- October Stevens Smith and Craig seph police Beard written ad- gave statements participation impli- the Howell mitting robbery, Cheeks as another the one who cating involved, did stabbing. the actual
On p.m. October 3:45 Cheeks 30th, o’clock, police was taken House to Pennypack detective *8 shown the statements of Beard Smith and headquarters, concerning and until questioned p.m. 4:30 crime, He refused talk. o’clock. o’clock to 6:15 p.m. p.m.
From 5:30 he o’clock, was juvenile court officer any and denied questioned involvement. permitted he was p.m. o’clock,
At 8:30 to talk with him urged who to tell the truth. Short girl friend, his orally he admitted his thereafter, guilt. ly Following question under police occurrence detailed the this, aon recorded and answers were The questions ing. com statement When the written typewriter.5 signed it and p.m. 10:30 he read o’clock, pleted, page. each police statements to
When Cheek’s testimony conducted the trial judge immediately began trial, the volun- out of the of the on presence jury a hearing no ef- made At Cheeks tariness thereof. this hearing, re- Commonwealth fort to refute the testimony to this The found the statements lating judge issue. in evi- and their admission voluntary to be ordered personal jury, his before the dence. own denied the Cheeks truthfulness the statements that he made them threatened police stated because the if that he didn’t would arrest friend they girl friend expected her and take child mother, (his girl No pregnant child) with Cheek’s from them. away other explanation he made the why statements offered. Cheeks did say any he was abused or that he asked way, was denied the assistance of counsel. The investigating police charged officer, with making denied it. threat, categorically of voluntariness issue was submitted and left to the under careful jury instructions the trial court. Under above record established circumstances, we cannot declare as matter of law that the admis- sions were coerced. The question was one properly left to resolve. jury See, Commonwealth v. 416 Pa. Patrick, 206 A. 2d 295 (1965); Common- v. Coyle, wealth A. 2d 782 (1964); California, Crooker U. S. 433 (1958) Ci- ; and, Lagay, cenia U.S. 504 (1958).6 The fact questioning began, any 5 Before this Oheeks was warned that against thing could be used him in he said court. 6 Although and Oioenia Orooher were overruled in Miranda v. they apposite Arizona, respect May are with 384 U.S. to a Jersey, supra. v. New Johnson trial: *9 fully Cheeks was not of his constitutional warned considering rights, significant while factor voluntariness of the not conclusive. statements, supra. Davis v. North Carolina, carefully every
We have considered each and as- assignment nothing in the and find serted error, grant record to trial or an arrest warrant the of a new judgment. Judgment affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Cohen : Justice Commonwealth v. Root, liability 2d tort con- we held that “the cept proximate place prose- proper cause has no cutions for criminal homicide and more direct causal required reading of connection is A conviction.” opinion majority concluding discloses that in proximate defendant’s act was the of death and cause criminally responsible that defendant therefor, weighty placed upon precedent reliance has been application grounded upon liability of the tort con- cept proximate blatantly cause. This reliance vio- principles accordingly, of Root. lates dissent. I, (et Appellant). Helms v. Chandler al.,