*1 Pennsylvania COMMONWEALTH CHRISTIAN, Hayford Appellant (two cases).
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court
Argued 8, 1977. March July Decided 1978. *3 Michalek, Micha- Laughlin
Paul F. Thomas G. & Laughlin, lek, for Pittsburgh, appellant. Eberhardt, Colville, Robert L. Atty.,
Robert E. Dist. Johns, for Attys., Pittsburgh, appel- Charles W. Asst. Dist. lee. O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, EAGEN, J.,
Before and POM- C. EROY, MANDERINO, NIX JJ.
OPINION POMEROY, Justice. 4, 1975, Christian, appellant,
On March was con- Hayford victed of the second degree, of murder jury burglary, rape post- and deviate sexual intercourse. After denial of motions, imprisonment trial was sentenced to appellant life on sentences of ten to charge. the murder Consecutive on each of the twenty years imprisonment imposed were remaining charges. judgments ap- From these Christian peals.1 appeal pursuant Appellate
1. We hear
Jurisdiction
to the
Court
31, 1970,
July
211.202(1)
Act of
Act of
P.L.
17 P.S.
which
§
places jurisdiction
appellant’s
appeal
in
mur-
this Court of the
from
jurisdiction
appeal from the
der conviction. This Court has
over the
morning
July
on the
of
early
The
discloses that
record
Mattes,
year old
of
seventy-nine
resident
Agnes
removed
County, was
Allegheny
forcibly
Jefferson Borough,
where
nearby
swamp
taken to a
isolated
from her home and
Her
was discovered
body
was raped
she
and sodomized.
area. The
swampy
down in
later the same
face
day,
was
that the cause
death
medical evidence established
with the
charged
was arrested and
Christian
drowning.
27, 1974.
rape
September
murder and
on
was
circumstantial
largely
against appellant
evidence
a female
following: Testimony
and consisted of
A.M.
2:00
on
that at
appellant
approximately
neighbor
housing
July
following
party
morning
resided,
made sexual
Christian had
they
where
complex
refused;
testimony
she had
that
advances to her which
his
during
early
not returned to
residence
Christian had
9;
reports
witness
that Christian had
morning
July
hours of
July
from the area in
morning
coming
been seen on
occurred;
that
clothes
evidence
Christian’s
which the crime
substance,
possibly matching
covered with a murky
found,
body
which the
swampy
mud from
area
had
immediately
the articles of
been
clothing
but
were able to examine
investigators
cleaned
the police
before
crime;
of a
testimony
prisoner
day
them the
state-
incriminating
who overheard the
make
trial.
awaiting
ment while incarcerated
number of
trial errors as
alleged
raises a
Appellant
court
of these
for a new trial. One
grounds
*4
examination, a
dire
contention
restricted the voir
unduly
We,
reverse the
accordingly,
that we find meritorious.
new trial.2
of sentence and award a
Superior
from the
virtue of their
transfer
related convictions
Court to
Court.
Additionally,
argues
both in
the trial court erred
2.
prosecution’s
following
refusing
case
the close
his demurrer
denying
verdict at the conclusion of
and in
his motion for a directed
defense,
put
the trial
chose to
on a
the defense. Since Christian
may
longer
ruling on
no
be contested.
See
court’s
the demurrer
(1976).
Ilgenfritz,
As
“(4) you anyone anyone would be more to commit a crime than likely else?” (1) remaining questions was allowed but the three
Question objection made to this Appellant prompt refused. review. The appellate the issue ruling preserved ruling issue now is whether this denied Christian a presented fair trial. stage
There is no doubt that voir dire is a crucial criminal and one which affords proceeding oppor counsel juror to determine as well as establish a tunity qualifications verdict, the motion for a our review of the record satisfies directed us denied; properly light in a most favorable to that it was when viewed Commonwealth, guilt the evidence was sufficient establish Hubbard, See, beyond g., a reasonable doubt. e. unnecessary light disposition appeal, In our find it of this we They (1) appellant’s reach are: the trial court other contentions. refusing grant upon erred in a new trial based the recantation witness; (2) improperly suppressed prosecution Commonwealth exculpatory materials; (3) prosecution should not have witness court, permitted (4) charge testify; been the trial in its to the concerning jury, burden of misstated law Commonwealth’s proof. *5 136 challenges.3 of peremptory for the effective exercise
basis
to inquire
juror qualifica-
While
of a
into
right
litigant
such
recognized,4
scope
tions has been generally
is, nevertheless,
matter
the discretion of
within
inquiries
rulings will be reversed only
the trial court and
court’s
of discretion. Commonwealth v.
finding
an abuse
upon
Brown,
v.
625,
Futch,
464 Pa.
supra; Commonwealth
347
v.
149,
Segers,
Commonwealth
460 Pa.
331
716
(1975);
A.2d
Dukes,
180,
Commonwealth
v.
460 Pa.
331
(1975);
462
A.2d
Johnson,
v.
130,
452 Pa.
305
(1975);
478
A.2d
scope
A
(1973).
rulings concerning
A.2d 5
trial court’s
must,
therefore,
light
be considered
voir dire
episode.5
factual circumstances of a
criminal
particular
Alabama,
U.S.
85
that
the case is
or
(“Have
dealings
experiences
the trial court
had
you
any
make it difficult
Negro
might
you
with
that
persons
case?”)
in
in this
was
adequate
sit
impartial
possible prejudices
in sufficient
of venire-
explore
depth
guaranteed by
process
posed
a trial court’s refusal to
due
is
prejudice
question prospective jurors specifically
racial
dur-
about
ing voir dire.
“By
requirement
terms
did
of universal
its
Ham
not announce
Rather,
applicability.
assessment of whether under
it reflected an
constitutionally
presented
was a
all of
significant
there
the circumstances
that,
preju-
questioning about racial
likelihood
absent
dice,
jurors
[they
un-
would not be as
stand]
‘indifferent
(19th
1832).”
on Littleton 155b
ed.
sworne.’ Coke
Ristaino v.
Ross,
589, 594-96,
424 U.S.
96 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
(1976) (footnote omitted).
263-64
Futch,
Accord:
Commonwealth v.
suggest
merely
6. We do
defendant and a
not wish to
that
because a
groups
victim are members of different social or racial
there immedi-
ately
right
explore
relationships
arises a
on voir dire. The
such
potentially prejudicial impact of such affiliations does become mean-
however,
minority
ingful,
membership
group
in
or
where
a certain
emphasized by
presented
to be
at trial.
the evidence
bias,
likely
might possess
Assuming
juror
racial
it is
that
7.
that a
against
prejudice
evidence of
his
and militate
this sort would inflame
prior
linking
a fair
defendant to the crime
trial even
to evidence
question.
was framed in
First,
question
men. We disagree.8
assuming
or
Even
experiences.”
terms of “dealings
to discover
it would
question
enough
prejudice,
was specific
most
persons
perhaps
susceptible
not be
to reach
who are
apt
views, viz.,
who have had little or no
persons
to stereotypic
that, we are unable to
dealing
persons. Beyond
with black
of assurance that such a question
conclude
degree
with any
to reveal
specific
prejudices
probing
sufficiently
bearing
present
which
case.9
might have immediate
Futch,
Compare
supra,
any experience
held
8.
v.
you
where we
that other
per-
questions (“Have
black
voir dire
had
with
impartial?”
might impair your ability
be fair and
sons that
any
person
way
affect
“Will the fact that the defendant is black
*7
your
case?”)
probe
racial bias and
this
it
sufficient to
in
were
accordingly,
to disallow the
that
following question:
not error for the trial court
was
testimony
give
person
you
white
credence to the
of a
“Would
more
simply
person
he is white?”
over that of a black
because
is, however,
episode
distinguishable
present
Futch
arguably
both because
is
contains
racial involvement and because it
clear
more
questions
specific
permitted
more
in
that the
testing
in the Futch case were
single question
orientation than was the
allowed
racial
appellant’s examination.
cursory
general
9.
a
treatment of racial
We cannot assume that
Dyke,
juror qualification.
establish
See Van
attitudes is sufficient to
To
That Our Juries
Voir
How
It Be
Ensure
Dire:
Should
Conducted
Hastings Const.L.Q.
(1976).
Representative
Impartial, 3
65
Are
and
probe
Indeed,
necessary
prejudices
questions may
to
specific
be
Note,
unrecognized.
Exploring
deep-rooted
See
which are often
Racial
also
Dire,
394,
Prejudice
417-19
See
on Voir
54 B.U.L.Rev.
Runner,
(8th
1974).
Cir.
v. Bear
502 F.2d
United States
Unfortunately, prejudice
a
life which should never be
is
fact of
assuring
lightly
a fair trial. As Justice
in the interests of
treated
Marshall has well said:
potential target
say
“Finally,
petitioner is
a
of racial
to
not
that
ignore
judges
prejudice
we must all know as
be to
as
what
would
Massachusetts,
Boston,
petitioner
while
was tried in
men. That
Florence,
Carolina,
of no
South
is
conse-
Ham was tried
Gene
quence.
history
malady
shaped
prejudice
is
that has
our
Racial
a cultural
spirit
the mind
which
a
It is a cancer of
as
nation.
prolifically
in the
in the industrial cities of
North as
breeds as
where,
strikingly
and in the
the South. And
here
rural towns of
S.,
Aldridge
[Aldridge v.
similar circumstances of the
case
U.
308,
470,
being
1054], Negro
accused of
U.S.
75 L.Ed.
S.Ct.
disingenuous
policeman,
best
on white
it would be
at
to
an attack
assert that he is
dice.” Ross v.
particular target
preju-
apt
not
to
racial
be
1080, 1085,
Massachusetts, 414 U.S.
94 S.Ct.
opinion Marshall,
(1973) (dissenting
488-89
38 L.Ed.2d
case,
Rather, in view of the facts of the instant
we think
(3)
were better suited to elicit
questions (2)
racial
in a manner
prospective jurors’
prejudices
germane issues
at
which would
trial.
crystalize
argues
Commonwealth next
that even if the
voir
were
proposed
questions
dire
well
designed
probe
attitudes,
racial
they
rejected
properly
because the
inquiries were
disclose a
designed
juror’s present impres
sions
facts to be
at trial.
regarding
developed
See Common
Johnson,
wealth v.
452 Pa.
305 A.2d (1973);
Common
wea1th Hoss,
140 constructed, so permissible inquiry is to fashion a improperly be exposed.10 or bias may that the possible prejudice the of voir scope to conclude that Because we are unable his right to the defendant the instant case assured dire in a tribunal,11 to award we are compelled by impartial new trial. analogous requirement is to those situations where counsel
10. Such a
points
charge
requests specific
of a trial but
at the conclusion
erroneously
In
poses
charge
the
manner which
states
law.
the
in a
being placed on notice of the
such
substance of
we have held that once
instances
duty
in
charge,
to include
the
the trial court is under
subject
charge
matter
of the law on the
its
raised
269-70,
an accurate statement
Sisak,
262,
requested point.
v.
436 Pa.
in
n.5,
428, 432,
(1969). See also Commonwealth
259 A.2d
n.5
421,
(1977) (plurality opinion,
Motley,
v.
472 Pa.
318, 324,
ROBERTS,
322,
Hilliard,
J.);
471 Pa.
370 A.2d
Commonwealth v.
EAGEN,
J.);
(1977) (dissenting opinion of
C.
Common-
325
358,
(1977) (concur-
Coach,
389, 397, 370 A.2d
362
wealth v.
471 Pa.
Mitchell,
POMEROY,
ring
665,
J.);
opinion
v.
of
MANDERINO,J.).
(1975)
opinion,
(plurality
Both
A.2d 285
charge
jury
have identical
voir dire examination and the
purposes
guilt
is
of a defendant
see that
or innocence
—to
objective
with
manner and in accordance
in a fair and
considered
applicable law.
Carolina,
524, 93
35 L.Ed.2d
409 U.S.
S.Ct.
11. In Ham v. South
(1973),
Supreme
such a
of the United States indicated
Court
right
dimension:
was of constitutional
purposes
“.
.
of the Due Process Clause
.
Since one
is to insure these ‘essential demands
the Fourteenth Amendment
California,
219, 236,
fairness,’
g.,
62 S.Ct.
e.
Lisenba v.
314 U.S.
280, 289,
(1941),
principal purpose
141 and are reversed is of Judgments sentence new trial. granted
MANDERINO, concurring opinion which J., filed a J., NIX, joins. J., opinion.
ROBERTS, dissenting filed the of J., judgment would affirm EAGEN, dissents and C. court below. the Justice,
MANDERINO, concurring. does not case, explained, as later The evidence in a reasonable appellant beyond guilt establish and the of sentence should be reversed His judgment doubt. Since, however, a discharged. majority appellant ordered portion in that of Mr. join I agree, this Court does not reverses which Pomeroy’s opinion Justice restricted the voir trial court unduly sentence because the dire examination. trial, however, the proper newa being
Instead of awarded appellant. discharge would be to of this case disposition appellate to be applied have often stated the test We challenge sufficiency when faced with courts evidence: evidence has been sufficiency
“Where a claim of review to determine raised, appellate it is our task of the evidence and all of whether as true all accepting which, believed, if upon jury inferences therefrom verdict, its it is in law could have based sufficient properly doubt that a defendant a reasonable prove beyond has crimes of which he been convicted. guilty of a crime or 506, 509, 579, 453 Pa. 309 A.2d Bayard, Commonwealth v. 250, Commonwealth 451 Pa. 301 Paquette, 581 v. (1973); Williams, 327, v. 450 Pa. A.2d (1973); Wright, v. 867, (1973); Commonwealth 301 A.2d (1972); 296 A.2d Further, there Agie, the elements of to establish need not be direct evidence *10 142 Graham, 417, 467 Pa. 358 v.
the crime. Commonwealth Cox, 582, 466 Pa. 353 v. (1976); 56 Commonwealth A.2d be sustained means may by This burden (1976). A.2d 844 Commonwealth v. evidence. of circumstantial wholly 408, 469, (1973); 309 A.2d 410 Com 467, Stanley, 592, 594, 462, 464 Pa. 297 A.2d Amato, 449 monwealth v. McFadden, 146, 149, Pa. 292 448 v. (1972); Commonwealth Chester, 410 Pa. v. 358, Commonwealth (1972); A.2d 360 in Common As we noted 323, (1963). 188 A.2d Stanley, supra: wealth v. must that while Commonwealth recognize
‘We also
beyond
element of a crime
essential
every
establish
be sustained
doubt,
may
this burden
reasonable
Id. 453 Pa. at
circumstantial evidence.’
wholly
means of
at 410.”
Courts,
(1976).
As can readily the location at placing appellant was no direct evidence house or at the victim’s was found body where the victim’s fact, In the of the homicide. night at time on the any tending evidence expert gave own witnesses prosecution’s For was not at either location. establish that appellant testified that the on vegetation detective example, police house to the the from victim’s location the path leading he was so thick that had trouble where the was found body his uniform. tearing it in without going through daylight violently of this crime had assault- the Although perpetrator her body from decedent, struggling ed the her dragged terrain without the benefit dangerous home over severe and that when the own witnesses testified light, prosecution’s 9, the appellant by police July day was examined committed, he be completely had was found to murder been bites, signs visible cuts, bruises, any free of scratches any Furthermore, this crime. might that he have participated evening on the party wore at clothing appellant police appellant’s and which was found July by bathroom, representatives examined thoroughly by was noted. damage garments of the crime no lab and addition, was found at the scene of the In evidence trace perpe-
crime which indicated that someone else had strongly testified that two trated the crime. Prosecution witnesses folding were on the metal arms of a palm prints found summer near the window which had been placed chair the Mattes’ house. broken to the murderer to enter permit an individual in the prints placed by sitting These were not chair, chair, if chair was but someone facing lifted and the window. The were not prints used to break those A fiber was removed or the victim. red in Mrs. Mattes’ room. nightstand from a on the figurine match nor any clothing, This fiber did not Mattes’ did it lab also clothing. police match the crime appellant’s determined, samples after careful scientific analysis, match mud taken from shoes and boots did not appellant’s scene, that the of mud taken from the murder samples material of the tub where appel- obtained from drain lant’s clothes been washed did not match material any had or dirt the crime lab from the murder scene. obtained of mud taken from the and front Samples steps porch however, home, Mattes’ similar to that collected from the murder scene.
The only other at trial presented prosecu- evidence tion in its attempt appellant to show committed the crimes was the statement” referred charged “incriminating to in from the excerpt the above quoted majority opinion. record, however, Examination reveals that this al- statement, made, even if not incriminating was legedly (The at all. who testified that he incriminating prisoner major- overheard the statement referred to above and in the recanted that and said that ity opinion testimony has since no such statement was ever made in his presence.) statement which the witness testified to hear- prosecution’s made to a ing allegedly by appellant response ques- tion him put another inmate at Jail Allegheny County where he was his arrest on the in- following incarcerated inmate, stant The fellow to the charges. according prosecu- trial, said, tion’s witness at kill her?” hell did you
“Why witness, replied, to this same according appellant, it prove anyhow.” can’t “Well, They what the fuck. was in- that appellant statement is not admission This of the crimes for which he was volved in the perpetration Jefferson, See, being tried. Roberts, J.). (1968) (dissenting opinion sur- upon not be based mere may
A criminal conviction said that mise or it be conjecture. Although may accurately upon case cast suspicion evidence in this prosecution’s that evidence failed to establish reasona- appellant, beyond acts for which he ble doubt that committed the appellant was tried.
NIX, J., concurring opinion. in this joins ROBERTS, Justice, dissenting.
I dissent. The concludes that the trial court majority committed reversible error in to allow refusing appellant ask prospective jurors following questions:
“This case the defendant in this rape-murder, involves black, that blacks have sexual drives case do feel you that differ from whites? is anything wrong
Do there with a you believe that to a white woman?” black man affection showing ask: appellant The trial court did allow Negro with any dealings experiences “Have had you impartial it difficult to sit in persons might make on this case?” court, ask this appellant allowing I believe the trial to ex- obligation permit fulfilled its question, to this juror prejudice relating an area of plore potential *13 Futch, trial. See Commonwealth reversible error where trial court refused to (1976) (no jurors allow ask whether race would potential accused to but concerning credibility, affect their did allow judgment impair race could the accused to ask whether the rejected the Moreover, asking I believe generally). balance which the delicate tip would questions improperly to instead tend an trial and impartial atmosphere, maintains and suggestions cloud of impermissible prejudicial create an implications. question
A need defendant approve every court not Commonwealth, dire, if the as desires to ask on voir even trial, has here, To a fair the court object. does not ensure determine the propriety to independent obligation ABA Section 5.1 the Standards Criminal questions. the Relating to Function of the Trial Justice, Standards Draft, 1972), Judge provides: (Approved of jurors examination “Conduct of voir dire by the voir dire examination The should initiate judge by counsel and respective their identifying parties accused, put- charge against to referring their jurors questions touching ting prospective serve as including jurors qualifications, impartiality, such permit The also additional judge the case. should and the prose- defendant or his questions by attorney proper.” cutor as he deems reasonable and The this out: Commentary points Section use of voir dire preclude intended to
“This standard is jurors favor- predisposing for such purposes extraneous against defendant, ably or towards unfavorably Nevertheless, counsel, else. government, or anyone determine whether chal- use of voir dire permitting to abuse unless open the standard lenge peremptorily, control.” careful judge exercises Justice, for Criminal Standards Accord, ABA Standards Draft, 1968). (Approved 2.4 Jury to Trial Relating § and effec- fairly discharge responsibility trial court can facts, court- including it all relevant if considers tively only offense, com- potential nature of the room atmosphere, accused. characteristics position jury, *14 position” nether of his and “superiority Recognizing more,” M. Rosenberg, “he and senses because sees more Court, Trial Viewed From “Judicial Discretion (1971), quoted in Del Above,” L.Rev. Syracuse 1978), Cir. our States, (3d Piano v. F.2d United in controlling discretion afford the trial court broad cases Johnson, g., voir dire. See e. Commonwealth 5 (1973). questions, but approves prejudicial The not majority only of its sound interferes with the trial court’s exercise also important, on-the- by failing recognize discretion have the trial deci may shaped scene considerations court’s on voir dire. inquiry Recognizing sion to limit appellant’s courtroom atmosphere surrounding and understanding crime and of these prejudicial impact additional having already and allowed the accused to questions, probe without introducing this area of extraneous con prejudice siderations, reasonably court could and properly trial questions in the additional could nothing pro conclude that mote a fair trial.* establishes, in or even suggests, this record
Nothing an did a fair before impartial not have In holding contrary, selected properly jury. engages nothing speculation, more than substi- majority its own for that of tuting proposed questions assessment no Finding the trial court. error of law abuse of discre- on questions tion in the court’s for voir rulings proposed dire, no merit of trial error, appellant’s allegations a verdict of support sufficient evidence to murder of the I affirm the degree, first would sentence. * majority’s analogy proposed points charge attempted for important respect underscores its to consider factors failure require enjoy on dire. In which a trial court discretion voir charge, reviewing ruling points appellate trial court’s guided principles applied by legal to facts of record to a court dire, reviewing questions greater for voir where far extent than in always play a record crucial role in courtroom not considerations guiding the court’s discretion.