*1 Í02 Appellant. v. Dickerson,
Cоmmonwealth C. J., Before 1961. November Argued Bell, Eagen JJ. Alpern, Cohen, Jones, Musmanno, *2 for Berger appel- with him and Stein, Walter Stein, n - - lant. him District with Attorney, Arlen Assistant Specter, M. Paul Assistant District Attorney,. Satzberg, Burton and James First Assistant District Ghalfin, Attorney, Commonwealth, District for Attorney, Crumlish, Jr., G. appеllee.
Opinion January 1962: 2, Mr. Justice Eagen, of murder The defendant was tried convicted at im- The fixed life degree. first penalty judgment From the conviction prisonment. (cid:127) (cid:127) appeals. sentence, It that' evidence is insufficient to. urged is first In merit evaluating the conviction. of this support must be read in a light the evidence most question, the Commonwealth: favorable A. 2d 215 Pa. Common 110, (1960); Scoleri, 395, v. DeMoss, wealth : n On proof discloses following record August ... p.m. 11:15 Thomas o’clock, about Duffey at incinerator room of found dead Harrison ÍÓ4 in the
Plаza, housing project city Philadelphia, been where He had shot he was as employed guard. four bruises multiple and his face manifested times, room laundry A and abrasions. working woman, an came explosion a noise like building, hearing out into the corridor the incin- approached she and, her face erator a man ran in the out, struck room, ran the building.
On officers ar- August 19, investigating rested one who admitted his own Spencer Broaddus, participation in the implicated also crime On defendant voluntarily defendant.1 day, the same police. Upon being to the questioned, surrendered part denied the crime knowledge first upon the scene and, being specifically, denied *3 killing else. The written anyone Broaddus with of given police statement to the previously Broaddus was read him. inter then Broaddus Therein, alia, to said on that, the occasion he and the defend- involved, ant Harrison the Plaza to avoid the building entered rain; they entered the elevator and ascended to the thirteenth to floor examine surroundings; the descended to the floоr level and began walking first around; heard aimlessly Broaddus his the companion, he defendant, cursing someone; entered small room to ascertain what it was all about; therein, he saw the and a defendant, guard (the victim) who was then in the act drawing gun from his holster; the de- fendant guard hit the hat knocking his and off glasses and head a turning little; his at this Broaddus, point, tried grab gun and the tussle the gun the went off; fell guard to the floor and Broaddus immediately ran from the building taking with gun him. In the course of the statement de- Broaddus specifically guilty plead generally charging to an Broadens indictment guilty murder. He degree was found of murder in the first and the penalty imprisonment. at life fixed per- the guard’s anything he had taken nied that he the corridor had a woman or that he seen son building. from the ran the defendant statement, with this confronted
When Broaddus thаt what admitted his changed story not he did that he insisted except therein was said true* statement a written gave He shooting. see the then in an engáged that he stated he police wherein reached the latter and that as the guard with argument floor him fall to the him hit causing for his he gun, entered Broaddus instant that at that “spinning”; and the guard Broaddus between room; that a scuffle room he from the defendant ran that as the ensued; bumped accidentally in the corridor met a woman into her. Broaddus was of the following day,
On the afternoon the defend- officers with questioned by again did Broaddus said he On this present. occasion, ant He first complete questioned. not tell the truth when immediately following on to that say then went but only not gun, he took from shooting guard, containing watch his wallet his wrist bullets, some shortly he and the defendant met after cash; $7 to the home Broaddus’ sister proceeded the affair that he cellar; gave hid the gun where bought in cash and then the de- one dollar defendant the defendant dollars worth drinks, two fendant then money. the source knowing *4 of these statements. Immediately the truth admitted second written'state- gave defendant the thereafter, that he stated as the guard wherein to ment blackjack he took his which floor, on prostrate lay for day next $1.25. he sold testified that the de- witnesses Commonwealth Two to a their at together party Broaddus came fendant about departed 9:30 o’clock, p.m. 9 home about ;30 o’clock, about 11 together reappeared 106 captain guards employed in the Harrison
The of night building of the Plaza testified on the shoot- that leading ing persоnally examined into the doors p.m.; building approximately office 9:45 markings they were secured and there were no unusual existing on An of the same either door. examination markings jimmy doors at 1:00 a.m. on one disclosed evidently key an on floor door, made oil found impressions fitted the in the which door. position, per-
The defendant’s that since he did not sonally fire the fatal shots he of cannot be convicted completely proven untenable. The circum- murder, ample justify are stances more than the factual con- clusion that the defendant and were in the Broaddus building purpose committing Harrison Plaza for the of felony through carrying in the that, course plan, untimely their the victim met his death. killing burglary Where a occurs in the course of a robbery, participate equally or a аll who therein are guilty degree: murder the first v. Commonwealth supra; DeMoss, Commonwealth v. Coleman, (1961); Grays, A. 2d 166 525 238, Commonwealth v. 110 A. 2d 422 While no direct presented evidence was that the Broad- previously conspired together felony dus to commit a building proven in all of involved, circumstances certainly lead to the conclusion that were there burglarize. required The was not believe explanation presence building their in the for an purpose: innocent Homeyer, Pa. A. 2d 743 Nor was the Commonwealth required to establish conspiracy, of a existence explicit proof, agreement. of an direct or formal conspiracy existence the unlawful could be inferred proven involving circumstances the relation- ship parties. and overt acts of the The commission of, pаrticipation may a crime solely in, be established
107
by
Lowry,
circumstantial evidence: Commonwealth v.
(1953);
374 Pa.
98 A. 2d
594,
733
(1948);
360 Pa.
Wentzel,
In view of the evidence hereinbefore recited which justifies than more the conclusion that the defendant building pur unholy Broaddus were for an pose, burglary, following the commission of i.e., a unnecessary. observation is However wе that in note, supra, Commonwealth v. Hart, this Court stated that participat if a homicide occurs while the defendant is ing attempting perpetrate, robbery, in, it is im design material when the to rob was A conceived. felony Admittedly murder is effected. the vic herein, by partiсipants immediately tim was robbed both fol lowing shooting. killing occurred the course robbery. of complains
The defendant also that the trial court, deprived charge, its the defendant of a fair considera- tion of whether his statement to the voluntarily given. appears August It that on 19, gave defendant his first written statement police. morning August On the he was taken arraigned magistrate, before and committed to the prison. county August open On the afternoon of attorney requested permission the district court, prison, court remove the from the for *6 purpose questioning to clear in further an effort up previously made had which certain statements he investiga* by the did not coincide with facts disclosed up” “bring signed tion. The court is termed as a what nothing about this There is or order. sinister secretive рrocedure practice only commonly and not used, it is a Philadelphia County, in in of the but other counties Commonwealth. questioned, such cir-
When a defendant under is cooperate may do refuse to elect or cumstances, question him so he sees fit. If the wished to they arraignment, certainly, after further his would right of the have the prison do so within the confines they and the fact remove him that fit to saw prison purpose any in from the prejudice. for this did not result pertinent inquiry concerning the valid- ity of a confession or a defendant statements made is their Of voluntariness or course, involuntariness. determining question, jury this all of must consider including the circumstances manner in which, they given. under locale were which, charged The trial jury court herein that up” “bring proper order Certainly, and normal. nothing рrejudicial wrong there was in this instruc- particularly judge thoroughly tion, when the so, also correctly charged statements or confes- sions of the defendant should not and could not be they considered unless were convinced that voluntarily freely given. the same werе Also that determining freely given, whether were or if they were the result of all coercion, of the circumstan- carefully ces incident thereto should be considered. The defendant further contends that the trial court admitting erred into evidence color slides whiсh were jury. depicted exhibited to body These victim, wounds inflicted, the room wherein the These were admitted so crime occurred. that a medical demonstrably witness could illustrate the bullet wounds body. and the abrasions photographs In a murder the admission of trial, largely the victim is within the discretion of the trial flagrant court. Unless there ais abuse of discretion, say we will not that reversible error Common exists: wealth v. Novak, photograph gruesome
The fact that a
is not sufficient
legal reason in and of itself to exclude it. Common
Capps,
wealth
v.
114 A. 2d
permission
Also
showing
of the use of color slides
body
bruised
of the deceased is
not,
error.
itself,
photographs,
The use of
black or
should
colored,
be rea
*7
pertinent purpose:
sonable and for a
Johnson,
The defendant also that certain conduct attorney during and statements of the district the trial deprived study him of a fair trial. A careful entirety record its disclosed no real merit to this Emphatically, attorney contention. the district should always proper bear in mind his role in a trial of such great import, religiously and refrain from conduct un- responsible becoming such a A trust. above cause, fairly everything, should be tried and incorrect state- lio intemperate prejudicial arguments or and unfair,
ments always upon urge should avoided. be We cannot dis- attorneys strongly refraining tinct too the need for complained such conduct. The statements of have been taken and so at first out of when context, considered, assignment of tend to sustain the error. How- blush, reads the record of the entire when one situation, ever, complaints are diminitus and and are tenius, we prejudice no real resulted. it is Further, convinced apparent complained inspired, that the remarks were part, conduct of defense counsel him- least any intended is noted without reflection self. This upon regarded highly is a member of the who counsel, protect legal profession, zeal to and whose his client’s Regardless, admired. it be is factor interest must Finally, judge carefully the trial considered. to be disregard any intemperate jury to re- cautioned permit not to such to influence counsel marks of of the case. their consideration carefully studied considered each have We urged appeal. assignment every error this We prejudicial error in the record. no substantial find carefully fairly conducted. The The trial protected. minutely were interests defendant’s amply the evidence. sustained verdict Judgment affirmed. *8 Opinion
Dissenting Mr. Justice Musmanno: of a brutal murder and convicted The defendant why I do not understand convicted. been have should blemished the fairness have should Commonwealth showing a number of color to the trial of the pictures corpse the deceased. were slides prosecution. prove necessary case not not want an affirmation I would because I dissent relinquishment interprеted part my to be on
Ill repellent use my unnecessary stand not and does improper gruesome pictures unfair, undeviating solemnity with the comport dignity, in our country. of a murder trial impartiality Appellant. Appellant, v. Giller, Gruida, Argued November 14, 1961. Before C. J,, Bell, Eagen Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, JJ. Alpekn,