*2 EAGEN, O’BRIEN, JONES, Before ROB- C. and ERTS, MANDERINO, POMEROY, NIX and JJ. THE OF COURT
OPINION EAGEN, Justice. im- appeals from the sentence of life Dobson following
prisonment imposed upon his conviction him by degree. jury first of murder in the shooting during prosecution fatal from a
The stemmed by allegedly with holdup, Dobson an armed committed attempt narcotic accomplice, in an steal aid of an sufficiency Dob- drugs. of the evidence to warrant The of questioned, and an examination son’s conviction not more readily the evidence was the record demonstrates ample jury’s verdict. than to sustain by po- questioned Following arrest, was Dobson his period hours and intermittently of several over lice However, guilt persisted denying of crime. his commencing hours aft- twelve during questioning further A his arrest, finally involvement. admitted er his he handwriting recorded summary this statement was of begin- Later, police officers. questioning one of arrest, after minutes his ning fifteen and fifteen hours at again and his statement questioned was Dobson participation in describing admitting his and time pretrial motion typewriter. A holdup on a recorded was it was admit- denied, and suppress this was evidence the state- objection contents of The trial. ted over at ment, typewritten pages, covered ten was read the statement itself was out with the sent during deliberations.
The does not now contest that trial Commonwealth refusing suppress state- court erred in permitting rec- ment and its introduction into the trial 290 A. ord under Commonwealth However, (1972), 2d Com- related cases. urges the was error was since there monwealth harmless overwhelming intro- evidence” of Dobson’s instantly position duced at This is untenable trial. following reason. jury, During charge his instructed part, it found the police also be- was made *3 doubt, beyond true reasonable lieved its contents be a you upon then “that in itself is sufficient evidence which 1 jury’s verdict was can a conviction.” Since base general nature, impossible in from it is ascertain upon In its verdict. record what evidence the based possi- instructions, it is at least of the trial view court’s overwhelming evi- rejected ble that solely guilty on dence” of and still found police. of his basis evidentiary of the circumstances, use Under such hardly said to be harmless. statement can be Judgment a new trial ordered. and and reversed specific language to which a 1. The exact used objection was entered was as follows: statement, you in that wish to believe the itself defendant’s “If you upon base a conviction. can is sufficient you? Have I made clear to that s}s ;¡: % % & fK sfc 4* # “Also, statement, given by you confession, I that told doubt, beyond is defendant, you a believe it reasonable suffi- if earlier, verdict, you your I alone to base but as said cient given, you its con- it believe must believe to be doubt, beyond no other a reasonable and even there is tents evidence, voluntary, the con- believed be confession if enough sufficient, jury’s ver- are in to warrant a tents itself dict.” 94
NIX, J., concurs in result.
POMEROY,
dissenting opinion.
filed
POMEROY,
(dissenting).
Justice
respectfully
I must
dissent from the decision of the
today
retrospective applica-
Court
it
because
involves
tion of the decision
in
v.
447
Com.
389,
(1972). Appellant’s
in-
“One that the threat of exclusion will dilatory illegal police conduct, deter or but it can hardly supposed application exclusionary be long past anything rule to events will add to the rule’s deterrent force for the future.” my concurring opinion Mitchell, See also Com. (1975) opinions A.2d cited footnote two therein.
Appeal of Hortense HIRSCH.
Supreme
Argued April 1975.