*1 Appellant. Commonwealth v. Edwards, Argued November 1958. Before 21, J.,C. Jones, Cohen and Bell, Musmanno, Jones, JJ. Bok, reargument refused January 1959. 12, W. him with Levy, Donald J. Goldberg, Garfield & for Levy appellant. Oliensis, James McGirr Kelly, Assistant District Attorney, him Juanita Kidd Assistant Stout, District At- N. James First torney, Lafferty, Assistant At- District H. and Victor District torney, Blanc, ap- Attorney, pellee.
Opinion by 5, January Me. Justice Musmanno, 1959:
On of Curtis city Philadelphia, June the 22,1957, 11 and months Raymond then Edwards, being years Sr. of shot and killed Martin He age, the for and of murder in indicted murder found guilty imprisonment. with the fixed life degree first at penalty errors. He for a appealed trial, alleging has new needs to considered. Only one Judge charged The The defense was insanity. Trial insanity, if the defense of the find that you jury: “Now, as I outlined has been established you, by have it fair then should evidence, you preponderance if not acquittal. do However, you a verdict of render has proved of been insanity the defense believe the defendant of the evidence fair preponderance then must fix burden rests, you whom the upon of either murder verdict of crime degree by a or murder penalty death, first degree in the with imprisonment; degree penalty life first or voluntary manslaugh- in the second degree murder the evidence as find weigh you You must ter. ar- have instructed the law facts under possible five verdicts one, and only rive at one, submitted to you.” I have now which ruled the Trial out charge Under of Not told simple Guilty. verdict He possibility of acquittal could render verdict they the jury He any other reason. but not insanity one” of the “one, return could said that These possi- he enumerated. five verdicts five possible . because of Guilty insanity. 1. Not were: ble verdicts 3. degree with death. First murder 2.- First degree imprisonment. degree 4. murder with life Second mur- Manslaughter. Voluntary der. 5. suppose jury did believe
But that-a .crime not if defend- had been committed or, committed, deed. Com- ant was not one who had done the emphasizing killed the defendant monwealth, Martin defendant admitted that the Daniels, Sr., killing, require argues: “It seems ridiculous presumption on the Trial Court to continue has cir- innocence once the defendant admitted surrounding History has offense.” cumstances many there have been ridic- demonstrated so-called persons ac- cases in innocent have been ulous unjustly often of crime and exe- convicted, cused even say prosecuting for the officials to cuted. It *3 position the insofar as defendant, the whether charge judge’s or not. concerned, is is ridiculous says pre- further: “While The Commonwealth sumption until of innocence continues there is a con- expect jury be unreasonable it would viction, justi- slayer absolutely acquit who had no. an admitted n committing slaying.” the or excuse for fication left to the to decide wheth- it must still be But justifica- slayer had or did not have an admitted er may he did. While it be true for what or excuse tion slayer slay- many the admits to the where in cases justification or no or ing, can little excuse be for there many have also been which there homicide, deaths the justified acknowledged unavoidable as has law the mishaps Many automobile circumstances. under killings self-defense, category the former within fall the latter. within come charge judge say on an indis- need not that a
To requirement pensable in the law bécause the defendant hang assuredly guilty accused and in- is to first is and the is trial alone It him dict afterwards. guilty. assuredly decides a defendant is which whether papier- presumption merely of innocence is not display figure courtroom; mache in the dramatic play- reality become mere it is a without which trials pocket judge’s residing acting with the verdict hypothetical jury is if in a sworn. Even, before piles high guilt as as Mt. Everest the evidence of Case, Attorney conscien- even if District on Matterhorn, tiously Cain, as believes the defendant to be certainty what views and no matter with is culpability at the the defendant of the accused bar, safeguards fair trial as an- to all the of a entitled still of the land. in the Constitution and the law nounced recently published English in a An author, eminent admissibility governing said that rules “the book, something mystery inman to the are evidence lawyers’ apt them as is to think of who street, they Though hocus-pocus. This is unwarranted. view are—mechanical seem—and sometimes sometimes long operation, arbitrary based on such rules are required protect experience rich what individual.”1 con- rules there are certain manner,
In the same ig- simply judge’s cerning cannot experience long and rich are based on since nored required, protect accused individual what of crime. *4 precedent. jurisprudence system is based on of
Our go judge’s charge glaring omission in a To allow trials where in future mean that would uncorrected overwhelming not be so would to convict the evidence Attorney believe the lower Court District as the be could not omission a similar case, in this it to be Trial, 1 Charles and the 1958“ Edgar Lustgarten, Murder “The 1958, p. Sons, 15. Scribner’s
complained of would cited case be as precedent. It will be recalled that Bassanio when pressing asked that the law be modeled suit his Portia needs, answered: power
“It must be; not there in no Venice Can alter a decree established: precedent, ‘Twill be recorded for a many example, And an the same error, Will rush into the it state; cannot be.”2 Not to order new trial in hand would the case at approval example, be to set our on an error and misleading authority, sign- could error be cited and a highway board would rise on the of truth. incredulously The Commonwealth asks: “Is charge unthinking Trial Court to be held ato slavish expect jury or should the Trial act as rea- soning men and when the facts not in dis- women, are pute?”
It is not for the Trial Commonwealth or for the elementary Court decide whether a basic and feature prophetic should on the basis omitted, certainty jury that the will return a verdict of seemingly dispute. because of facts are not places law the Commonwealth the hands responsibility deciding guilt, the exclusive may jury’s possible and the Court not restrict the con important very clusions to a number which excludes the guilty. one of the law would authorize Otherwise, give binding a Trial Court to instructions in favor the Commonwealth which, is not “un course, thinking” but unthinkable. In Commonwealth v. Flax, 331 Pa. this Court said: 145, 154-5, “When a defend plea guilty’, ant in a murder indictment enters a of ‘not put upon prove the burden is the Commonwealth to Venice, IV, Merchant of Act sc. 1. *5 340
n him guilty beyond murder either of a reasonable doubt, degree, degree, or in the first in the second or murder voluntary: manslaughter, the or otherwise Common acquittal. The is un must an defendant wealth suffer explain deny obligation stand and der no to take the or attempt if he does, the but homicide, or to excuse theory explains attempts of excuse it on or though killing, or of an accidental and even self-defense testimony theory is him in his thus advanced rejected by jury, on the the burden still remains ingredients prove essential Commonwealth charged in indictment one the crimes at least conviction.” before it entitled to a. “The contends further that:
The Commonwealth proper as whole whether or not the test is . prejudicial fair and contains no basic accurate and if iso- sustained even a conviction should be error and objec- charge might excerpts from taken lated tionable.” Judge’s charge here is not the in the
But the fault objectionable, excerpt being al- an matter of isolated impera- though case reversal would be in that even capable question excerpt of mislead- if the' tive excerpt” ing jury. Here not an “isolated have, we positive instruction the end at a definite but legal long charge size covered. sheets n typewritten transcript. was that Since the defense perforce insanity devote had to attention psychiatry subject medical as introduced wit- psychiatric testimony, evidence Some nesses. and am- be, much effort abstruse too can without biguous. to the clarification looked The direction. briefly as As follows. al- (cid:127). in the case are facts Martin ready Edwards killed defendant noted, Martin deceased Daniels, The son Sr. *6 a 14 Daniels, had a close Jr., boy some been years, friend and companion of the defendant Edwards four or five From years. junior time to time the Daniels related to father Edwards stories of his how beat brutally how struck him him, fists, he with his kicked and he how him, otherwise manhandled him, also his struck so how he mother, betrayed her, on. stories had These a marked Edwards effect on Ms who, knew himself, paternal something tyranny, own him having father used violence both on physical and his mother over a period time. Edwards’ father was a bad evidently very man because after State, , appropriate him. preliminaries, duly electrocuted Edwards reacted to what he heard about the keenly senior Daniels’ cruelties and some of which brutalities, he witnessed himself he was a visitor frequent at the home. Daniels-
A 1957) came June when day along (Friday, 21, young Daniels announced to he calmly Edwards kill his intended to father and asked Edwards if he would in. join like to the venture. accepted Edwards On grim invitation. the next obtained day they 30. caliber rifle third and, conspirator, young Albert took Strolis, position up vantage across the from Daniels’ cemetery street the senior home. Edwards agreed It was was a better shot than Daniels and he was entrusted junior the. thus markmanship with the which would insure would bullet strike the senior Daniels avenging also the mother or the younger brother Billy who with the father. At 9:30 might evening their beMnd they began vigil, crouching the wall which overlooked the street. At about o’clock senior on Daniels the scene. He sat on the appeared steps inserted, in front of his house. Strolis Albert a .car- tridge rifle, into. turned it Edwards over to weapon resting who took barrel of the careful aim, pulled .trigger, oni senior Daniels and the wall, toppled, hitting the bullet him in chest. argued so
It in Edwards’ behalf that he parental brutality, related assimilated the stories of as junior áas that he identified himself killing boy brother of the and that, Daniels killing he his father. senior in effect own Daniels, was testi- Dr. Aaron W. defendant, called Mallin, type suffering in- fied from a that Edwards was explained: sanity doctor known a deux. The foile killing “In his insane mind he believed that *7 , concept his that was brutal had no this own father, n wrong anyone said and could killed else.” He not have malady an “induced or communi- further that was type insanity.” cated of describing jury, theory
In Mallin’s Dr. to April prior Trial said: he said that to “Now, - in saw this. defend- 2nd, he never cross-examination, that, again ant a deux was and said before, foile in form that of or in or a two, two, madness two, know I do. was induced or communicated, and we whether he used the word heard that ‘transmitted’, I said it but it was think he was here.too; whatever person from who or other induced communicated type has. He never this’ illness. said he examined said a trans- Martin at all. And he that Daniels, Jr., usually is a delu- fer of an illness from one to another necessarily a that the sion, delusion, but not inducee something original party who takes from the absorbs or type in to He also said answer has this illness. question Sprague Mr. that never a case he practice. I said, And think his he this in whole sort you does again that where it remember, but it is paranoid usually manic or a associated occur is depressive or I said that term, And think he state. or this illness, whatever it situation, condition, is, a deux —I am deux— now about talking foile foile something recognized every- psychiatry where. And then there was some reference to what Dr. Ornsteen and heard that here. said, you testimony At it is for any put own evaluation rate, you your upon and determination that under the instructions I I have will not reached that at all. give, yet And that that.”
It can be reflecting without doubted, any way on the Trial were much en- Judge, very this discussion. lightened by
With the Commonwealth’s regard psychiatrist, Dr. H. Frederic Leavitt, Judge charged: “Now, said he had never examined this Martin too, -actually he had seen him although here; and Daniels, Jr., with- much detail I out into so think there some going discussion as to philosophical ques- psychiatry being or tion of whether it involved the opinion, study general and so forth. But heard all behaviorism, you that, or whatever credence whatever valuation, want on place evaluation, you that, you, course, and under the instructions Jury are give you, if it one way find material, other, why, you *8 it that evaluation.” give will doubted
It can also be whether the a jury got very clear of what the Commonwealth picture was here con- with to the tending regard defendant’s mental condi- tion. In there was a addition, brought into the case phenomenon catathymic called Judge crisis, the. “And upon: touched there was briefly some reference I in Dr. Leavitt’s as remember, to I to, examination, think Dr. Ornsteen’s about testimony the other boy. heard all too. He said But he would you that, agree in and he would in part him he disagree part; I think something catathymic crisis, said about that n remembrance generally
is the term. is -Now, my testimony I is kind of that as it but, testimony; say, heard this latter certainly part, you freshly, so conceded, the rest of it almost something, say, is I do not is find, even it still though you on my further elaboration either part know any or warranted.” necessary deux and catathymic the terms
Although foile crisis but be to the the Com- confusing could not jury, had difficulty contends that the no monwealth subject on the testimony in analyzing issue of insanity, on this charged: “Therefore, Court must consider all weigh and the evidence you carefully in after such con- you the case and if, consideration, tends to defend- clude that the evidence which support he insane at time ant’s contention convincing of the cáused the death deceased more when weighed against presump- and more persuasive of the tion his and the evidence Common- sanity must then find the defend- support it, you wealth not because of insanity.” ant guilty ' it correct as this instruction accentu- is, But, final instruction when the ates error did not find the' defendant not said that if the jury him guilty because of find insanity they manslaughter. murder or bf Trial
It is as the Commonwealth that the says, true, did if the jury that Commonwealth the defendant a reason- prove guilty beyond did be In this acquitted. respect, able doubt he had following calls our attention Commonwealth criminal ease Judge: “Now, statement every produce must evidence to prove the Commonwealth charged beyond crime a rea- the defendant guilt there never can be conviction unless sonable doubt, matter so No what be- proved. may can guilt *9 the to have lieve the circumstances facts actually against fact considered as no can be existing been, a reasonable defendant it be beyond unless proved con- Commonwealth’s (the doubt . . : and unless they must be not guilty.” tentions are so the verdict ) proved, charge. This 6th of the Court’s appears page on the peremptory appears Judge’s Then on the 64th page of. In the meantime the complained jury direction and the of the bog psychi- through fog been taken with re- regard could jury only atric discussion. them charged of the Court which lief the final words as to what were clarity they of the utmost words direc- into this absolute merged do. What went before cancelled out what himself Judge practically tive. The about a verdict of possible said previously he had their captain speaking listen to Soldiers who guilty. he what guided by says an hour will naturally sums and tells them up everything the end when at If con- are to do. in 1-2-3-4 what language they it 1-2-3-4 he said before, tradicts what counts. the inadvertence of course, regrettable
It is, should necessitate a re- of the Trial part on the reveals that was The record case of the case. Trial advocates experienced tried well his which, However, error, presided ably. basic and fundamental. was oversight, an course, It was practically cured. being is incapable It The two charge. paragraphs which to the signature formal utterance covered followed and that should jury be unanimous must verdict it at a verdict. arriving Thus, sense use common instruction predominating inevitable listing with them was the took away Which they could choose from —the five verdicts Not the five which excluded on one hand, could count *10 Guilty. To dilate further on an error so absolute would be to belabor the obvious and embroider the elementary. verdict reversed with a venire de novo. facias Justice
Mr. Benjamin R. Jones dissents. Dissenting Opinion Mr. Justice Bell: majority granting The decision of the of the Court alleged charge a new trial because error of the in the incomprehensible. of the to me Defend- wilfully, deliberately pre- ant and with cold-blooded nearly meditation in wait for hours two to shoot laid sitting and kill who was across Daniels, the street steps. guilty on his door own Defendant was found degree probably in the first of murder and, imprison- youth, penalty of his fixed the at life obviously lucky boy ment. He is have been proved beyond per- The Commonwealth executed. possibility adventure doubt that defendant had planned carefully committed deliberate wilful, premeditated degree first murder. Defendant orally admitted to one detective the details of the mur- subsequently committed; he had executed der which admitting in detail his a written confession commission and he took witness later stand and murder, planned oath he had kill and admitted under how again giving shot and killed how he had once wanton murder. the details of this correctly charged jury, as the The trial produce majority that the Commonwealth must admit, prove that defendant was of murder evidence to beyond if it fails to do de- doubt, a reasonable so, acquitted. The Court in its fendant must be every criminal case the said: Commonwealth “Now, prove guilt produce of the defend- evidence must ant of crime charged beyond doubt, reasonable and there can never be a conviction unless the can guilt be so proved. No matter may what believe the cir- cumstances and the facts to have no fact actually been, can be considered as existing against defendant un- less it be proved you beyond a reasonable doubt. The prove Commonwealth must evidence beyond rea- sonable doubt each of the elements to con- necessary stitute the crime and unless are charged, so proved *11 the verdict not . must be . .” guilty,
I pause ask —could any charge fairer to de- fendant?
Later on, after discussing pertaining evidence the trial insanity, charged “Now, as follows: if find that I you defense insanity, have out- lined it to has been you, established a fair by prepon- derance of the then should evidence, you render a ver- dict of acquittal. if do However, not believe the you defense of has proved been fair insanity aby prepon- derance of the evidence the defendant whom upon the burden then you must fix the rests, of crime degree verdict of either murder in the guilty de- first or penalty murder in gree the first death, de- -with of life gree penalty imprisonment; or murder in or second degree voluntary manslaughter. You must weigh the evidence as find you the facts under as I the law have instructed and arrive at and one, possible five verdicts only one, have now submitted you.” declare this to majority be error they for which a new trial because if “the
grant did jury not believe that a crime had been if committed, or, committed, the defendant was not the one who had done the deed” acquitted could have jury defendant. As a theo- retical statement of the law, of course correct, practical but it is a This inanity! was a murder beyond had proved Commonwealth which the had admitted the defendant and possibility doubt, at his trial, under oath and in writing orally killed Daniels, he shot and planning after careful To insanity. defense was only his excuse and his “Not pleaded defendant upon Pelion pile Ossa, insanity”. by virtue have could correct theoretically jury
It a crime if believed that acquitted they defendant or if believed that defendant not been committed, they had killed because someone else was innocent killed defendant or because or because an alibi, committed or because Daniels Daniels self-defense, defendant new trial suicide. not á grant Why on alibi the trial did (1) jury could tell the (and they self-defense and suicide, reasons), for all or one these acquit defendant any if acquit they likewise defendant (2) could (3) dr that a crime had not been committed, believed if crime! defendant did not commit they believed statement of opinion approves Even the majority *12 use that “the should common Judge jury adjura at a verdict.” limit Why sense arriving In com and Courts? the name of juries tion to lower except should discuss mon what else sense, in this case and presented which was testimony thereto? We re of law applicable pertinent principles of in ‘Not virtue pleaded guilty by “Defendant peat, ”* acci The was not an automobile trying jury sanity.’ following to the made the statements * Defendant’s counsel by plead jury not the record: “This defendant did not as shown deny insanity. pleaded guilty by guilty; He not virtue of did he not exactly what he in this case. He took the stand and said the act jury did, I not before. ... I have never said this do .... .to you say you I . . . to door. ask [defendant] to out that ask send 22, I on ask then to find him was not sane June 1957. that he
349 dent and at Broad Chestnut or a will Streets, contest, or an insurance case contract; were where trying the defendant admitted that he and wilfully deliberately hilled and his excuse and. his only only defense Even the for insanity! experienced counsel defend ant not thought charge and did perfectly proper take to any exception request this of the part amplification any of the charge gen took a merely —he eral exception, which and every lawyer every knows and reaches fundamental basic customary error. The majority’s am decision, sorry say, makes a and mockery is a of just law travesty ice.**
Courts all over the land are eliminate striving or get from technicalities. even if away we However, resort decision cannot technicalities, majority’s l be justified. The law is wel settled that a charge must be considered as a whole, will reversed not be :*** isolated excerpts Commonwealth v. Kloiber, Pa. A. 2d 412, 418, 106 820; Commonwealth v. Donough, 377 Pa. 103 A. 694; 2d 46, 53, Commonwealth v. 372 Pa. A. 2d 704. Patskin, 402, When taken 422, guilty by insanity virtue of at the time of the commission offense, .” . . . majority opinion (although **The understand states I cannot appeal) what it has to “In this the meantime the do fog bog through psychiatric been taken discussion.” fog bog Judge they were were not created the trial — psychiatrist created for the defense. From the record of appealed gets Court, murder cases which' are im- one pression every every criminal, according murderer and to-some psychiatrist, psychiatry is insane. en- Confidence will not be psychiatrist always .testify hanced if a can be found who will every every murderer and criminal is insane. *13 *** my opinion, excerpt upon majority In the isolated which the rely grant trial, alone, even if new considered an accurate applicable law which statement of the case. to the facts this fairly correctly, accurately a whole law.
states the affirm reasons would foregoing For each and sentence. the judgment Borough.
Agardy, Appellant, Hills v. Pleasant 1958. Before J., October O. Argued Jones, 6, Bell, Jones JJ. Musmanno, Cohen,