Commonwealth v. English
279 A.2d 4
Pa.
1971
Check Treatment

*1 Appellant, English. Commonwealth, Before Argued April Bell, O. J. Jones, Pomeroy and Barbieri, Koberts, JJ. Eagen, O’Brien, *2 J ames D. Crawford, District Deputy Attorney, with him Feldbaum, Carl B. Assistant Attorney, District Richard A. First Sprague, Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen District for Common- Specter, Attorney, Avealth, appellant. Pallastrone, for S.

Rudolph appellee. June 28, 1971: Bell, Chief defendant, William On January 8, English, for murder of English (no was tried Roosevelt appellee, May took on relation to which defendant), place the found the de- jury After four days trial, for voluntary Motions fendant guilty filed and were judgment arrest trial and a new for a On May 6, argued. taken the has and the Commonwealth granted trial was present appeal. trial, apparent produced

From evidence re- (hereafter and the deceased the defendant that as from a they tavern emerged Roosevelt) ferred which Roosevelt owed debt about $10 arguing were in the face hit Roosevelt The defendant defendant. him doivn Avith such knocked fist his on the pavement. head While Roose- his struck he that went his through defendant pock- unconscious, velt wallet, which was empty. Roosevelt’s removed ets Roosevelt struck defendant, being after Eight was cranial-cerebral injuries of death cause died. punched, being knocked Roosevelt from resulting the pavement. on head his strildng main- the Commonwealth Throughout trial, tained that the commission death occurred during therefore the felony, i.e., attempted robbery, murder consequently was a murder and felony in the first Defendant and attempted contended degree. he was to establish that there was because Roose- effort collect merely making flO him. velt owed

Defendant requested trial Judge that order to find a murder jury felony jury to rob Roose- must first find that the intended velt and that the homicide occurred while defendant was places throughout At various perpetrating robbery. in ac- the trial did instruct jury for but requested point cord with defendant’s if be- on to “Even the defendant went say: Court him he tried to that the decedent owed money, lieved *3 force or would still be it money violence, take the by took no excep- robbery.” Although and indeed gen- this portion tion to de- effectively negated exception eral and incorrect it would consti- only defense, fendant’s error. See Commonwealth and tute basic 767. It is 442 Pa. this 18, 24, considered of the charge portion sole reason for this was his granting be for a new trial. motion defendant’s or of grant settled that denial a The law is well not be reversed by trial will Court, for a new a clear Order was abuse of Court’s the lower unless of which controlled the law grant or an error discretion Commonwealth v. Hartman, new trial. or denial 211. See also Commonwealth A. 2d A. 2d 95. Green, 358 rampant crime is and disobedi- In these Order are Law and so widespread, defiance ence a who has an person ade- permit folly be it would quate remedy law to take the law own into his hands attempt recover his or his property property or claims or by by violence other violation any No law. matter or worthy how person’s objective Law Order must may be, pre- To allow or served. a creditor to resort to violence Pro- force to recover be an debt would unwarranted stretch crustean a creditor’s legal rights. a “claim

We hold that does not expressly right” entitle a creditor to resort to violence or to justify a forcible his debtor order to collect-his nor can it create a defense to a such felony, debts, or to murder or clear that grant It is was based error of and it therefore must be re law,* upon versed. case direction to reversed, and remanded with

Order sentence. enter an appropriate Eagbn: Concurring from the or is a larceny person presence Robbery or violence threat of violence. means of of another Simpson, of larceny of the elements is a felonious One lar animus furandi. It is not i.e., to steal, intent from another under one takes property where ceny Commonwealth v. of right. claim Wharton’s Criminal Law, §1097. 19 A. 350 Idemnity Ins. Co. N. Penn-Air, A., Inc. v. Accord, Thomas v. Kessler, A. 2d 19 (1970); *4 (1939). A. 2d 187 5 334 was of the court erroneous charge Hence, since there However, instant case. was in the in part 182, * 350, Pa. 19 Atl. has to v. Commonwealth attempted light in that If it facts case. to in the construed applicable is to facts lay definition case, overruled. instant in the ample more than evidence to establish that the accused guilty Committed an therefore unlawful was my voluntary manslaughter, in was view, harmless.

I in the concur result.

Mr. Jones, O’Brien and Mr. Jus- Justice Pomeroy joins. tice

Concurring Opinion Mr. Justice Roberts : I in neither a nor concur the result because general exception even taken majority’s ever-changing doctrine court. mystify me. error basic and fundamental continues contrary applications past basic Here, rule, requiring error is found without even judical general exception. principles ad- Sound type of error here as- mandate that the ministration appeal, for the first time on serted not be heard brought to trial court’s error could been have enable to cor- time to that court attention sufficient prejudice. possible rect length greater I . . stated at elsewhere, As have ma error test used basic and fundamental vague jority is too itself instant case lends Williams, v. Commonwealth results.” to inconsistent (1968) (dissenting 301, Pa. 570, Compare opinion). Scoleri, v. Commonwealth represents yet (1968). This case 2d 295 248 A. inability majority’s apply instance another e.g., hand. Common See, an even standard 272 A. 2d 916 Butler, wealth A. 2d 767 Commonwealth Lowery, (1971) ;