Commonwealth v. Goins
321 A.2d 913
Pa.
1974
Check Treatment

*1 to deliver requested court refuses prosecution on voluntary manslaughter, tending prove or absence presence manslaughter. of voluntary elements distinguishing here. This was situation Pomeboy opin- joins concurring Mr. Justice ion. v. Goins, Appellant. *2 reargued April November 1972;

Submitted C. J., Eagen, O’Brien, Eoberts, 1973. Before Jones, JJ. and Manderino, Nix Pomeroy, F. for ap- him Julian King, with Louis Lipschitst, pellant. Attorney, District II. Assistant Levintow,

Benjamin him Attorney, M. District Assistant Stein, Milton Richard District Deputy Attorney, Crawford, D. James and Ar- District Attorney, Assistant First A. Sprague, for Commonwealth, ap- District Attorney, len Specter, pellee.

Opinion 1974: Nix, July Justice Mr. raises the ever-troublesome prob- again appeal This is permitted a court to com- to which extent lem charge in its We are jury. evidence ment the trial court exceeded the satisfied trial must be awarded. limits permissible at 6,1967, of October evening approximately theOn Ceretta then deceased, Bryson, twenty P.M. 9:30 purchases make certain her home to left years age, her purchases, After making store. at a neighborhood identi- she set upon by man, en home, route while resulting three times and stabbed fied as appellant, arrest appellant’s After thereafter. her death shortly of murder and convicted before he was tried to life imprisonment. and sentenced the first degree argued subsequently filed, motions were Post-trial is a appeal en banc. This direct denied the Court the Act pursuant of sentence from the judgment 17 P.S. art. §202, P.L. No. 223, II, July Supp.). (1974-1975 211.202 the court stated: During is my opinion in this case it “Under binding upon you, is in no wise which opinion, only my at he is all, guilty is guilty if this defendant came This statement degree.” the first murder *3 in- and last formal was the charge end of the very the the to permit to a recess for jury, prior given struction their out objections charge forth set counsel Pa. R. Crim. P. 1119. the During hearing. jury’s the of taken specific exception a was counsel conference pre- thus the issue was properly and statement to this Pa. R. Crim. P. 1119(b). review. for appellate served em- an intention of expressed the court point At this intended to be directed the was that phasizing and not to the of question guilt of degree vigorously was suggestion opposed This or innocence. such course of argued who counsel what in his compound judgment further would action cured additional in- being incapable an error was returned for final instruc- jury When structions. begin deliberations no retiring before tions to the opinion made pre- had was mention further court did again remind the but given been viously re- of all of the jury possible verdicts could under the indictment they considering.1 turned were While have long recognized power to aid to comment and judge and to as enlightening understanding sist the issues to be clarifying resolved, never restrict deemed to be unlimited and without ion.2 this power It has been long recognized be is not to be construed as a license for court come an advocate in the proceedings, 311 Pa. Common (1933); 167 A. 333 Trunk, wealth v. A. 94 Com Westley, monwealth v. 281 Pa. 126 A. 56 Stallone, The “a dis of the trial must be calm and judge passionate ... or tenor a one, judicial presentation of the .... sub impartial fair mission v. Trunk, of the evidence.” Commonwealth A. at “The supra, practice 337. 565-66, 167 into the trial a case em entering advocate is an exalted phatically disapproved. The judge occupies and dignified he is the one position; person whom with rare jury, looks for exceptions, guidance, from whom the litigants expect absolute impartiality.” 123 A. Myma, 487 (1924). or com Thus, any expression ment must be stated fairly temperately clearly free leaving independent to reach its conclu- objection voluntary manslaughter was an There raised that should have been defined for the benefit of the and offered as *4 possible very one verdicts. In view of our recent discussion subject Jones, 563, in Commonwealth on this v. 457 Pa. 319 A.2d 142 unnecessary. (1974), further elaboration here is 2 privilege judge “This to comment on the facts has its arbitrary limitations. His discretion is not inherent and uncon judicial, conformity trolled, to be exercised in but stand judicial Quercia governing States, v. office.” United ards U.S. 289 (1933). 598 A.2d 56 Pa. v. 358 Watts,

sion. Commonwealth 20 Pa. 276, v. 138 Orr, 83 (1948); 81, Commonwealth Pa. 418, 303 v. Nafus, A. 866 Commonwealth (1890); v. Commonwealth (1931); A. 486 154 421, 485, 420, Com- 394 (1941); 19 A.2d 389, Pa. 551, 341 Jones, 541, 53 A.2d 736, 188, Pa. 181, 187, monwealth v. 357 Moyer, 740 (1947). expressed repeatedly have

The caution we is judicial of this connection with the exercise the influence realization born from the practical aof the deliberations over exerting capable court is an expres where Thus, of its position. virtue jury3 by unduly to have deemed or comment was sion of its de reaching of the jury the province invaded aside be set the judgment have cision, required v. Wilmer, Commonwealth and a trial awarded. v. Commonwealth A.2d 24 (1969); 434 Pa. 254 397, Common 228 (1968); Pa. 432 Holton, 11, A.2d 890 225 47, v. Lucier, wealth (1965). A.2d 874 Pa. 207 v. 417 Ott, in an undue prevent This same determination our occasioned upon province trusion 448 Archambault, recent decision In that decision we (1972). A.2d 72 Pa. 290 that a trial court would former rule abandoned innocence or guilt express permitted announced a conditions4 and drawn carefully under 3 necessarily judge of the trial is influence ‘The weight,’ jurors great . are ever properly . . and watchful of Particularly trial, him. in a criminal fall from words apt judge’s is to be decisive word.” Bollenbach last word (Citation omitted.) States, 612 U.S. United time, Nafus, ... in Commonwealth v. first “For the may (1931), held that a this Court also A. 485 or innocence of defendant right many since, provided reaffirmed, this has been cases And in fairly temperately; 2) 1) exercised there is it is *5 against rule for a providing complete prohibition Archambault, v. this of comment. Commonwealth type 448 Pa. supra; Motley, a real- The Archambault result was A.2d 724 (1972). state- the effect a judge’s istic decisive of recognition and that in ment that his an accused was guilty in likelihood after there is little such fact, comment, that the reach its verdict. jury independently will be- distinction

While we the Commonwealth’s accept has been the there tween Archambault where holding, and the instant to guilt, directed to factual where the was situation, in the trial the degree the court’s view of appropriate more the guilt, event of the determination jury’s the factors difficult is whether question posed in Archambault are motivated a blanket prohibition not here. need not equally applicable today decide, We pro- whether there should also be a blanket however, de- hibition as to the against expression of opinion since the comment under these facts was gree clearly inappropriate. the

As indicated the his by the did not contest the fact of the occur- rence as or that the accused was fact the described, The issue to be resolved the perpetrator. only mind the at the the state of accused time of the was offered evidence to establish The defense incident. of alcohol the incident heavy consumption preceding to establish expert legal insanity As stated Commonwealth in of the act. time termed defense, though “his sole insan- ‘legal brief more than an obvious nothing attempt was ity’, any judge may ground make; 3) statement reasonable right clearly leaves to decide all the facts he every opinion.” question (Cita- in the of his Ott, omitted). tions degree to second reduce its verdict jury to persuade so intoxicated theory appellant intent form a specific he' capacity mental lacked to decimate kill.” effect of comment was Thus the left real issue only position defense’s *6 simple The factual situation controversy. not required comment was thus clear-cut, issues with the Com- agree While may clarification. we un- of intoxication was monwealth that the evidence basically remains this was impressive the fact defense offered. only the jury not order may

In a criminal case a court over- how return verdict guilty, the court whelming guilt. Similarly, the evidence as to its not be permitted should . . . offered. “[Judges] the merit of the only case and the particular unless not, should facts of an opinion the interest Justice warrant it, express credibility; on the merits of the case or the witnesses’ Pa. 119 A.2d 535, . . .” 384 Belcher, Keating In Commonwealth Butler, per- stated: “Just as a trial is not (1972) on the mitted to indicate to his views verdict in a should reach criminal they [citations he not permitted is to indicate to omitted], similarly on whether particular his views witnesses are 448 Pa. at 291 A.2d at the truth.” 92. telling a comment suggesting the court’s Unquestionably, merits of an accused’s sole defense is a as to view of a factfinder upon province intrusion than greater of the court’s as to the an credibility if the latter Clearly, is prohibited of a witness. single be condoned. not may the former without issue, a collateral is intro- merit, Where real questions to be to obscure duced decided by the use comment may ap- sole issue But the mere fact propriate. support impressive be without controversy may ver- urge the court does not testimony permit Here its weakness. dict by expressing could the factfinders reason to believe that there nowas presented the evidence intelligently not evaluate error it circumstances was reversible under these of an the expression sway attempt judgment opinion. and a new reversed of sentence

Judgment ordered. Pomeroy in the result. concurs

Mr. Justice Eagen and Mr. Justice Justice Jones Mr. Chief dissent. Opinion

Concurring Mr. Justice Roberts: of his opinion judge’s expression In a trial my view, the function guilt usurps of an accused’s of the degree *7 this sort of I would hold of the jury. his right denies the accused trial See impartial jury. (con (1974) 456 Pa.

Ewell, by Manderino, joined of this writer, curring v. Archambault, J.); Commonwealth 448 Pa. 110, Motley, A.2d 72 (1972); Project ABA Standards A.2d 724 to the Function Relating Standards Justice, Criminal 1972). Judge §5.6(a) (Approved Draft, Trial in the result. I concur joins concurring Manderino Justice

Mr. opinion.