*1 Appellant. Before November 1978. Submitted C. J., Jones, Nix aud Mander- Roberts, O’Brien, JJ. ino,
Joseph A. G. Girone,
James and David Assistant Dis- Garrett, Richman, Attorneys, Sprаgue, trict Richard A. First Assistant *2 Attorney, Specter, District and Arlen District Attor- ney, appellee. for Commonwealth, by March 1974: Jtjsticе guilty, the found was non-jury in a Post- trial, appellant trial motions were and sentenced refused, imprisonment years to an of five to twelve at the State appeal Correctional Institution. This followed, affirm. question presented admissibility
The sole is the in appellant’s evidence of confession. The facts are as quarrel follows: The homicide arоse out of a lovers’ appellant Appellant and one Fred Brock. evening encountered Brock one in the street company departed shortly another who woman, exchanged, thereafter. Words were and Brock struck appellant Appellant pulled times. several then out a stabbed Brock once in knife, and fled. chest, Hеnry
A few moments Officer later, Williams and partner his arrived at the lying scene and found Brock pavement. emerged An unidentified bystanders appellant crowd and named as the summoning assailant. After Officer ambulance, appellant’s neаrby Williams drove to home. On his way, he a naming heard appellant radio bulletin suspect stabbing. Finding door front open, house Williams walked in and appellant sitting in a observed visibly room chair, upset. asked name He and “did she want to tell happened at 24th me what and Master”, where the stabbing occurred. Williams’ suggestion, At doorway, out of moved earshot of Apрellant had then children. told Williams boyfriend fight be- him stabbed and had with her punching about Brock’s he her. She asked cause was timе. which Williams did not know that condition, headquarters. then He escorted her to appellant headquarters, interviewеd At Brock’s con- asked about Detective McDonald. She that he had been and dition, McDonald advised pronounced hospital. had dead at When regained composure, informed her McDonald A formal her Miranda which she waivеd. subsequently in which taken, stabbing admitted Brock.
Appellant challenged
admissibility of her
state-
pre-trial suppres-
ment to
Williаms and
McDonald
sion motion. The statement
ruled
Williams was
the later statement
but
to McDonald
inadmissible,
*3
suppressed,
not
and was
due course admitted into
ap-
hearing
evidence at
The
trial.
found that
pellant
required
received and undеrstood the
constitu-
gave
tional
station
at
before she
inculpatory
her
statement
to McDonald. The admis-
sibility
challenged
ground
of this statement is
it
that
was tainted
earlier statement to Williams.
argument unavailing
We find this
for two reasons.
persuаdes
of
our
First,
review
record
us that
any
stemming
taint
from
admission to Wil-
dissipated by
liams time of
interview with
police headquarters. Although
McDonald at
the state-
certainly damaging,
ment Williams
con-
“[a]
fession secured after
involved has been
adеquately
rights
advised
his constitutional
not
is
ipso
inadmissible
rendered
facto
an
earlier con-
inculpatory
or
fession
admission was made in the ab-
warning
these
sence
Evans v. United
(8th
1967);
admission of appellant’s confession was hаrmless er- ror. We think this point also has merit. At the con- clusion of the Commonwealth’s evidence, appellant toоk the stand and repeated the substance of her inculpatory admissions in effort to establish that the stabbing was in self-defense. It cannot be argued seriously that *4 her out-of-court confession determined her choice of The Commonwealth also initial ad product mission to Officer Williams was not the “custodial terrogation”, and, thus, Williams’ failure to administer Mirandа grounds was not error. Since we find other affirming judgment sentence, there is no need for us to reach this question, express opinion no on it. eye- two produced
defenses since the Commonwealth
witnesses to the altercation
Greеne and Brock.2
We conclude that
admission of
Greene’s
out-of-court
it was
statement, assuming arguendo
doubt. See
error,
harmless
a reasonable
beyond
Commonwealth v.
442 Pa.
277 A.2d
Witherspoon,
597,
Commonwealth v.
(1971);
Dias,
356,
A.2d 592
Commonwealth v.
428 Pa.
(1970);
Padgеtt,
Mr. Justice Mr. Justice and Mr. O’Brien Justice Nix concurred the result.
Concurring Justice Roberts: I concur in result solely elect- ed to аt trial testify and admitted under oath the con- tents of the confession she now In challenges. light of her in-court on this testimony, appellant, record, may not successfully assert that admission of her con- fession was reversible error. Commonwеalth v. Collins, 436 Pa. 114, A.2d 121-22, (1969); Com- monwealth ex rel. Edowski v. 423 Pa. Maroney, 223 A.2d (1966); ex rel. Adderley Myers, A.2d 482- 83 (1965). up Both witnesses ran to when saw Brock ground; scene, appellant fall to the before she fled the asked one police”. Thus,
of them to “call the of these witnesses hardly surprise appellant. could come have circumstances, pleading Under self-defense was the most promising though course available Even neither wit- Brock sufficiently ness saw strike the trial credited story charge to reduce the