*1 law for Federal tax to treat tax purposes foreign payments as a tax credit rather than a deduction. should be entitled deduct the appellant foreign tax at its net income
payments arriving upon Pennsyl- vania taxes are due.
I dissent. emphatically Pennsylvania, Appellee,
COMMONWEALTH Anthony JONES, Appellant. R.
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of Jan. 1978. Submitted April Decided *3 Anderson, Philadelphia, appellаnt. John C. for Goldblatt, Emmett Dist. Fitzpatrick, Atty., F. Steven H. Law, Dist. for for Atty. appellee. Deputy J„ O’BRIEN, EAGEN, ROBERTS, Before C. POM- LARSEN, EROY, NIX, MANDERINO JJ. OF
OPINION THE COURT EAGEN, Chief Justice. R. from the sentence of life
Anthony appeals impris- imposed following onment his conviction murder after first trial in degree nonjury Philadelphia. of the evidence sufficiency to warrant a finding
murder of the first is first degree A questioned. study the record demonstrated is merit. complaint without the evidence and all reasonable
Viewing inferences there- from light Commonwealth, in a most favorable to the it establishes following: m.,
On 6:30 January p. the dead Eva body son, found in homе by Smith was her her Preston Smith. Police were called and observed on the deceased lying floor with multiple stab wounds in the back and various They blows to the head. found two fresh fingerprints near doorjamb area where the body was found. It was later ascertained that the fingerprints those Jones.
Preston Smith informed that his police mother and he only were the occupants premises; that Jones was a visitor; friend of his mother and a frequent that one Mrs. occasion Smith discovered rummaging through her purse; and, Jones had driven her car in the past; car, this equippеd was with a alarm burglar special a was requiring key, missing. Although there was no evidence of forcible Eva entry, pocketbook Smith’s was on the open found kitchen table with some of the contents missing including key her car’s alarm. burglar information, On the basis of this Jones was arrested without a warrant his home on January at 7:20 immediately a. m. and was taken to the Police Administra m., tion At about 11:30 a. he Building. admitted assaulting the victim and thereafter shortly gave police a detailed of the occurrence which description was stenographically sum, that, recorded. In Jones told the after police watching Smith, talking television and to Eva he suffered a “migraine headache;” that “this came migraine headache over me and mad;” that, like without got provocation, I he then got ash and hit in the back of her head with it tray Smith and down; knocked her that hе then beat with Smith a tele knife; that, assault, and stabbed her with a after the phone victim’s wallet car, he took the and drove her keys, and Streets; and, it in the of Broad and parked vicinity Olney on bus. that he then got
At trial Jones took the stand in his own behalf and
testified that he had almost no recollection of what occurred
deceased,
that,
between himself and
at the time of
incident,
this
he did not know what he was
Under
doing.
circumstances,
the truth was for the factfinder and the
sufficient to warrant an
proof
legally
adjudication of
of murder of the first
Cf.
guilt
degree.
Commonwеalth v.
O’Searo,
(1976);
Next, Jones contends his arrest was proba without his incriminating ble statements while in police have been suppressed should as the fruit of an custody unlawful arrest.1 pretrial suppress motion to
1. A evidence was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Evidence of thеse incriminations was admitted trial. Also, argues involving the Commonwealth the issues the admissi- bility they of Jones’ statements are waived because were not set motions, Blair, post-verdict citing forth Commonwealth v. However, the issues were set forth in a brief to the motion court and are therefore Pugh, for review. Commonwealth v. J., (1978) (plurality opinion, Eagen, joined C. O’Brien and
177 stated, As we often probable have cause if the exists facts which circumstances are within the knowledge of the arrest, officer at the time of which he has reasonably information, trustworthy are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution belief that the suspect commit- ted committing or is a crime. Commonwealth v. Levesque, 118, 127, 932, (1976); Pa. Commonwealth v. Culmer, Pa.
In the instant case the suppression court that found arrested on January 7:20 By a. m. that time, police had established that there no signs residence; forcible into Eva entry Smith’s that Jones had and, her visited home on one regularly previous occasion son, to her according decedent found Jones rummaging through her that purse; Jones was familiar with and had driven the victim’s car which was equipped with a burglar alarm which to be had turned off with a special key prior to car; and, her car operating keys, including the special alarm her burglar key, and wallet were missing from addition, her purse. In two of Jones’ fingerprints had been found doorjamb on the in the area near where the body was found.
The above findings fact are supported by record and are to quite adequate probable establish cause. Since to probable existed, arrest it is not to necessary discuss Jones’ related contention that his custodial statements to the
Manderino,
JJ.; dissenting opinion, Pomeroy,
J.). See Common-
Perillo,
(1977);
Jones existed, was arrest was because it illegal acсomplished his and in exigent without an arrest warrant the absence of raised issue for first circumstances. Since Jones this motions, it not been properly time in his for review is therefore waived. and 40, 5, 35, 103, 465 Pa. n. Commonwealth Cooley, 106, n. 5 (1975).
Further, Jones evidence of his complains custodi for suppressed statements should have been other reasons. al connection, state initially argues In this recorded he was because was not warned of his “involuntary” ment Arizona, Miranda v. rights as mandated constitutional (1966), 86 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d immedi 384 U.S. was The given. suppression before this statement ately just evidеnce that three hours upon found ample first incriminated himself he advised fully before Jones knowingly his and waived them. rights constitutional after shortly statement of followed complained The written Moreover, were the incriminations his first incrimination. where the warnings in the same room constitutiоnal made police of the same officer given presence were and circumstances, them. Under these Jones can gave who warnings with merit that the Miranda say given hardly Cf. at the time of the recorded statement. Common stale Gray, for a questioned by police рeriod Jones was three before himself. incriminating hours approximately self-incrimination, he denied involvement and Before this that, He now before complains test. polygraph underwent test, he did not waive his “effectively” to this agreeing The court ruled suppression silence. right constitutional and, its connection therewith are findings since otherwise based substantial evidence and are adequate to support conclusion, complaint prevail.2 cannot
Jones further that his argues incriminations were Futch, obtained violation of (1972) and Pa.R.Crim.P. 130 because they were the of an products unnecessary delay between arrest The arraignment. period time from Jones’ arrest at 7:20 m. until his inculpatory a. statement at 11:30 m. a. constitutes the relevant of four period hours ten min the Futch assessing utes for claim.3 Commonwealth v. Rowe, A.2d 358 Thе suppression court found Jones’ Futch claim to be totally devoid of merit. length We of time involved agree. here and the circum *7 case stances this do not establish a Futch violation. Commonwealth Coley, Pa. A.2d 671 (1976); Boone, Commonwealth (1975). A.2d 898 Jones that finally argues his statements were invol under of the untary totality “the circumstances” test. Com Purvis, monwealth v. With claim, to respect suppression this the court found as follows: At time of his arrest Jones was 21-years-of-age and had alert, school. He completed high was responsive, fully questioned, aware being not under the influence of threatened, alcohol or He not drugs. beaten, was or physi abused. He was not cally improperly to induced make his statements. The total time of actual questioning was three hours minutes. fifty-two The questioning was inter rest rupted by periods, food and breaks, watеr and bathroom breaks. While some of the above were findings on based conflicting testimony, are they supported by evidence in the record, and will hence not be disturbed appeal. Thus, we arguments 2. In connection effectively with his that he did not waive right involuntary, his and that the statеments were at- now tempts argue impose specific to we should certain standards to govern polygraph the administration examinations. This issue presented suppress in was not the motion to and is thus waived. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 323. Building Jones did not arrive at Police Administration until 8:15 a. m. in court erred suppression finding that say cannot under “the voluntarily given statement was that Jones’ test. the circumstances” totality affirmed. Judgment
NIX, J., concurring opinion. filed ROBERTS, J., dissenting in which MAN- opinion filed a DERINO, J., joined.
NIX, Justice, concurring. in 1 that issues which states footnote opinion
The majority in to include written motions failed appellant were set forth in a they for review because are with, to, but not filed the lower presented was brief which part does not constitute of the This memorandum court.1 us in Pa.R.A.P. 1921.2 It is appeal, record before this consider matters may only axiomatic record. appear Young, The brief which allegedly in to the lower court this appears nowhere record, to it in lower court’s nor is there reference brief, phantom the existence this Assuming opinion. to this failed how the members of suggest majority order to determine what issues it in insрect Court are Thus, if I were accept therein. even fact raised brief, it no provides assistance existence of *8 hand, not since its contents are question the determining Allen, our consideration. Commonwealth available for 6, 964, 966, n. 6 in 345, (Opinion n. A.2d 342, Pa. 386 478 Nix, J., O’Brien, J.). joined by Affirmance Supрort by post-verdict written motions chal- boiler-plate Appellant’s of the filed on the evidence were sufficiency lenging only appears only in to the existence the document the 1. The reference brief with this Court. filed Commonwealth’s Pennsylvania Appellate Procedure 1921 states: Rule 2. court, papers origina, in the lower the “The and exhibits filed copy any, transcript proceedings, and a of the docket if certified by prepared shall the the clerk of the lower court constitute entries appeal in all record on cases.”
181
30, 1975, more than five
June
months after
this Court
Blair,
31,
33,
1,
announced in Commonwealth
n.
214,
213,
(1975)
331 A.2d
n. 1
thereafter
issues not
in
in
raised
written
motions
accordance with
Pennsylvania
1123(a)
Rule of Criminal Procedure
would not
our
be considered
trial
courts.
by
appellate
According-
I
all issues
than
ly,
sufficiency
believe
other
the evidence
waived,
even
the court below
though
considered the
Waters,
in
430,
issues
Commonwealth v.
opinion,
Pa.
While
reached by
majority,
find
I believe that its failure to
these issues waived can only
in exacerbating
result
the confusion which already exists as
1123(а).
to waiver for
with Rule
non-compliance
That con-
Grace,
542,
fusion has its
in
roots
Pa.
wherein a
(1977),
four-member
the
majority of
Blair,
exception
Court created
in cases in which a
written brief or memorandum was filed with the lower
court.
I have
set
previously
forth
belief
my
which was
in
exception,
applied again
Commonwealth v.
Perillo,
63,
(1977),
Pa.
In order to find that thе issues in this case are not not clear majority ignores only the definition of the promulgated record this Court appeal Rule 1921, but Procedure also settled for Appellate principle, centuries, may that an not consider matters on appeal.3 outside record The majority’s explanation it why for does so fails even on its own terms. While it purports expanding be to Blair exception which was Grace, unwisely created majority actually repudi- reasoning upon ated the Grace was premised. See, authority g., copious Young, e. cited in Commonwealth v. n. n. *9 that it would consider the in stated explicitly Grace majority memorandum filed by because the issues certainty lower court “assured with the appellant to us the issues and assures record Pa. at court.” Id. 473 motion However, in this appeal original). (emphasis in the record” is absent. “certainty assurance of dubious rules procedural apply firmly this Court resolves Until will to have confu- rampant we continue consistently, it paramount importance an where is of area sion 2; Pa.R.Crim.P. Common- certainty. See clarity and obtain Nix, Opinion J.). (Dissenting by supra Pugh, Justice, ROBERTS, dissenting. new trial should be be- granted Appellant
I dissent. incriminating admission he prejudiced unnecessary between arrest during delay obtained statement Futch, in violation of arraignment and Pa.R.Crim.P. 130. (1972) A.2d MANDERINO, J., Opinion. in this joins Dissenting Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH (two cases). DUSSINGER, Appellant Constance Pennsylvania. Court of Supreme 18, 1977. Argued Nov. 28, 1978. April
Decided Rehearing Denied June