*1 MANDERINO, Justice, dissenting: error in permitting prosecution The finds no majority and states that prior larceny convictions appellant’s to admit admis- “legitimate favoring there are considerations clearly 1011) I (at p. disаgree. sion.” evidence of highly prejudicial The introduction impeach convictions an accused’s prior merely careful instructions are though given by is error. Even may only that such evidence be considered trial conscientious fact purposes, even the most impeachment be albeit the knowl- prejudiced, unconsciously, by finder will of of such evi- edge this conviction. The admission prior encourаges, dence the factfinder to find an permits, perhaps is, based a “bad guilty person theory” accused —that A, crime therefore it is more likely committed crime B. committed justice of criminal system
It is fundamentаl to our prove guilt must a reasonable doubt. prosecution beyond of of permit prior It is utter admission evidence folly the'weakness impeachment purposes convictions for because case such prosecution’s requires impeachment. guilt should be without prosecution required prove information, I introduction of this highly prejudicial <(cid:127). therefore dissent. Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH POWERS, Appellant. Cleveland Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Jan. 1979. Decided March *3 Adelmаn, L. Barry Philadelphia, for appellant. Lawler, Chief, Div.,
Robert B. Appeals Asst. Dist. Atty., Irwin, Darryl Garrett, A. James Asst. Dist. Philadel- Attys., phia, for appellee.
201 NIX, ROBERTS, MANDERI- EAGEN, J., and C. Before LARSEN, JJ. and NO
OPINION LARSEN, Justice. Court of Common jury tried aby
Appellant
of murder
аnd convicted
County
Philadelphia
Pleas of
various
battery,
assault
aggravated
degree,
third
followed.
This appeal
offenses.
weapons
that his warrantless
is
first contention
Appellant’s
therefore,
should
that,
his confession
illegal
arrest was
arrest.
illegal
of an
the fruit
as
suppressed
have been
depends upon
valid
constitutionally
the arrest was
Whether
made,
arresting
time the arrest
whether, at the
аrrest. Common
cause to make
had probable
officers
(1977).
295
210, 213, 378 A.2d
Pinney,
wealth v.
P.a.
if “at the time
existed
Probable cause to arrest
and circumstances
the facts
police,
was detained
which
had rea
and of
knowledge,
within the officer’s
to warrant
information, were sufficient
trustworthy
sonably
has committed
the appellant
prudent
believing
man
alia, Beck
inter
citing,
Id.
an offense.”
committing
or was
(1964). 223,
Applying appellant’s the denial of motion was suppression proper. The circumstances the arrest are as follows. surrounding 9, 1975, m., p. On before 8 Policeman shortly Decembеr Martin was summoned to the 3100 block of Berks Dietz Philadelphia in where he found Harold Berry, Street deceased, bleeding people present on the sidewalk. Several stabbing at the scene informed Dietz thаt there had been a Dietz. At they gave the assailants’ m., 7:57 Dietz issued a “flash” radio approximately p. suspects. broadcast This broadcast stated regarding involved, were negro including that four or five males оne with the hood one in green army fatigue jacket pulled up, tee-shirt, a white and one six four inches tall in a brown foot overcoat red knit officer's recalled that radio cap. Other flashes had dеscribed more than one assailant as wearing A green jackets. subsequent flash stated the army receiv- gang. Upon were from the “24th and Berks Street” information, this latter Officer Joel Goodwin and Police- ing to the area directly man Robert Dunsmore drove There, some time intersection of 24th and Berks Streets. m., between 8 m. 8:09 discovered three p. p. young 24th) black men on Judson Street east of onto walking 0’ust men, How- Berks. Two of the and co-defendant ard one with the Kemp, wearing green army jackets, third, Walker, hood The co-defendant up. wearing Otis jacket. white tee-shirt with an blue open officers. that, area, while there blаck men in the testified were other none of them were attired. similarly *5 in their unmarked suspects then took the policemen men where the were stabbing car the scene of to being Berry’s as immediately by eyewitnesses identified were driven to suspects attackers. Thereupon gave statements incul- headquarters they eventually where in the stabbing. themselves pating true, that many it be appellant argues, While as mаy men in the 24th Berks area wear young black Streets tee-shirts, and white nevertheless the green army jackets street, on the youths, together three discovery fled, to had ten to fifteen neighborhood suspects which occurred, where the three minutes after the crime had fit and where there were youths area, descriptions in the matching no other those persons was surely combination of circumstances which рresented a well they sufficient to a reasonable belief that could justify Thus existed to arrest parties. be the cause guilty Jones, Compare appellant. Berrios, (1974), with
Appellant
appellant’s request
to
refusing
grant
reversible error in
сoncerning
instruct the
the law of self-defense.
jury
Appel-
an
lant maintains
his
was sufficient
raise
in self-defense within the
acting
inference
he was
do
agree.
of the law. We
not
meaning
his
went to the
companiоns
testified that
Appellant
(the
area
of 32nd and Berks
area
of the intersection
Streets
occurred)
he had
looking
girls
where the
some
stabbing
met,
while
a
man
asking
young
and that
recently
if he
from a store
girls,
gаng suddenly emerged
knew
began
them. While
chasing
knives and
wielding
afraid,
contact which he
only physical
testified he
said
that someone hit and
‘dude’
place
pushed
took
Street,
who
and that a ‘dude’
was in front of thеm on 31st
(co-de-
Kemp
Howard
grab
and tried
porch
off a
came
denied
Appellant flatly
fell back.
that ‘dude’
fendant) but
*6
had
companions
of his
any
and denied
stabbing anyone
anyone.
or had stabbed
injurеd
been
issue,
must be evi
is in
there
Before self-defense
source,
finding
to
a
introduced,
justify
whatever
from
dence
in self-defense Com
been done
may
the
killing
53,
627,
(1977).
Black,
47,
630
376
monwealth v.
the requisite
convinces us that
of the record
Our review
presented.1
have not been
elements of self-defense
stab
noted,
knowledge
any
denied
appellant
As
has
admitted by
contact
only physical
bing.
in the
of he
way
who was
person
оne
hitting
pushing
another
and,
jostling
inferentially, perhaps
and his friends
not
the
did
Certainly,
porch.
had come off a
who
the
provoking
these ‘dudes’ were
either of
establish that
a
to instill
in a manner sufficient
acting
or were
difficulty
force
deadly
to use
necessary
that it was
reasonable belief
,
that where a
cases, we have held
In similar
them.
against
used
companions
that he or his
steadfastly denies
defendant
the issue of
victim and where
deadly
against
force
the trial
injected
was not otherwise
self-defense
into
defense,
charge
failure to
or the
either the prosecution
441
v. Gray,
not error. Commonwealth
subject
consistently
91,
(1970) (appellant, Gray,
486
Pa.
271 A.2d
self-defense not
victim and issue of
denied that he stabbed
in
refusal
judge’s
trial —no error
injected
otherwise
into
460
self-defense);
Young,
on
charge jury
testified
598,
(1975)
Young,
(appellаnt,
334 A.2d
and he continued
with the homicide
nothing
had
to do
in
refusal to
judge’s
error
up
after it had broken
affray
—no
reasonably
(1)
believed
must have
the actor
1. These elements are:
harm,
bodily
danger
that it
of deаth or
himself to be in imminent
deadly
against
prevent
necessary
such
force
the victim
to use
provoking
harm;
or
(2)
free from fault
have been
the actor must
(3)
slaying;
difficulty
continuing
in the
which resulted
duty
no
to retreat. Commоnwealth
actor must have violated
Code,
630;
Black,
Act of
supra,
A.2d at
Crimes
Judgments or consideration O’BRIEN, J., not participate did case. decision of this
NIX, J., concurring opinion. filed J., in the result. EAGEN, concurs C.
ROBERTS, J., dissenting opinion. filed Justice, NIX, concurring. *7 relied to those recited and were limited
If the facts as to question have serious I would opinion, in the majority appel- with the agree I cause for the arrest. probable the that nature and general were of a lant e., that (i. description fеature of the most distinguishing in height) four inches was six feet the three youths one of custody. taken into suspects of group did not match the when the officer fact, is that judgment, in my The critical the door opened with the suspect to the scene returned immediately identi- vehicle, the suspects the police of any attempt by crime prior to the eyewitnesses fied by this identifi- Certainly, identification. to elicit an police impor- the arrest. More justified cation alone would have sufficient basis did not assuming tantly, the identifica- custody, into taking initially action would by police no way prompted tion which was in Garvin, See not have bеen tainted. I can is for this reason that A.2d 33 It majority. reached concur in the result Justice, ROBERTS, dissenting. cause and his without
Police arrested trial, objection, at over introduced statement inculpatory should have been I suppressed. dissent and would reverse judgments sentence and a new trial. remand.for
Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Submitted Jan. 1979. Decided March