*1 for defense that a obtain reimbursement setting may county adjudged not guilty from estate of a defendant services services performing reason of Purcell was insanity. he Because Engel. for the benefit throughout only her estate Engel, pay rendered should services claim, therefore, lies in no against them. Purcell’s respect but estate. County only against Engel’s no fees to from paid There is basis for these be requiring In a proceeding funds instead of estate assets. County fees for involving court a claim for orphans’ attorney estate, services an court may rendered to incompetent’s deny either allow all or of the claim or it. But part court is without to direct that the fees be authority paid The County Allegheny. orphans’ third here the party, supervision court’s extends authority only (10). incompetent’s estate. See Pa.C.S. § JJ., KAUFFMAN, opinion NIX and in this join support of reversal.
Argued Oct. 1979.
Decided Feb. 1980. 1, 1980. Dec. Reargument Denied *5 Smith, Lancaster, appel- M. Gingrich, F. John Henry lant. Browne, Jr., F. Edward Herr,
Louise Asst. Dist. Atty., G. Lancaster, for appellee. NIX, O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, EAGEN, J.,
Before C. *6 FLAHERTY, and JJ. MANDERINO, LARSEN OPINION FLAHERTY, Justice. of murder in the first conviction from a
This is an appeal of Pleas Lancaster County of in the Court Common degree of life impris- of sentence on 1976. A judgment October imposed. onment was on a to transfer petition held trial, were hearings
Prior to of for commitment Court, on a petition the case to Juvenile in a or penal detained with a crime and charged a person a institution, suppress and on an application correctional entered the court were Denials statement and evidence. these. with to each of respect m. a police 8:36 25, 1976, p. at approximately March
On of a to the scene dispatcher his radio officer was directed by Columbia, Pennsylvania. residence fatal at a shooting m., found at 8:38 and p. at the scene The officer arrived Sourbeer, who was fourteen years Scott appellant, Gregory in a mother seated alone, Gregory’s and body age, of the residence. Sourbeer Gregory chair in room living shot his mother while accidentally told the officer that he alone, had the officer was gun. Gregory his Since cleaning 8:42 approximately at him to the station transported police to investigate at the residence m., remaining the officer p. the incident. m., in the 25, 1976, appellant, at 11:48 p.
On March brother, warnings Miranda given his was older presence read from a were warnings a officer. The state police form, acknowledg- and Sourbeer’s rights preprinted juvenile was rights of his constitutional ment of his understanding then conferred Gregory the officer. recorded thereon by this Following hour. for one half with his brother privately police they his brother told the conference, and appellant The attorney, attorney. with their family desired to consult after on midnight at the station sometime arriving police his brother 26, 1976, appellant conferred with March which m., following appellant a. 1:31 a. from 1:05 m. until of his presence to answer agreed police questions brother, and the attorney. Appellant, brother and the waiving appel- form juvenile rights all signed attorney lant’s remain silent. right to m. on police from 1:32 a. interrogated by was
Appellant m., when he indicated that he March 1976 until 3:03 a. the interrogation, to sleep. During was tired wanted smoke, and was made as was inquiry Gregory permitted m., drink, and, at 2:05 a. he he wanted food or to whether a break in the during questioning. drink given soft or if he was tired if When, m., 2:53 a. was asked at *7 the he that he he wished to continue indicated interrogation, of the investi- tired, continuing was but desirous somewhat a with the consultation attorney requested The gation. the were informed police after which appellant, privately, further and questions, did not wish to answer that appellant m. At 4:37 a. appellant was at an end. interrogation and informed rights was advised of constitutional again The appellant with murder. charged that he would be sometime magistrate, arriving the office of a transported to morning on the of March m. and a. m. between 5:15 a. 5:30 to detention center for 26,1976, and then taken a arraigned, juveniles. issues, considering
The but after all raises many merit, and, them, no accordingly, we find have they affirm the court below. it was error not transfer contends that
Appellant
The Juvenile Act1 states
to the
Division.
case
Juvenile
part:
relevant
proceeding
it
to the Court
a criminal
appears
“[I]f
child,
murder,
defendant is
the case
that the
charging
and the
this Act
provisions
be transferred
may similarly
”
.
applied
.
.
11 P.S. 50-303.
§
27,
42
repealed
1978 now
June
Pa.C.S.A.
1.
P.S. 50-303
effective
§
6322.
§
662,
101,
613,
342 A.2d
v. Pyle,
In Commonwealth
we said:
(1975),
from the jurisdiction
been excluded
always
Murder has
711,
12,1913, P.L.
Act of July
courts. See
of the juvenile
Case, 430 Pa.
Gaskins
11 as amended
P.S. §
§
175 Pa.Super.
Mont. Appeal,
also
(1968).
The record discloses that appellant testified that own psychiatrist burden of proof. Appellant’s estimate of questionable he could a and give very rough only to overcome his person- how it would take for long Gregory disorder, immaturity, which was described as ality persistent and authority, unreliability, with inappropriate relationships result in prevarications rationalizations for behavior which defense and prosecu- which believes to be true. Both the he a having passive-ag- tion as diagnosed Gregory psychiatrists prose- tendencies. The with anti-social gressive personality act out appellant might cution’s testified that psychiatrist violence. his with underlying aggression 26 a time give was asked to psychiatrist
When the appellant’s in significant change Grego- would be a when there period a that such disorder, say he could only ry’s personality ages of the vicinity thirty- in the could be change expected This, with the fact five or forty. coupled to subject therefore be the old and would fifteen years more years, three only juvenile system authority for transfer to of this petition the denial amply supports Juvenile Court. for further request psychiatric
Regarding appellant’s states evaluation, 7402(a) set forth in 50 P.S. the standard § part: in relevant a crime charged been with a who has person
Whenever unable to understand is be substantially found to him or to against proceedings nature or object defense, he shall be deemed in his and assist participate as tried, or sentenced so long to be convicted incompetent such continues. incapacity knew his testimony, according psychiatrist’s
Appellant,
psychia-
Although
what was happening.
understood
diagnosed appel-
and defense
trists for both
prosecution
liar, this is not sufficient
as
pathological
lant
v. Ken-
In Commonwealth
itself to establish incompetence.
487,
890,
(1973)
this Court
305 A.2d
483,
nedy,
it
when
said:
stated
test for competency
Pa.
v.
Maroney,
rel. Hilberry
In
ex
Commonwealth
follow-
stated the
(1967),
pertinently
we
27 consult with his with a reasonable lawyers degree rational and have a rational as understanding, well as factual of the understanding proceedings against him. States, See v. Dusky 402, 788, United 362 80 4 U.S. S.Ct. (1960). Otherwise, L.Ed.2d 824 the proceedings would lack due States, process: Bishop 961, United 350 U.S. 76 440, S.Ct. 100 L.Ed. (1956).” Id., 495, 424 Pa. at A.2d at 160. also Harris, See Commonwealth v.
114,243 A.2d
(1968).
also
See
Commonwealth v.
Harper,
Pa.
The was psychiatric testimony that appellant was not psychotic. The prosecution’s psychiatrist testified that ap- pellant I.Q. had an of 122 and could consult with his attor- in his neys defense. Although both psychiatrists agreed that appellant’s inclination toward prevarication would hinder his defense, were also in they agreement that appellant was cognizant truth, and that appellant’s prevaricating was a defense mechanism to rationalize his behavior. The trial found, court as properly supported record, appellant a being liar is pathological no more a to handicap an attorney’s ability prepare defense than having client who lies to counsel.
The assertions that the trial court erred in failing suppress the statements of the appellant as not voluntarily made are without merit. totally After been having read his Miranda rights, appellant had the advice of counsel and his brother, an adult interested in primarily welfare, his thus, we are satisfied that all standards were fully complied with.
We are next asked to review whether the statement should have been suppressed for unnecessary delay between appellant’s warrantless arrest and his arraignment. When the police arrived at the m., scene at 8:38 p. they found appellant alone and took him to the police station. Appel lant was not under time, arrest at the nor did the police disbelieve that he had accidentally shot mother. At 11:48 m. p. on March read his *10 advised again was appellant At 4:37 a. m.
Miranda rights. charged told he was to be and his constitutional rights to the local transported then with was Appellant murder. he was between arraigned where office of a District Justice of March 1976. morning a. a. m. on the 5:15 m. and 5:30 m., at 11:48 the p. his rights to the reading Prior to the every courtesy shows that the extended police record from appellant’s appri- of time The total amount appellant. was five arraignment to his rights of his constitutional sal time was lapse believe this forth minutes. We hours and shown by the circumstances under justifiable necessary this record. it to refuse to that was error is further raised
It police. seized the by evidence items of suppress physical in plain items seized were found the The trial court correctly consent a result a valid view, or were seized as they search. in the house being clearly justified
The
were
police
police
and while the
reported,
been
shooting
where the
had
certain all doors and
making
were
residence
securing
seized ten items in
closed, they
were locked and
windows
into evidence at
admitted
view, of which
two were
only
plain
shells
four
containing
shotgun
was a box
trial. One
these
four
on a shelf approximately
found in
bedroom
appellant’s
These shells
depth.
inch in
feet
in an
box one
high
open
of the
shotgun
in the chamber
shell
spent
matched
was bracketed
two
This shelf
were
to defendant.
traced
the shelf in order
to pass
so
it was necessary
windows
seized and admitted
The other item
to secure the windows.
was found on the sink
a can of oil which
at the trial was
also fourteen items
There were
next
the kitchen counter.
the house where the dead
room of
seized from the living
view.
found,
plain
body
certainly
were consent
of the residence
searches
Subsequent
brother, and,
although
person
older
by appellant’s
ed
in the decedent’s
executor
who
consent was a named
gave
been issued at the time of
will,
had not
letters testamentary
challenges
authority
Appellant
consent.
being granted
to letters
executor to
consent
give
prior
executor,
names
a decedent
to law. Where one
an
according
named,
has
trust
so
reposed special
person
expressly
and must be
to have intended
presumed
authority during
under
death and actual
certain
period
probate
between
Estate,
circumstances. We held in In Re Purman’s
238,
“The in his order judge sequestra- trial may, tion of trial in the interest of jurors justice.” Absent a of from the refusal to showing potential prejudice the discretion of the trial court will not be sequester jury, Bruno, 245, disturbed. v. 466 Pa. 352 A.2d Commonwealth is All in this record that several (1976). that appears on voir dire that one of the prospective testified jurors A had worked with the decedent. review prospective jurors in- judge the trial adequately record discloses that from or reading, watching, structed each to refrain juror incident, and sequestered to media accounts of the listening We see no abuse of discre- deliberation. jurors during tion under the facts of this case. it to admit is that was error issue raised
A further v. In Commonwealth body. of the victim’s photographs we (1974) A.2d Petrakovich, said: of admissi- held that consistently question
We have
is a
in homicide cases
of a corpse
of
bility
photographs
an
only
of the trial
judge
discretion
matter within the
reversible error.
will constitute
abuse of that discretion
grue-
with
is confronted
judge
When the trial
.
the test
photographs,
inflammatory
some or potentially
is
he
apply
which must
admissibility
their
determining
of
essential
are
such
“whether or not
photographs
outweighs
need clearly
value that
their
evidentiary
minds and
passions
inflaming
likelihood
Powell,
In
the upper
One
showed
picture
non-inflammatory.
held
be
which was
uniform
covered
waitress
body
half
the nude
depicted
two photographs
blood stained. The other
entered and left. The
where bullets
showing
torso
upper
are
case
much
appellant’s
white
black and
photographs
*12
in
The
of
body
Petrakovich.
than those
objectionable
less
in a chair. The
and seated
clothed
fully
the victim
in
the
wound was
only
not contorted and
victim’s face was
at
range.
were not taken
close
the neck. The photographs
(1970)
Collins,440 Pa.
Appellant entire statement of given beyond context by appellant In admission contained therein. Commonwealth v. Cristina, 44, 53, (1978) said, Pa. 391 A.2d we an admission or confession shown to be false bemay “[e]ven admissible to other than the prove something matter falsely confessed”, and, further, Bolish, Commonwealth 500, 524, said, 113 A.2d we (1955) or “[F]alse statements the accused are admissible since contradictory were jury infer therefrom that made with an may they intent to divert suspicion or to mislead the or other police authorities, innocence, or to establish an alibi or and hence are The statement indicatory guilt.” appellant’s here was an admission and was admitted to show correctly that stated account of the incident was false. shooting
It is that the Court was in error argued not allowing which to rebut the testimony sought presumption crime, of a child to commit capacity apparently based on an of a child to assumption capacity commit a criminal act differs that of other from individuals. While it is law true we the common rule that a recognize child under presumed seven is to lack age conclusively crime, to commit a that there is a rebut- capacity table that a child between the of seven presumption ages crime, and fourteen is incapable committing the appel lant, fourteen and eleven months at the time of the years act, was responsible as an adult for his criminal actions. We *13 see no error issue of Regarding here. the diminished capaci the of the court was ty, charge perfectly proper.2 judge charged jury 2. The trial the as follows: nature of a demurrer was
At trial a motion the of the Commonwealth’s case, which made was at close to present denied. The then a case proceeded not this of error inas allegation defense. We need discuss Ilgenfritz, held in Commonwealth we much as circumstances, that, such (1976) under A.2d 387 is an on demurrer not available ruling correctness of the requires charged a with which that “When a is a crime defendant specific be in order to or mental state established certain constitute the intent crime, degree you must take all the crime or of if, the time and determine therefrom at evidence into consideration committed, allegedly suffer- when the defendant was the crime condition, ing caused, physical or however from some mental abnormal forming specific prevented intent him from essen- which degree is or which he tial to constitute the crime of crime with If, charged. capacity, of diminished and because evidence, you the defendant’s a doubt whether the from all the defendant was the defendant the benefit such have reasonable intent, you give capable forming specific of such must not of the and find that he did have doubt specific intent. alleged you If from the time crime find the evidence that at substantially capacity, mental whether the defendant had reduced cause, defect, you by abnormality, any must mental or other caused consider capacity had on the defendant’s what effect this diminished ability specific any are essential to form mental states that Thus, you charged. find the defendant’s elements of the crime if that you capacity have a was diminished to the extent that mental did, maturely meaningfully, to whether he and reasonable doubt as premeditate, deliberate, gravity upon of his contem- reflect act, kill, you guilty him plated cannot find or form an intent willful, degree. premeditated of the first deliberate and murder Also, you capacity if was diminished to the find that his mental you he did a reasonable doubt whether harbor extent have guilty aforethought, you find him of murder of either cannot malice the first Further, degree. you or if find that the defendant’s third capacity he neither har- was diminished to the extent that mental aforethought kill nor an intent to at time of bored malice had crime, guilty alleged tary manslaughter, guilty. you murder or find him either volun- cannot acquit not and find him but must the defendant aforethought if is the evidence shows that due There no malice capacity mental illness or diminished caused the defendant’s defect, capacity to the mental state killing he did not have the attain constituting aforethought, though the was inten- even malice deliberate, tional, premeditated unprovoked. voluntary, you capacity If due to find that the defendant has diminished disorder, may personality you capacity be considered this diminished determining doubt as to the or not there is reasonable whether 1192-1195) (R. charged.” guilt defendant’s of the crime
33 and waived, on not appeal. properly presented issue Also appeal, charge for is the issue of the failure to on jury manslaughter. involuntary
A review of the record demonstrated that the verdict was evidence; from we weight thus, far of need against not in regard. delineate this
Further waived from review is the assertion that the
presentence
trial
did not order a second
judge
investigation
psychiatric evaluation of
appellant concerning
whether he was
sentenced,
to be
as was not
competent
it
raised
filed
objections
directly after
Com
sentencing.
Shoemaker,
342,
monwealth v.
462 Pa.
“. . . the legislature sought has fit to specify [sic] life as mandatory imprisonment punishment for assaults committed by prisoners life We do already serving terms. not believe that is punishment such so disproportionate to and unusual punishment. to cruel as to amount
the offense to serve as a deter- intended clearly is punishment Such substitute of this Court to it not the rent, province is properly assembly an judgment its for the judgment at Pa.Super. legislative powers. its exercising at A.2d 352.” same 1257. We believe the 450, 396 A.2d at Pa.Super. at *15 in life sentences for murder to mandatory
reasoning applies and so hold. the first degree which provision appel under To the extent that conflicted with sentenced, 1102(a), 18 Pa.C.S.A. lant was § minimum and which that required 19 P.S. 1057 former § set, is be resolved be the conflict maximum sentences “Whenever the 1 which states: 1936 Pa.C.S.A. applying § differ enacted finally or more statutes of two provisions latest the statute Assemblies are irreconcilable ent General 19 Since P.S. prevail.”3 enactment shall in date of final in 18 amended 1923 and in 1911 and 1057 was enacted § 1974, in the latter section enacted 1102 was Pa.C.S.A. § takes precedence.4 of sentence affirmed.
Judgment in in the decision MANDERINO, J., did not participate this case. result.
EAGEN, J., concurs in the C. NIX, J., which ROBERTS, J., dissenting opinion filed joins.
ROBERTS, Justice, dissenting. believe, like not, any would is as the majority Appellant Rather, because of mental who “lies” to counsel. client Nonetheless, the his “lies.” believes disability, added, 6, 1972, 707, 230, 1970, 25, of Act Dec. No. 3. Act of Nov. P.L. 1339, 290, 3, (1979 Supp.) 1 Pa.C.S.A. 1936 § P.L. No. § amended, 1055, 6, 19, 1911, 19 P.S. § as § of June P.L. 4. Act 1321(e)). 1978, (1964) (repealed version at 18 Pa.C.S.A. current 2, 213, 46, 26, 1974, § 18 Pa.C.S.A. P.L. No. § Act of March (1979 Supp.) that court majority properly concludes trial denied ap- for further evaluation pellant’s request pursuant psychiatric Act, to the Mental Health Procedures Act July seq. P.L. 101 et 7101 et seq., (Supp.1979). P.S. §§ §§ I own must dissent. Even Commonwealth’s psychiatrist recognizes appellant’s makes him unable to disability assist counsel a defense. preparation Consistent 402(a) Act, with section of the Mental Health Procedures for further evaluation should have appellant’s request been vacated, should granted, sentence be and the judgment case should be remanded for consistent with proceedings section 403 of the Act.
NIX, J., joins this dissenting opinion.
Supreme Court Pennsylvania.
Argued April 1980.
Decided Sept. 1980.