Commonwealth v. Townsell, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 22, 1974
457 Pa. 249 | 320 A.2d 111
The error was not harmless. The statement which the appellant gave to the police admitted the stabbing of the victim. During the trial, the appellant denied the stabbing and presented a witness who сorroborated the appellant‘s testimony that the victim, who was a friend of the appellant, was dead when the appellant enterеd the victim‘s home. The appellant vigorously contested the truthfulness of the statement he gave to the police, claiming that it was false and coerced by threats to his wife and child. Credibility is for the trier of facts, but we cannot say that the jury might not have resolved the conflicting testimony in the appellant‘s favor had the proposed witnesses testified. The judgment of sentence should be reversed.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS joins in this dissenting opinion.
Patrick W. Kittredge, with him James D. McCrudden, for appellant.
James J. Wilson, Assistant District Attorney, with him James T. Ranney and Milton M. Stein, Assistant District Attorneys, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE EAGEN, May 22, 1974:
On January 20, 1971, Michael Townsell was con
The factual background, as disclosed by the record, is this:
On the afternoon of January 14, 1970, at approximately 2:30 p.m., the appellant Townsell and Gregory Thomas attempted to steal from Otto Burkhard, the driver of a meat truck in Philadelphia. In carrying out the theft, Townsell assaulted Burkhard, and Thomas shot him fatally. Two young boys, Douglas Chappell and Robert Alford, witnessed the occurrence. Townsell was taken into police custody abоut 5 p.m. the same afternoon in the home of a friend near the scene of the robbery-homicide.
Townsell was taken to the West Detective Divisiоn Headquarters where he remained in a cell until 7:55 p.m. During this time period, Townsell was not questioned by the police, since the detectives assigned tо the case were completing an on-the-scene investigation. Townsell was then transferred to Homicide Headquarters where he was initially questioned from 8:35 p.m. until 9:25 p.m. Before this questioning commenced, Townsell was informed of his Miranda2 rights and was told he was in Homicide Headquarters because the victim оf the robbery under investigation had been shot and was in critical condition. During the initial questioning period, Townsell admitted participating in the robbery, but said it was Thomas who shot the victim. Townsell was then left alone until
At the time involved, Townsell was twenty-one years old, and had an eleventh grade education. The record clearly indicates the police did not use any threats of violence or trickery to get the incriminating statements, and that Townsell was in good health, not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and was alert and understood his constitutional rights.
A pre-trial motion to suppress Townsell‘s three incriminating statements to the police was denied after an evidentiary hearing, and the typewritten statement was admitted into evidence at trial over objection. The nature of the objection was not specified. The evidentiary use of this statement at trial is the only assignment of еrror asserted in this appeal.
Initially, it is argued evidence of Townsell‘s incriminating statements should have been suppressed because at no time during the police questioning was he informed of the felony-murder rule in Pennsylvania
Next and finally, Townsell argues evidence of his incriminations should have been suppressed because there was an unnecessary delay between his arrest аnd arraignment, and his incriminating statements were related to this delay. Assuming the issue is properly before us, the evidentiary use of Townsell‘s incriminating statement аt trial, if error, was harmless error under the circumstances.
At trial the Commonwealth introduced the testimony of the eyewitness Chappell, who unequivocally identified Townsell as one of the two robbers, and remained steadfast in this identification under severe cross-examination. Additionally, the Commonwealth introduced the testimony of two friends of Townsell, Anthony Gwaltey and Lloyd Milton Wilson, who stated they met Townsell and Thomas shortly after the robbery and Townsell admitted he and Thomas participated in the robbery, and that Thomas shot the victim in the course thereof.
Ordinarily, we would have great reluctancе in applying the harmless error rule in cases involving incriminating statements. But where as here, we have the accused shortly after the occurrenсe making incriminating admissions to individuals unconnected with the police, and these admissions are substantially the same as he made later on to the police, evidentiary use of the last mentioned admissions, if error, was harmless.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice JONES took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICES ROBERTS, NIX, AND MANDERINO:
We dissent. The harmless error doctrine may not be utilized by the prosеcution as a device to excuse repeated and intentional violations of a rule of law.
The prosecution may not deliberatеly violate a rule, (substantive or procedural), use that planned infraction to its advantage, and then avoid accountability for its conduct оn the ground that the error is harmless. When the prosecution resorts to deliberate creation of error, it must bear the responsibility for imperilling convictions so obtained. See ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function §1.1, 2.8(a) (Approved Draft, 1971). Our jurisprudencе does not permit a party to enjoy the benefit of such conduct. This is the essence of a fair trial.