Prine v. Commonwealth, 18 Pa. 103

Prine v. Commonwealth

18 Pa. 103 | Pa. | 1851

The opinion of the Court was delivered, by

Gibson, C. J.

It is undoubtedly error to try a person for felony in his absence, even with his consent. It would be contrary to the dictates of humanity to let him waive the advantage which a view of his sad plight might give him by inclining the hearts of the jurors to listen to his defence with indulgence. Never has there heretofore been a prisoner tried for felony in his absence. No precedent can be found in which his presence is not a postulate of every part of the record. He is arraigned at the bar; he pleads in person at the bar; and if he is convicted, he is asked at the bar what he has to say why judgment shall not be pronounced against him. These things are matter of substance, and not peculiar to trials for murder: they belong- to every trial for felony at the common law, because the mitigation of the punishment does not change the character of the crime. How could the Court record them as facts, if the truth were not so ? Our looseness in recording forms of procedure, especially in criminal cases — if we have any forms left — has grown till the knowledge of the principles of which they were the exponents, has been lost to the bench and the bar. More method sometimes appears in the record of a justice’s judgment for a few dollars, than appears in the record of a conviction of murder. These irregularities strike our professional neighbors with special wonder. They have overborne resistance by force of numbers; but we have not yielded to them in the one case capital by our law. In a conviction of murder, we have required the substantive parts of a proper record to lie set out sc *105clearly as to be separable from the dross with which it is usually 'blended. This was in favorem vitee. In other felonies, it is allowable to presume that everything was rightly done till the contrary appear; but when it is stated on the record positively that the prisoner was not present, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact. What authority had the prisoner’s counsel in this instance, on the pretext of convenience, to waive their presence ? In a criminal case, there is no warrant of attorney, actual or potential; for when a prisoner binds himself by an agreement which he is competent to make, it is entered on the record as his immediate act; and this is a sufficient reason why he should be in Court to do those things which his counsel could not do for him. It is unnecessary, however, to speak of delegated authority; for the right of a prisoner to be present at his trial is inherent and inalienable. The record before us, therefore, is erroneous; but we direct that the prisoners be held to answer a fresh indictment.

Judgment reversed.