Com. v. Toney
Decision Date | 02 July 1970 |
Citation | 266 A.2d 732,439 Pa. 173 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Gordon TONEY, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., James D. Crawford, Deputy Dist. Atty., Joel S. Moldovsky, Asst. Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed upon Gordon Toney following his conviction of murder in the second degree after a trial by jury.
The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not questioned, but we have examined the record and it readily discloses more than ample evidence to sustain the jury's verdict. From the trial testimony of a disinterested eyewitness, the jury could find that Toney shot Lionel Chandler, who was unarmed, on a public street in Philadelphia without provocation or an iota of necessity. Three bullets entered Chandler's body; one in the front upper chest, another in the right thigh and the third in the left knee. The bullet entering Chandler's body through the chest pierced a lung and his heart, resulting in almost instantaneous death.
In contradiction to the testimony of the Commonwealth's witnesses, which, we repeat, included that of a totally disinterested eyewitness, Toney testified that he shot Chandler after the latter had threatened to 'punch your (Toney's) time clock' and 'lunged towards me with his hand in his pocket.'
It is first contended that the trial judge committed error in failing to adequately instruct the jury on the law of self-defense. Assuming that such an instruction was required under the evidence, it is patently clear that the charge, when read in its entirety, was more than adequate in this respect. Appellant's counsel submitted several points for charge which the trial judge approved and read word for word to the jury.
These points were as follows:
'I so charge you.
'Number thirteen: It is a broad general principle that if the defendant, at the time of the occurrence, which is now being examined, was in actual peril of his life or of great bodily harm, or if the conditions there present created a reasonable belief founded on facts as they then appeared, that he was in such danger, and if there was no other means of escape, the killing would be excusable as having been done in self-defense.
'I so charge you.
'I so charge you.
'I so charge you.
'Number sixteen: If you find that the defendant acted out of an uncontrollable fear of great physical injury or death, even though the fear was an unreasonable one, you should return a verdict of voluntary manslaughter, if you believe that he had such a fear and acted on it.
'I so charge you.'
Clearly, the appellant can have no meritorious complaint concerning the content of this charge on self-defense. Cf. Commonwealth v. Johnston,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Stumpo
... ... any manner to influence the jury by arousing their ... prejudices." Commonwealth v. Toney, 439 Pa ... 173, 180, 266 A.2d 732, 736 (1970). Likewise, the ABA ... Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function recognize: ... " The ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Baranyai
... ... prejudices." Commonwealth v. Potter, 445 Pa ... 284, 287, 285 A.2d 492, 494 (1971); Commonwealth v ... Toney, 439 Pa. 173, 180, 266 A.2d 732, 736 (1970). With ... respect to closing argument by the lawyer for the ... Commonwealth, the Supreme Court has ... ...