Com. ex rel. Alexander v. Maroney
| Decision Date | 29 June 1967 |
| Citation | 426 Pa. 186,231 A.2d 746 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. William H. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. James F. MARONEY, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
William H. Alexander, in pro. per.
Robert W. Duggan, Dist. Atty., Edwin J. Martin, Charles B. Watkins, Asst. Dist. Attys., Pittsburgh, for appellee.
In January 1962, the appellant, William H. Alexander, was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree, and in accordance with the jury's verdict was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 1 At trial testimony of oral admissions Alexander made to police officers following the occurrence was introduced in evidence against him. Also, a recorded statement given to the police following his arrest, while not introduced in evidence, was referred to and specifically mentioned during his trial cross-examination by the Commonwealth's attorney for the purpose of impeachment. No independent 'Jackson hearing' was conducted by the trial court to determine the voluntariness of the admission or recorded statement.
In 1965, Alexander instituted habeas corpus proceedings which the lower court dismissed after hearing. In this action Alexander contended that his in-custody statement to the police was coerced and secured under circumstances which violated his constitutional rights. The hearing court did not specifically determine if the statement involved was the free and voluntary act of Alexander, but concluded that since no objection to the admissibility of the testimony concerning the statement was entered at trial, Alexander was precluded at this day from raising the question.
An examination of the trial record discloses that at the time the admissions and statement were made, Alexander may have been suffering from intoxication due to the overconsumption of intoxicants and also other physical disabilities, which mgiht affect his ability to intelligently and freely say anything. In view of the trial testimony in this regard, it is our conclusion that even in the absence of an objection to the testimony involved, an independent determination by the trial court of the voluntariness issue is required. In this determination all of the pertinent circumstances must be considered and evaluated. Compare Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964).
The order of the court below is vacated and the record remanded for further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atchinson v. Erwin
... ... the statutory enactments of this State." Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel. Taxpayers Protective Association of Raleigh County v. Hanks, 157 W.Va ... ...
-
Dombrowski v. City of Philadelphia
... ... Commonwealth ex rel. Snyder v. Mitchell, 82 Pa. 343 (1876); Heffner v. Commonwealth ex rel ... ...
-
United States v. Myers
...of any kind which serves to alert the trial judge to an issue of voluntariness is sufficient." See also Commonwealth ex rel. Alexander v. Maroney, 426 Pa. 186, 231 A.2d 746 (1967); Commonwealth ex rel. Mullenaux v. Myers, 421 Pa. 61, 217 A.2d 730 Although there was a failure to object to th......
-
Com. v. O'Malley
...1968). I would vacate the order of the court below and remand the case for a Jackson-Denno hearing. See Commonwealth ex rel. Alexander v. Maroney, 426 Pa. 186, 188, 231 A.2d 746 (1967). HOFFMAN and PACKEL, JJ., join in this dissenting * Appellant cites Commonwealth ex rel. Alexander v. Maro......