Com. v. Bulted

• Decision Date: 15 July 1971
• Citation: 443 Pa. 422,279 A.2d 158
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Samuel Enrique BULTED, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 158

279 A.2d 158

443 Pa. 422

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Samuel Enrique BULTED, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 15, 1971.

John D. DiGiacomo, Public Defender (Submitted), Easton, for appellant

Charles H. Spaziani, Dist. Atty. (Submitted), Easton, for appellee.

Before BELL, C.J., JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

O'BRIEN, Justice.

On May 25, 1968, at about 11:50 p.m., appellant, Samuel Bulted, entered the Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, police headquarters and, according to witnesses, told an officer, 'I shot and killed my wife.' A detective was sent to the Bulted residence where he discovered the body of appellant's wife, Francesca Bulted, lying on the floor with her head propped up against the dresser. There was blood on her dress and the right side of her face was completely blown away. A twelve-gauge shotgun shell was found lying on the bed, and a gun, later identified as belonging to appellant, was found in the bedroom.

After trial in November, 1968, appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. After dismissal of his post-trial motions for new trial and arrest of judgment, appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment.

At trial, in addition to the facts outlined above, the Commonwealth offered the following evidence: Testimony of Mr. Atahoalpa Rodriguez, friend of appellant, who testified that on the evening of May 25, 1968, the appellant had asked him to drive him to police headquarters. While driving to headquarters, appellant had told Mr. Rodriguez, 'I caught my wife with somebody else, and I want you to take me down to Headquarters'; testimony of a physician that the autopsy he performed showed that the bullet which killed appellant's wife had entered in the back of her neck and had traveled at a slightly upward angle to the front where it exited; evidence that the bullet had then traveled through a window of the Bulted home into a shingle in a home sixty-five feet away, where a rifle slug was found, together with a piece of shingle fragment at the base of that home; testimony of Juana Nieves, the decedent's sister, who stated that earlier in the evening of May 25, she and her mother had gone to the Bulted residence, where they had seen Mrs. Bulted crying. After appellant refused to permit them to enter they had gone home. Shortly after 11:00 p.m., appellant had gone to the Nieves' home, where, after getting the keys to his wife's car, he had told Miss Nieves, 'You may go and get your sister. * * *' It was then that Miss Nieves had found her sister's body; evidence from Mrs. Francesca Camacho, the decedent's mother, that she had heard her son-in-law, the appellant, threaten her daughter prior to May 25, 1968, and that her daughter had told her that appellant used to hit her. The Commonwealth also offered into evidence a blood-stained green sport shirt and underwear jersey, owned by the appellant, which were found in the bedroom when the body was discovered. A Pennsylvania State Police chemist testified that he had found human blood on the clothing, but he had not sought to identify what type blood it was. The district attorney hypothesized that the blood was the victim's and had splattered on the defendant after he had shot her. On the basis of this evidence, the jury found appellant guilty of murder in the first degree, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The appellant, taking the stand in his own defense, gave his own account of the events which led to his wife's death, wholly different from the Commonwealth's hypothesis. His version follows.

Appellant and his wife had been married for fix years. They had been living in Bethlehem, where he had been employed as a laborer on the night shift with Bethlehem Steel Company. He had come home from work on the morning of May 25, 1968, and after sleeping for a few hours, he had left at 11:00 in the morning to go fishing. When he returned, he had gone to his mother-in-law's home to ask his wife to return home to fix dinner. She had refused, saying she had to go shopping. He then went home, changed his clothes and returned to his mother-in-law's home at approximately 6:30 p.m. He again asked his wife to go home to make dinner, but she again said she had to go shopping. He persuaded her to go home. However, fifteen minutes after Mrs. Bulted served her husband dinner, she informed him that she had to take her sister shopping. He asked her why she had to go shopping all the time, and whether she was sure she wasn't going to meet Francisco. She did not reply, so he drove her to her sister's and she promised to return from shopping at 11:00.

Appellant then testified that he went to a grocery store, where he stayed approximately ten minutes. Thereafter, he saw his sister-in-law's car coming down the street with his wife driving. As they passed, his sister-in-law struck out her tongue at him. He testified that he waited for five minutes and then got in his car and drove to Allentown. When he got there, he noticed his sister-in-law's car parked in front of a Spanish restaurant. A man, who was talking to the girls in the car, got in the car and drove off. Then appellant followed them to the parking lot at a shopping center, where he found his sister-in-law's car. He saw a couple embracing and kissing and the man had one hand on the woman's private parts. When he got closer, appellant recognized the woman to be his wife. He testified that he opened the car door, the man looked and his wife jumped to one side.

Appellant then testified that a fight ensued. He punched his wife's companion in the nose, he was kicked in the lip. Then both men were on the ground wrestling. His wife intervened, the other man escaped and appellant and his wife drove home. During the twenty-minute drive back to Bethlehem, appellant and his wife argued about her relationship with the other man. He asked her why she was still seeing Francisco after she had promised appellant she wouldn't see him again. She answered, telling appellant that she didn't love him and didn't want him.

Appellant next related that when he got home he took his shirt off because it was full of blood from the fight with Francisco (the same shirt offered into evidence by the Commonwealth, which had hypothesized, without analyzing the blood, that the blood was that of the decedent). Once again, he and his wife argued, she telling him that she didn't love him and that he was not the father of their child. According to appellant, this verbal battle was momentarily interrupted by the arrival of Mrs. Bulted's mother and sister. Appellant testified that he told them he had 'caught (his wife) with Francisco again.' His sister-in-law replied, telling him:

'How long you know she's running around with this guy, with Francisco? You're a sucker. You keep living with her for how long? You are living with her, and you that for a long time, and you know she is going to have a baby that ain't yours.'

After his in-laws left, appellant's wife told him she felt like killing him. He asked why, and she again told him that she didn't love him. After reminding her that he was Catholic and perhaps would be unable to get a divorce, appellant promised that they could see a lawyer on Monday to explore the possibility of a divorce. Then, according to appellant, he went upstairs. Soon after his wife followed, carrying a gun. As he was leaving the bathroom, she jumped into the bedroom with the gun in her hands, telling appellant that she was going to kill him. He testified that he slapped a shell which she was holding from her hand, put his hand on the gun, and started wrestling with her to get...