Com. v. Carey
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | Bernard E. DiJoseph, Asst. Dist. Atty.; Before DREW; ALLEN M. STEARNE |
| Citation | 368 Pa. 157,82 A.2d 240 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. CAREY. |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1951 |
Page 240
v.
CAREY.
[368 Pa. 158] Julian W. Barnard, James N. Peck, Norristown, for appellant.
Bernard E. DiJoseph, Asst. Dist. Atty., J. Stroud Weber, Dist. Atty., Norristown, for appellee.
Before DREW, C. J., and STERN, STEARNE, JONES, BELL, LADNER and CHIDSEY, JJ.
ALLEN M. STEARNE, Justice.
Ollie Carey was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree with the penalty fixed at death. Defendant was indicted for the murder of Thomas J. Matthews, a [368 Pa. 159] police officer, who was killed by gun shot wounds while in pursuit of defendant, whom the officer sought to place under arrest. His motion for a new trial having been overruled, defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence.
The reasons assigned by defendant are (1) The evidence does not establish that the killing was committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate burglary or in an attempt to escape therefrom (2) Alleged prejudicial answer by the trial judge to a question propounded by the jury relating to the effect of recommendations by the jury with respect to their proposed verdict and (3) Refusal by the trial judge to affirm defendant's fifth request for point of charge which related to the requisite elements of circumstantial evidence.
Defendant was represented by able trial lawyers appointed by the court. Judge Dannehower fairly and patiently conducted the trial which required four days. The charge to the jury was comprehensive and accurate, and which prompted defendant's counsel to remark: '* * * [the charge] is the finest, the most logical, best expressed Charge I have ever heard delivered to any jury.'
The controlling facts are so fully narrated in the charge and in the opinion refusing the new trial that we will not restate them in detail. In summary: defendant, a former convict, on Saturday, June
Page 241
25, 1949, burglarized the Bilzzard home in Rydal, Abington Township, and on Monday, June 27, 1949, burglarized the Hauptfuhrer residence, both being in the same neighborhood; the houses were closed for the summer; he carried away from both homes all the loot which he could pack in two stolen suit cases, and in his pockets; apparently his pockets were filled to over-flowing because he lost a watch and cigarette lighter along his [368 Pa. 160] way home, and which were later identified as part of the stolen goods; because defendant was unable to carry away on his person all the property in the burglarized houses he desired to acquire, he segregated and piled in each residence merchandise which he proposed subsequently to pick up with the aid of an automobile. On Tuesday night, June 28th, he stole a truck in Philadelphia for use in removing the loot which he had piled up in the two dwellings which he had previously broken into and burglarized. On the early morning of June 29th, at about 1 a. m., after driving the truck to Rydal, defendant re-entered the Blizzard residence through the door he had left unlocked (after breaking in on June 25th) and picked up in the hall six bottles of liquor which he placed in the back of the truck; he then proceeded in the truck toward the Hauptfuhrer home where the additional articles were left by him to be picked up.At this time, 1 a. m. June 29th, police officers Clark Cutting and Thomas J. Matthews (the victim) were patrolling the vicinity in a police car; at the adjacent Koenig residence the flood lights were turned on and dogs barking and they proceeded to investigate. While so engaged the police officers heard and saw a truck drive past; they followed in the police car; the truck was observed to enter and then back out of the O'Neill driveway, opposite the Hauptfuhrer residence; the police officers stopped the truck and questioned the driver, the sole occupant, whom officer Cutting identified as the defendant. The liquor was seen in the rear of the truck; while the defendant was being questioned, defendant slid out of the opposite front door of the truck and ran across the Hauptfuhrer lawn and into the woods in the rear; he was closely pursued by both police officers; officer Matthews (the victim) ran after defendant shouting for him to halt and shooting his revolver; at Matthews' request, Cutting returned to the police car [368 Pa. 161] and radioed for help; while Matthews continued the pursuit, still firing his gun, Cutting heard some one fall in the woods; the policemen who responded in answer to the radio call, with the aid of flood lights, discovered the dead body of officer Matthews, on his back, with arms extended, handcuffs near his right hand, and the cartridges in his revolver all discharged. His death was found to have been caused by bullets from a .38 calibre Smith & Wesson revolver (similar to that stolen from the Hauptfuhrer residence); nearby was also found a rubber heel from defendant's sandals. Defendant had escaped. On July 8, 1949, he was arrested in Amherst, Virginia. In a letter to friends in Virginia defendant wrote 'You see I killed a policeman.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Kravitz
...effect. Commonwealth v. Boden, 399 Pa. 298, 159 A.2d 894, supra; Commonwealth v. Nasuti, 385 Pa. 436, 123 A.2d 435; Commonwealth v. Carey, 368 Pa. 157, 82 A.2d In Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 373 Pa. 150, 94 A.2d 743, supra, the Court sustained the verdict of a jury finding defendant guilty of ......
-
State v. Robbins, No. 599A83
...e.g., Brannon v. State, 188 Ga. 15, 2 S.E.2d 654 (1939); Gaines v. Commonwealth, 242 Ky. 237, 46 S.W.2d 75 (1932); Commonwealth v. Carey, 368 Pa. 157, 82 A.2d 240 (1951); Jones v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 273, 72 S.E.2d 693 (1952). See generally Note, Munroe v. State: Jury Discussions of Parol......
-
Com. v. Sullivan
...(Com. v. Danz, 211 Pa. 507, 60 A. 1070), in the Boden case, (Com. v. Boden, 399 Pa. 298, 159 A.2d 894), in the Carey case, (Com. v. Carey, 368 Pa. 157, 82 A.2d 240), and in Commonwealth v. LaRue, 381 Pa. 113, 112 A.2d 362, infra (to mention just a few) there were no eyewitnesses to the murd......
-
Com. v. Burns
...effect. Commonwealth v. Boden, 399 Pa. 298, 159 A.2d 894, supra; Commonwealth v. Nasuti, 385 Pa. 436, 123 A.2d 435; Commonwealth v. Carey, 368 Pa. 157, 82 A.2d In Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 373 Pa. 150, pages 156-157, 94 A.2d 743, page 746, the Court pertinently said: 'The Commonwealth has th......
-
Com. v. Kravitz
...effect. Commonwealth v. Boden, 399 Pa. 298, 159 A.2d 894, supra; Commonwealth v. Nasuti, 385 Pa. 436, 123 A.2d 435; Commonwealth v. Carey, 368 Pa. 157, 82 A.2d In Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 373 Pa. 150, 94 A.2d 743, supra, the Court sustained the verdict of a jury finding defendant guilty of ......
-
State v. Robbins, No. 599A83
...e.g., Brannon v. State, 188 Ga. 15, 2 S.E.2d 654 (1939); Gaines v. Commonwealth, 242 Ky. 237, 46 S.W.2d 75 (1932); Commonwealth v. Carey, 368 Pa. 157, 82 A.2d 240 (1951); Jones v. Commonwealth, 194 Va. 273, 72 S.E.2d 693 (1952). See generally Note, Munroe v. State: Jury Discussions of Parol......
-
Com. v. Sullivan
...(Com. v. Danz, 211 Pa. 507, 60 A. 1070), in the Boden case, (Com. v. Boden, 399 Pa. 298, 159 A.2d 894), in the Carey case, (Com. v. Carey, 368 Pa. 157, 82 A.2d 240), and in Commonwealth v. LaRue, 381 Pa. 113, 112 A.2d 362, infra (to mention just a few) there were no eyewitnesses to the murd......
-
Com. v. Burns
...effect. Commonwealth v. Boden, 399 Pa. 298, 159 A.2d 894, supra; Commonwealth v. Nasuti, 385 Pa. 436, 123 A.2d 435; Commonwealth v. Carey, 368 Pa. 157, 82 A.2d In Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 373 Pa. 150, pages 156-157, 94 A.2d 743, page 746, the Court pertinently said: 'The Commonwealth has th......