Com. v. Homeyer
| Decision Date | 13 February 1953 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. HOMEYER. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Page 743
v.
HOMEYER.
[373 Pa. 151]
Page 744
Roy A. Gardner, Davis R. Hobbs and Hobbs & Gardner, Tunkhannock, for appellant.Kenneth Lee, Robert E. Farr and Robert W. Trembath, Dist. Atty., Tunkhannock, for appellee.
Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
[373 Pa. 152] BELL, Justice.
Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree and the penalty was fixed at death. His counsel cited over 80 reasons for a new trial; 9 of these are pressed on this appeal.
On March 28th or March 29th, 1950, Anna Snelleman Homeyer, wife of the defendant, died or was murdered in their residence in Factoryville, Wyoming County, Pennsylvania. On March 7, 1951, a well preserved head, which had been severed from the body at the neck, and a part of the pelvis of a female were found encased in concrete buried in a wash tub in the cellar of the Homeyer home. The head was identified as that of Anna Snelleman Homeyer.
The defendant told so many different and conflicting stories to so many people that it would take a great many pages to recount them, or even to enumerate his fabrications. It will suffice we believe to give the following brief summary.
The defendant told the District Attorney and the police that March 28, 1950, was Anna Homeyer's birthday. Although he alleges she had no friends, she became angry, according to him, because no one called on her to wish her a happy birthday. Consequently defendant went to a store and purchased a cake and whipping cream for the purpose of making her a birthday cake. When he went back to her bedroom he found her dead. She had been sickly for five years and had had high blood pressure. On the floor in her bedroom defendant said he found a sleeping pill and an empty bottle which he had received from Doctor Patrick the day before and which had contained 20 Napentals. He said the bottle was open and only one capsule remained. Eighteen capsules would be a fatal dosage to a person in the physical condition of Anna Homeyer. Upon discovering the body defendant alleged that he was [373 Pa. 153] seized with panic; fearing he would be held responsible for his wife's death, he decided to dispose of her remains. According to his story he carried the body to the bathroom and dismembered it; then he burned certain portions of her body in the furnace of their home on the night of March 29th and the night of March 30th. He said the odor from the burning body was so terrible it made him sick and he had to drive around the country for several hours. Neighbors testified that they smelled the odor and the nearer they got to the Homeyer house the stronger the stench became. Defendant then buried his wife's head and the portion of the pelvis in cement in the cellar of the residence. Defendant put her stomach and some of her intestines in a package and part of the torso, legs and arms in another package and threw one into the Susquehanna River at Owego on March 29th, and the other package into the Delaware River at Delaware Water Gap on the 30th. He then left town on March 31st and went to Florida and then to California.
Page 745
Defendant like most defendants, proceeds on the assumption that you must believe all of his statements or confessions; of course, that is erroneous; a jury can believe all or a part of or none of a defendant's statements, confessions or testimony. The theory of the defense is that Anna committed suicide, and the dismemberment of her body after she was dead does not constitute a crime. Defendant's principal contention on this appeal is that, apart from his own statements or confessions, there was no proof of the corpus delicti and consequently an acquittal should have been directed, or a new trial must be granted.
Defendant married Anna Snelleman in 1944. At the time of her death he was 52 and she was 64. In 1948 she purchased with her own money premises sknown as 210 Riverside Drive, Factoryville, Pennsylvania,[373 Pa. 154] and took a deed in the name of Charles E. Homeyer and Anna Homeyer, his wife. She opened a savings account at an undisclosed date in her own name in the First National Bank of Factoryville. Between the time of the opening of this account and the date of her death defendant withdrew $4400 from the savings account by forging his wife's name on 12 withdrawal slips. On March 29, 1950, he withdrew an additional $500 by means of a withdrawal slip purporting to have been signed by his wife. The Commonwealth also proved that in June 1950 defendant had in his possession saws, knives and a meat cleaver which are useful tools for beheading and dismembering a body.
In the fall of 1949 defendant began corresponding with a woman named Nancy Parker through a 'Lonely Hearts' magazine. In his letters he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Pestinikas
......277, quoting McHugh v. McHugh, 186 Pa. 197, 203, 40 A. 410, 412 (1898). In Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 373 Pa. 150, 94 A.2d 743 (1953), the Supreme Court stated the rule as follows: . Flight, manifestations of mental distress, fear at the time of or just before or just after discovery of the crime, an attempt to commit suicide at such time, as well as evidence to prove motive, ......
-
Commonwealth v. Vogel
...... Commonwealth v. Ballem, 386 Pa. 20, 123 A.2d 728;. Commonwealth v. Donough, 377 Pa. 46, 50, 103 A.2d. 694; Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 373 Pa. 150, 153, 94. A.2d 743; Commonwealth v. Phillips, 372 Pa. 223, 93. A.2d 455.' Accord: Commonwealth v. Carroll, 412. Pa. 525, 194 ... and it is well settled that in such cases the judgment of. this Court will not be substituted. [268 A.2d 102] . for that of the jury: Com. v. Wendt, 258 Pa. 325,. 102 A. 27 * * *.'. . . In. Commonwealth v. Lance, 381 Pa., page 297, 113 A.2d. page 292, supra, the Court ......
-
Commonwealth v. Melton
......Ballem, 386 Pa. 20, 26, 123. A.2d 728, 732; Commonwealth v. Donough, 377 Pa. 46,. 50, 103 A.2d 694; Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 373 Pa. 150, 153, 94 A.2d 743.". . . A jury or. trial court can similarly believe all or a part of or none of. the testimony of any ......
-
Com. v. Smith
...... Commonwealth v. Williams, 455 Pa. 539, 316 A.2d 888 (1974); Commonwealth v. Dews, 429 Pa. 555, 239 A.2d 382 (1968); Commonwealth v. Frazier, 411 Pa. 195, 191 A.2d 369 (1963); Commonwealth v. Deyell, 399 Pa. 563, 160 A.2d 448 (1960); Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 373 Pa. 150, 94 A.2d 743 (1953). . In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that a homicide . Page 603 . was committed and that the person or persons charged were those responsible, we are called upon to consider all of the testimony that was presented to the ......