Com. v. Motley

• Decision Date: 20 April 1972
• Citation: 289 A.2d 724,448 Pa. 110
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Matthew S. MOTLEY, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 724

289 A.2d 724

448 Pa. 110

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Matthew S. MOTLEY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 20, 1972.

[448 Pa. 111] Jacob P. Hart, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., James D. Crawford, Deputy Dist. Atty., Mark Sendrow, Asst. Dist. Atty., Milton M. Stein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Division, Richard A. Sprague, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

Appellant Matthew Motley, after trial by jury in 1962, was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. No appeal was then taken from the judgment of sentence.

In 1967, appellant filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Hearing Act, ¹ alleging inter alia that he had been denied his right to appeal and to free counsel on appeal if he is indigent, guaranteed by Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963). His petition was dismissed by the common pleas court, and this Court affirmed the dismissal by a divided vote. Commonwealth v. Motley, 434 Pa. 272, 252 A.2d 366 (1969).

Thereafter appellant sought relief by way of federal habeas corpus. On September 25, 1969, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order granting a writ of habeas corpus unless petitioner was permitted to file post trial motions as if timely filed. Argument on appellant's motion for a new trial was held before three members of the Philadelphia CommonPleas Court, and his motion was denied. This appeal followed.

The sole issue presented by this appeal is precisely the same issue that was presented by Commonwealth v. Archambault, Pa., 290 A.2d 72 (1972), decided this day. In fact, reargument was ordered in this case in order that we might consider it together with Archambault.

At appellant's trial the court stated in its charge to the jury: 'My comment is, Members of the Jury, that it would be a miscarriage of justice, in my opinion, if you found this defendant not guilty.' In Archambault we fully explored the issue of whether a trial judge may express his personal opinion on the guilt of the accused. We there held that: '(A) trial judge may not suggest a verdict of guilty or not guilty nor directly express an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.' 290 A.2d at 75. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to a new trial. ²

The judgment of sentence is vacated and a new trial is granted.

NIX, J., joins in the majority opinion and filed a concurring opinion in which MANDERINO, J., joins.

MANDERINO, J., joins in the majority opinion and joins in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice NIX.

EAGEN, J., dissents.

NIX, Justice (concurring).

I concur in the result reached by the majority for the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Archambault, Pa., 290 A.2d 72 (1972), also decided this day.

MANDERINO, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

1 Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, § 1 et seq., 19 P.S. § 1180--1 et seq. (Supp.1970).

2 The Commonwealth attempts to justify the trial court's comment on the guilt of the accused on the ground that appellant's defense counsel indicated to the jury that he thought his client was guilty of murder in the second degree.

However, it is not clear that appellant's attorney made such a statement. Though the trial court in its charge indicated that appellant's attorney had made such a statement, that statement does not appear in the record, and we believe it far more likely that appellant's experienced counsel, attempting to avoid a felony-murder conviction, indicated to the jury that If his client was guilty of any offense, it was second degree murder.

Moreover, even if appellant's attorney made such a statement, it would not...