Com. v. Palmer

• Decision Date: 30 June 1972
• Citation: 292 A.2d 921,448 Pa. 282
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Larry PALMER, Appellant,
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 921

292 A.2d 921

448 Pa. 282

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Larry PALMER, Appellant,

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 30, 1972.

Alfred P. Filippone (Submitted), Philadelphia, for appellant.

Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty. (Submitted), Richard A. Sprague, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty., James D. Crawford, Deputy Dist. Atty., Milton M. Stein, Chief, Appeals Division, Romer Holleran, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

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

OPINION

MANDERINO, Justice.

On August 6, 1970, officers of the Philadelphia police force, responding to a shooting report, found nineteen year old Michael Davis staggering about in a dazed condition with what appeared to be a cut in the center of his forehead. The officers transported Davis to St. Joseph's Hospital for emergency treatment, At the hospital, Davis related that he had been talking to two young negro males after which he heard a shot, felt a blow on the back of his head, and then observed the two boys running away. Davis did not know the names of the two boys and was unable to provide the police with an accurate description. On August 14, 1970, Michael Davis died; the cause of death being a .22 caliber gunshot wound in the back of the head.

Larry Palmer, a seventeen year old black youth, was subsequently arrested and charged with the murder of Michael Davis. During Palmer's non-jury trial, testimony revealed that the deceased and the appellant were members of rival Philadelphia gangs. The Commonwealth presented three witnesses who testified that during the week following the shooting of the deceased, the appellant approached them, and while engaged in conversation, admitted to them that he shot Davis in the back of the head. The witnesses further testified that shortly after the appellant admitted shooting Davis, the appellant pulled out a gun, and started shooting, causing injury to two persons. Palmer was found guilty of second degree murder and was sentenced to two and one-half to ten years imprisonment.

Palmer first contends that absent Other corroborating proof, the extra-judicial admissions of the defendant are insufficient to sustain a finding of guilty on the charge of murder even though there is proof of the corpus delicti. We disagree. In Pennsylvania, the extra-judicial admissions or confessions of the accused are sufficient to convict, if the corpus delicti has been established by independent proof before the extra-judicial statements of the accused are received into evidence. Commonwealth v. Turza, 340 Pa. 128, 16 A.2d 401 (1940). The identity of the party responsible for the act is not an element of the corpus delicti. Commonwealth v. Butts, 204 Pa.Super. 302, 204 A.2d 481 (1964); Commonwealth v. Gockley, 411 Pa. 437, 192 A.2d 693 (1963); Commonwealth v. Turza, Supra. Therefore, if, '. . . the Commonwealth, in a homicide case, has established that the person for whose death the prosecution was instituted is in fact dead and that the death occurred under circumstances indicating that it was criminally caused by Someone, the rule is satisfied and admissions or confessions of the accused may then always be received as proof of the identity of the guilty agent . . .' Commonwealth v. Turza, Supra.

The appellant contends that Commonwealth v. Meehan, 198 Pa.Super. 558, 182 A.2d 212 (1962) requires other proof in connection with extra-judicial admissions before the admissions can be used to establish guilt. Meehan did not so hold. That case said that admissions or confessions '. . . May be considered in connection with other facts or circumstances to prove guilt.' (Emphasis supplied.) Meehan considered the admissibility of the extra-judicial admission and in that context, the court stated that the extra-judicial admission May be considered in connection with other facts or circumstances. Meehan did not hold that other facts and circumstances--in addition to the corpus delicti--were necessary before the extra-judicial admission could be considered.

The appellant also argues that since the witnesses presented by the Commonwealth were extremely biased and had criminal records themselves, the trial judge erred by concluding that their testimony was sufficient to convict the defendant of second degree murder.

An appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence tests whether '. . . accepting as true all of the evidence upon which a verdict could properly have been based, it is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged.' Commonwealth v. Butts, Supra. Accord, Commonwealth v. Gockley, Supra; Commonwealth v. Gooslin, 410 Pa. 285, 189 A.2d 157 (1963); Commonwealth v. Burns, 409 Pa. 619, 187 A.2d 552 (1963). The court has the option of believing all, part of, or none of, the defendant's testimony, statements or confessions, or the...