Com. v. Senk

Citation412 Pa. 184,194 A.2d 221
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. Frank Earl SENK, Appellant.
Decision Date09 October 1963
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Gailey C. Keller, Hervey B. Smith, Bloomsburg, for appellant

Howard R. Berninger, Dist. Atty., Nicholas Piazza, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bloomsburg, for appellee.

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

EAGEN, Justice.

The appellant-defendant, Frank Earl Senk, was tried and found guilty, by a jury, of murder in the first degree. The punishment was fixed at death. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were dismissed, and sentence imposed in accordance with the jury's verdict. From the judgment, the present appeal was filed.

MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT

In order to sustain the defendant's conviction, it is elementary that the record must contain sufficient evidentiary proof to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Commonwealth v. Bonomo, 396 Pa. 222, 151 A.2d 441 (1959); Commonwealth v. Clinton, 391 Pa. 212, 137 A.2d 463 (1958). However, since the jury's verdict resolved all disputed facts in connection with the defendant's guilt in favor of the Commonwealth, in determining the question of the sufficiency of the evidence, the Commonwealth must be given the benefit of all of the favorable trial testimony and every reasonable inference arising therefrom: Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 406 Pa. 102, 176 A.2d 421 (1962); Commonwealth v. Gockley, 411 Pa. 437, 192 A.2d 693 (1963). Read in this light, the record discloses the following:

Jane Mary Benefield, aged thirteen years, departed from her home in the town of Centralia, Columbia County, Pennsylvania, sometime after ten o'clock on the morning of July 11, 1961, to visit the home of a family friend, located a few blocks away. Several minutes later, she was seen a short distance from her home entering a Pontiac station wagon operated by an unidentified man, after giving directions to the driver. The automobile then proceeded to travel in the direction of the town of Aristes, located nearby. She did not return home again. On the following day, July 12th, about 7:00 o'clock p. m., her dead body was found by searchers in a wooded, abandoned mining area, approximately one-quarter of a mile east of the state highway leading from Centralia to Aristes. An autopsy disclosed evidence of a severe blow to the head resulting in a fracture of the skull; also strangulation through violence. Abrasions were present near the anus and on the left portion of the hymen. The body, when found, was almost completely nude, whatever little clothing remained was in complete disarray. The death was caused either by the skull fracture or suffocation. A medical expert, who assisted with the post-mortem, fixed the time of death at approximately 11 a. m. on July 11th.

The defendant, when arrested, maintained a home in Williamsport, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. He was a magazine salesman and traveled extensively in carrying out his trade. During the period, when this killing occurred, he was working in Centralia and surrounding communities. He had temporarily rented an apartment in Ashland, Pennsylvania, which he gave up on July 13, 1961. He made calls on prospects in this area to sell magazines on On January 18, 1962, the defendant was taken into custody by officers of the Pennsylvania State Police. On the early morning of January twenty-first, he disclosed that Jane Mary Benfield had accepted an invitation to ride with him in his station wagon on July 11, 1961, and that he had killed her when she resisted an indecent assault upon her. His statements, relating the details of the crime were reduced to writing by the police, which the defendant signed. Later that same day, he directed the police to the scene of the killing and reenacted the details thereof. On the same day, he was arraigned before a justice of the peace and charged with murder. Twenty-four hours later, after signing a petition asking court to appoint counsel to represent him, he again visited the murder scene with the police and described in detail the events of the unfortunate killing. At trial, the defendant did not personally testify or offer any testimony in contradiction of the evidence offered against him. 1

July 10th and 12th, but none such were made on July 11th, although he had previous commitments to do so. In his employment, he operated and was in possession of a rented Pontiac station wagon. This specific automobile was identified as the same make and model as the one the victim entered near her home on the day of her disappearance. On the morning of July 11th, a short time before the victim was seen entering a Pontiac station wagon, the defendant had stopped his station wagon on a street in the town of Ashland, asked directions of two young [412 Pa. 189] girls and offered to drive them to their homes, which invitation they refused. Ashland is approximately one mile from Centralia.

It is readily manifest that all of the necessary ingredients of murder in the first degree were adequately established. The motion in arrest of judgment was, therefore, properly overruled and need not detain us.

NEW TRIAL

The basic assignments of error in this regard concern the admission at trial of the defendant's confession. It is argued that the prejudicial statements given by the defendant were coerced, not voluntarily given, and hence should not have been admitted in evidence against him. It is urged that the defendant was wrongfully detained for a long period of time before formal arrest and arraignment, and that during this period he was subjected to long and unreasonable questioning.

A close study of all of the evidence convinces us that the admissions of the defendant were freely given under circumstances which negate a conclusion that they were the result of coercion or oppressive tactics. His statements against interest, therefore, could not be rejected as a matter of law.

If a confession is freely given, it is properly admitted to prove the guilt of the accused: Commonwealth v. Dickerson, supra, and Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 81 S.Ct. 735, 5 L.Ed.2d 760 (1961). In determining whether or not an accused's statements were voluntary, that is the free and unconstrained choice of the maker, the totality of the circumstances under which they were made must be considered: Commonwealth v. Graham, 408 Pa. 155, 182 A.2d 727 (1962); Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556, 74 S.Ct. 716, 98 L.Ed. 948 (1954); Fikes v. State of Alabama, 352 U.S. 191, 77 S.Ct. 281, 1 L.Ed.2d 246 (1957); and Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961).

The mere questioning of a suspect, while in police custody, is not prohibited either as a matter of common law or due process: Lisenba v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 219, 62 S.Ct. 280, 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941). Nor does the fact that an accused is questioned by the police for a considerable period of time after being taken into custody, in itself, establish the existence of coercion, and thus destroy the admissibility of a confession: Commonwealth v. Agoston, 364 Pa. 464, 72 A.2d 575 (1950); Commonwealth v. Graham, supra; Lyons v. Oklahoma, 322 U.S. 596, 64 S.Ct. 1208, 88 L.Ed. 1481 (1944); Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156, 73 S.Ct. 1077, 97 L.Ed. 1522 (1953); and, Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, 78 S.Ct. 1287, 2 L.Ed.2d 1448 (1958). For a confession to be coerced and thus inadmissible, there must be an impairing or overpowering of the will; it must be one that is not the product of a rational intellect and a free will. Commonwealth v. Graham, supra; Rogers v. Richmond, supra; Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 81 S.Ct. 1541, 6 L.Ed.2d 948 (1961).

In the instant case, the defendant was taken into custody in Western Pennsylvania about 9:15 p. m. o'clock on January 18, 1962, while in the company of his wife. He was taken to the nearby State Police Headquarters in Warren, Pennsylvania. His wife followed him there and had a conversation with him. Later on, he was transferred to the State Police Headquarters in Ridgway, Pennsylvania. On January 21st, about 1:30 a. m. o'clock, he first disclosed to the investigating officers that he was guilty of the crime. Soon afterward, his statements were reduced to writing, a copy of which was given to the defendant to read, corrections made at his request, and then signed and witnessed.

During his confinement, the defendant was questioned for several hours and at various times. Under all of the circumstances disclosed by the record, this was not necessarily in itself unreasonable or too prolonged. There was no overpowering of the will. He was fed regularly and given reasonable opportunities to rest and sleep. Toilet and similar facities were available at all times. No objections were voiced during his confinement as to his treatment. On January 20th, at his request, he was given the opportunity of talking privately with a minister for extended periods of time. On the same day, he was visited by his mother and wife, who consulted with him in the absence of police officers. It was subsequent to these occurrences that he evidenced a desire and willingness...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • United States ex rel. Senk v. Brierley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • May 24, 1974
  • Com. ex rel. Butler v. Rundle
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1965
    ... ... United States, 378 U.S. 569, 84 S.Ct. 1927, 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1964); Oister v. Pennsylvania, 378 U.S. 568, 84 S.Ct. 1926, 12 L.Ed.2d 1038 (1964); Owen v. Arizona, 378 U.S. 574, 84 S.Ct. 1932, 12 L.Ed.2d 1041 (1964); Pea v. United States, 378 U.S. 571, 84 S.Ct. 1929, 12 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1964); Senk v. Pennsylvania, 378 U.S. 562, 84 S.Ct. 1928, 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1964) ... 6 People v. Del Hoyo, 19 A.D.2d 696, 240 N.Y.S.2d 941 (1963); Harris v. Texas, 370 S.W.2d 886 (Ct.Crim.App.1963); People v. Lathan, 12 N.Y.2d 822, 236 N.Y.S.2d 345, 187 N.E.2d 359 (1962), amended, 13 N.Y.2d 670, 241 N.Y.S.2d ... ...
  • Jackson v. Denno, 62
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1964
    ...if so, the jury can consider voluntariness in determining the weight to be afforded the confession). PENNSYLVANIA: Commonwealth v. Senk, 412 Pa. 184, 194 A.2d 221 (confession determined to be conditionally admissible after preliminary hearing). Commonwealth v. Ross, 403 Pa. 358, 365, 169 A.......
  • State v. Nelson
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1963
    ... ... Ohio, or other decisions relied upon by [105 N.H. 192] the defendants. See Commonwealth v. Senk, 412 Pa. 184, 194 A.2d 221 ...         If it is to be the law that police officials cannot obtain articles of personal property voluntarily ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT