Com. v. Ulatoski

Citation371 A.2d 186,472 Pa. 53
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Gerald Frank ULATOSKI, Appellant.
Decision Date01 April 1977
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

John J. Hudacsek, Jr., Beaver Falls, Arthur S. Herskovitz, Aliquippa, Anthony J. Lalama, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Joseph S. Walko, Dist. Atty., Joseph M. Stanichak, Layden C. Sadecky, Asst. Dist. Attys., Beaver, for appellee.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

Appellant Gerald Frank Ulatoski was tried for the murder of his wife Joyce and convicted by a jury of murder of the third degree. Post-trial motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were denied by the court en banc. In this appeal, 1 appellant's sole contention is that he is entitled to a new trial because the testimony of three prosecution witnesses, which was offered to show the existence of marital discord in the Ulatoski household, should not have been admitted over his objection. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony and affirm the judgment of sentence.

The facts of this case are correctly set forth in the trial court opinion:

'The testimony established that on February 4, 1975, at 3:28 A.M., a police officer of the Economy Borough Police Department and some officers from surrounding areas arrived at the home of Gerald and Joyce Ulatoski after a call to the Economy Police Department that a shooting had occurred at that residence. At the time the police arrived, the defendant, Mr. Ultoski, was standing at the door, fully dressed and with his hair neatly combed. He directed the officer into the nursery where the body of Joyce Ulatoski was lying on the floor near the baby's crib. On the floor about two feet from the victim's head was the gun with which she had been shot. The police officer examined Mrs. Ulatoski and could find no life signs. At that time the defendant was placed under arrest and advised of his constitutional rights. At that time the defendant gave a statement to the police as to how the shooting occurred. He said that he had arrived home at 10:00 P.M. from his part time job. He said he had been fooling around with a .22 caliber pistol at the kitchen table while he and his wife were having a discussion. He said, 'not a fight, but a discussion.' The defendant told the police that the baby started crying and his wife went into the baby's bedroom. He told the police that he just stepped into the baby's bedroom and the gun went off. The defendant also told the officers that the gun had a fine trigger. He also said that he used the pistol for target practice and sometimes just got the gun out to play with it.

'The defendant's testimony at trial differed from the statement which he gave to the police officers at the scene of the shooting. At trial the defendant testified that he followed his wife from the kitchen into the baby's room with the pistol in his hand. He testified that the baby was laying in the crib and his wife was leaning over doing something with the baby; that as he walked up to her she turned toward him. At that point the gun went off, and his wife fell to the floor.

'It was established by a State police firearms expert that the fatal bullet came from the weapon found near the body, and that the weapon was in good working order. Two experts testified that the weapon would not fire with the safety on and that the trigger had to be pulled in order for the weapon to fire. It was also established that the gun would not discharge accidently.

'The Commonwealth also presented evidence by a qualified gunsmith who had examined the weapon and stated that the internal parts showed no signs of wear and tear and that the gun could pass for a new weapon. He further testified that he had tested the trigger pull of the weapon and that it had an average, not a light trigger pull.

'The Commonwealth called as a witness, Ralph Plankenhorn, who is a forensic chemist with the Pennsylvania State Police. Mr. Plankenhorn testified that he and Trooper Mayfield, the firearms expert, had conducted certain test firings on a piece of cloth taken from the robe that the victim had on at the time of the shooting. They conducted these test firings in order to duplicate the entrance hole in the front of the garment. In one test the muzzle of the gun was approximately one inch from the fabric while in the other test the muzzle was against the fabric. The same pistol and the ammunition with which Mrs. Ulatoski was killed were used in the tests. Plankenhorn testified that he examined the robe which had been worn by the victim and that the imprint of the muzzle of a pistol appeared on the robe and the muzzle of the weapon found at the scene fit that imprint. He testified that you could see the muzzle imprint on the robe without using a microscope. He also testified that on the basis of the analysis of the garment and his test firings of the weapon, it was his opinion that the muzzle was against the robe when the weapon was fired. It was also established that there was a tear in the back of the victim's robe and nightgown. The chemist expressed the opinion that if the body was against a solid surface, such as a wall, the bullet would stretch the skin enough so that the cloth would be torn by the bullet. He said that these tears could have been made even if the bullet had not exited the victim's skin.

'The Commonwealth presented testimony by two friends of the victim pertaining to the marital relationship of the defendant and the victim. Sheila Bednarcik testified that Mrs. Ulatoski had visited her frequently during 1973 and 1974. She said that on most of the visits, Joyce arrived at three o'clock in the morning. On one specific occasion in the Fall of 1973, the victim arrived at her friend's home around three o'clock in the morning and was upset and crying. She had a black eye and bruises on her arm, throat, hip and side. The witness also testified that on another occasion, in the Spring of 1974, Mrs. Ulatoski came to her home around three o'clock in the morning, upset and crying, with a black eye and bruises all over her. She testified that on several occasions the victim had stayed with her overnight and on one occasion in late September or early October of 1973, she stayed for three or four days. On these occasions she did not bring anything with her. She also testified that in July of 1973 she visited the Ulatoski home in Economy Borough, at the invitation of Mrs. Ulatoski. She said that on that occasion the defendant talked to his wife in a nasty manner and walked out of the house and slammed the door.

'The Commonwealth also presented the testimony of Sharon Herman who was the sister of Sheila Bednarcik. She testified that she had called Mrs. Ulatoski on the telephone in the Fall of 1973 and that she recognized the defendant's voice yelling at his wife about being on the phone, after which the phone went dead. She said that in November of 1974 she called her again and heard the defendant order the victim to get off the telephone. She further testified to visiting the victim in Bellevue Hospital in 1973 and observing bruises on her neck, and arms at that time. 2 She corroborated her sister's testimony about the victim syaying at their residence for three days in 1973 and about her black eye and bruises.

'The victim's aunt (Mildred Green) also testified to having seen Mrs. Ulatoski in 1973 and 1974 with a black eye and bruises.'

Appellant contended that the shooting was accidental. He presented a series of character witnesses who vouched for his reputation as a peaceful, law-abiding citizen. Other witnesses were called to rebut the Commonwealth's evidence that appellant beat his wife. Several family friends testified that they believed that appellant and Mrs. Ulatoski had a happy marital relationship none could recall seeing Mrs. Ulatoski with a black eye or body bruises. Dr. Sabatelle, Mrs. Ulatoski's obtetrician and gynecologist, testified that she visited his office on March 9, April 9 and June 3, 1974. Dr. Sabatelle stated that he did not observe a black eye or body bruises and that Mrs. Ulatoski had no physical complaints. Finally, appellant called the medical records librarian from Bellevue Hospital who testified that according to hospital records Mrs. Ulatoski had not been hospitalized in the fall of 1973.

When appellant took the stand, he testified that he loved his wife and had no desire to harm her. He admitted that they had quarrelled in the past and that he had struck her on one occasion, causing her eye to swell. He remembered that she had a black eye in 1974, but said that it resulted from playing with the family dog. He also testified that Mrs. Ulatoski had been hospitalized in 1973 but had no bruises on her body at that time or at any time during September 1973. In short, appellant denied that he had physically abused his wife.

Appellant asserts that the testimony of Ms. Bednarcik, Ms. Herman and Ms. Green should not have been admitted into evidence. On Many occasions, this Court stated that evidence concerning the previous relations between a defendant and a homicide victim is relevant and admissible for the purpose of proving ill will, motive or malice. 3 Evidence of prior occurrences in which the accused threatened, assaulted, or quarrelled with the decedent may be admissible for this purpose. 4 This principle applies when the decedent was the spouse of the accused. 5 Thus, evidence concerning the nature of the marital relationship is admissible for the purpose of proving ill will, motive or malice. 6 This includes, in particular, evidence that the accused physically abused his or her spouse. 7

The challenged testimony constituted circumstantial evidence offered to prove that appellant struck Mrs. Ulatoski on several occasions and that their marital relationship was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
88 cases
  • Com. v. Sherwood, No. 561 CAP
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • November 6, 2009
    ...intent, lack of mistake or accident, ill-will, malice, and the nature of Appellant's relationship with Marlee. In Commonwealth v. Ulatoski, 472 Pa. 53, 371 A.2d 186 (1977), this Court [E]vidence concerning the previous relations between a defendant and a homicide victim is relevant and admi......
  • Commonwealth v. Stanley
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • April 12, 1979
    ...... Appeals Div., Philadelphia, for appellant. . . Steven. H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div.,. Philadelphia, for Com., appellee. [401 A.2d 1170] . . Before. WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE,. PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ. ...223] so. prejudicial as to be likely to make it difficult for the jury. to decide the case in an unimpassioned manner. Commonwealth v. Ulatoski, 472 Pa. 53, 371 A.2d 186. (1976); Fed.R.Evid. 403; McCormick, Evidence, § 185 at. 438-40 (Cleary Ed., 1972). This principle was recognized and. ......
  • Com. v. Shirey
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • September 7, 1984
    ...need for the evidence against its potential prejudice in order to determine Page 1335 its admissibility. See also Commonwealth v. Ulatoski, 472 Pa. 53, 63, 371 A.2d 186, 191 n. 11 Commonwealth v. Wright, 259 Pa.Super. 293, 298-99, 393 A.2d 833, 835-36 (1978). At the outset, we observe that ......
  • Com. v. Story
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • January 26, 1978
    ...at trial, the trial court must balance the probativeness of the evidence against its prejudicial impact. Commonwealth v. Ulatoski, 472 Pa. 53, 63, n.11, 371 A.2d 186, 191 n.11 (1977); J. McCormick, Evidence § 185, at 438-40 (2d ed. 1972). In this case, however, the evidence in question was ......
  • 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