Commonwealth v. Ballon
| Decision Date | 03 January 1911 |
| Docket Number | 207 |
| Citation | 229 Pa. 323,78 A. 831 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Ballon, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 3, 1910
Appeal, No. 207, Jan. T., 1910, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Montgomery Co., on verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree in case of Commonwealth v. John Ballon. Affirmed.
Indictment for murder. Before SWARTZ, P.J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree, upon which judgment of sentence was passed.
Errors assigned were in the following form:
1. The court below erred in allowing the jury to consider evidence of attempts to break and enter the murdered man's house several weeks in advance of the date of the actual commission of the crime charged.
2. The court below erred in allowing the confession of Felix Fare to be read to the jury, and in not instructing the jury that the circumstances attending the reading of the confession made it at least a quasi judicial proceeding, and therefore the prisoner's silence or other actions were not competent evidence.
Charles B. Connolly, for appellant. -- The general tenor of the decisions of the higher courts in this state would indicate that they confine the efforts of prosecuting attorneys to proving prisoners guilty only of the crimes charged in the indictments. Other offenses not specifically charged cannot be introduced at the time of trial. Shaffner v Com., 72 Pa. 60; Com. v. House, 223 Pa. 487.
The confession of Fare was improperly admitted: Fife v Com., 29 Pa. 429; Com. v. Johnson, 213 Pa. 607.
Chas. D. McAvoy, assistant district attorney, with him J. B. Larzelere, Jr., district attorney, for appellee. -- Evidence of the prior burglaries is competent to show motive, purpose, identity and guilty knowledge: Com. v. Hutchinson, 6 Pa. Superior Ct. 405; Com. v. Ferrigan, 44 Pa. 386. Com. v. Biddle, 200 Pa. 640; Com. v. Major, 198 Pa. 290.
Besides the proof of direct evidence, the conduct or demeanor of the prisoner, on being charged with the crime, or upon allusions being made to it, is frequently given in evidence against him: O'Mara v. Com., 75 Pa. 424; State v. Nash, 7 Iowa, 347; State v. Baldwin, 36 Kan. 1.
Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
The victim of this murder was an old man named Johnson, who lived by himself in a humble home in Montgomery county, about two and one-half miles from Norristown. Among some he was reputed a man of miserly habits who had accumulated his earnings until they amounted to a considerable sum, which it was supposed he kept either upon his person or secreted about his house. By a written statement voluntarily made shortly after he was taken in custody, the defendant admitted that on the night the assault was made on the old man, and from the effects of which he died within a day or so thereafter, he in company with three other men went to Johnson's home about midnight. Singularly enough this written statement in its entirety does not appear in either paper-book. All we have before us in regard to its contents is what appears in the judge's charge. This so far as it goes we will assume to be a correct recital, since it is not made the subject of complaint. It does not appear that in the statement the defendant indicated any purpose, lawful or otherwise, that he and his companions had in visiting the house of Johnson on this particular occasion. That purpose whatever it was is to be derived from the evidence as to what there occurred, and the acts and declarations of the defendant which preceded the occurrence. In the statement he declares that in accompanying his three associates he did not know where they were going or what they had in mind to do. He admits that he did accompany them to the Johnson home, and that when there he saw one of the party break through a cellar window or screen, and saw this man, whom he knew to be armed with a pistol, and another of his companions, enter the cellar of the home through the opening thus made; that shortly thereafter he heard firing within the house, and that then the kitchen door being unfastened by those within, he and his remaining companion entered. He then describes the situation as he found it. The injuries from which the old man died had already been inflicted; he was lying in a chair, his head bleeding, and he had been robbed. The defendant declared that he bound up the wound with a handkerchief and then went to his home, leaving his three companions in the house. That the murder was committed in an attempt to rob or steal was established beyond possible contradiction. The only question was whether the defendant was confederated with the three men who broke and entered the dwelling, one of whom fired the fatal shot. Were there nothing in the case beyond the facts above recited the...
To continue reading
Request your trial