Commonwealth v. Bowden

• Decision Date: 22 April 1971
• Citation: 442 Pa. 365,276 A.2d 530
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. James BOWDEN, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

276 A.2d 530

442 Pa. 365

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. James BOWDEN, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 22, 1971.

Alfred P. Filippone (submitted), Paul Yermish (submitted), Philadelphia, for appellant.

Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty. (submitted), James D. Crawford, Deputy Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

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

POMEROY Justice.

Following a trial without a jury, appellant was found guilty of second degree murder. A sentence of 5 to 15 years imprisonment was imposed and motion for a new trial was denied. This appeal followed.

Appellant's argument is that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to prove malice. If this were so the conviction necessarily would have to be reversed, since by definition malice is an essential ingredient of the crime of murder--'an unlawful killing of another With malice aforethought express or implied.' Commonwealth v. Commander, 436 Pa. 532, 536, 260 A.2d 773, 776 (1970); Commonwealth v. Buzard, 365 Pa. 511, 515, 76 A.2d 394 (1950); Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9, 15 (1868). Our review of the evidence convinces us, however, that the appellant's position lacks merit and that the judgment of sentence must be affirmed.

On the evening of November 18, 1968, at 10:30 P.M., Ernest Martin Roane, aged six, was pronounced dead at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital. The cause of death was given as multiple injuries of the trunk and limbs. The medical report showed decedent's arms, legs, back and buttocks to be covered with bruises and skin denudations, his lip to be lacerated and an incisor tooth to be missing, leaving in its place an empty socket from which blood was oozing.

Ernest Roane lived at home with his natural mother and his stepfather, the appellant. On November 18, the boy and his parents had a discussion concerning a poor report card which he had received from his first grade class. Shortly after the discussion, young Ernest acted impudently towards his parents, whereupon appellant began to impose discipline by spanking him. For this purpose appellant used a stick approximately fifteen inches long, one and one-half inches wide and one-half inch thick. The boy's mother, appellant's wife, testified that appellant was 'raving and harsh' and became 'angrier and angrier' as he beat Ernest, who was four feet, one inch tall and weighed sixty-one pounds. The record does not indicate how long the beating went on, but appellant's wife testified that appellant kept 'hitting him and hitting him'. When Mrs. Bowden attempted to intercede, appellant struck her with such force as to cause her to lose consciousness momentarily.

The decedent was taken to bed, where a short...