Commonwealth v. Brabham
| Decision Date | 23 April 1969 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. John Henry BRABHAM, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Morrison B. Williams, Harold N. Fitzkee, Jr., York Paul Shalita, Philadelphia, for appellant.
John F. Rauhauser, Jr., Dist. Atty., John T. Miller, 1st Asst Dist. Atty., York, for appellee.
On the afternoon of Friday, September 9, 1966, the defendant, John Brabham, and a fellow-worker left their place of employment cashed their paychecks, purchased some liquor and wine, and started to drink. Later the same day, they met some friends they also met Janette Johnson, whom they had not known previously. Brabham, during the course of the evening, gave Janette a $20 bill to purchase some whiskey. She neither purchased the whiskey nor returned the $20 to Brabham, but did leave Brabham's company to go to the Naples Cafe in York. About 9 P.M., Brabham walked into the Naples Cafe and, after making threats to Janette with regard to the money, he was put out of the cafe. A few minutes later, he returned, walked to the rear of the cafe where Janette was seated at a table, pulled out a .22-caliber revolver, and shot her through the neck. She died several weeks later from the wound. Brabham then went outside and gave the gun to his co-worker, who did not go back in after Brabham had been evicted earlier. Brabham returned inside and waited for the police, who arrived within a matter of minutes after the shooting.
Brabham was indicted for murder and manslaughter, and on January 11, 1967, was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder. His defenses were (1) the killing was unintentional and accidental, and (2) it was in self-defense, and (3) he was intoxicated. Defendant's motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were denied, and on December 18, 1967, Brabham was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten nor more than twenty years. From this judgment of sentence, he now appeals.
The principal contention of the defendant relates to the trial Court's charge on the issue of intoxication as a defense. Defendant contends that the Court withdrew from the jury any consideration of defendant's state of alleged intoxication when it charged: '(T)here is no testimony in this case that this man was so under the influence of intoxicating liquor that his mental faculties were affected to the degree that he could not form the intent to commit and to perform the acts which he in fact did, if you believe that he did do the things which the witnesses have testified that he did.'
Defendant forgets that the Court further charged: 'Now of course intoxication may be a defense to crime, but in order for intoxication to be a complete defense to crime it must exist to such an extent that the person is not able to form an intent to commit the crime itself. * * *'
As this Court recently and pertinently said in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial