Commonwealth v. Butler

• Decision Date: 03 October 1973
• Citation: 454 Pa. 95,309 A.2d 720
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. George Edward BUTLER, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

309 A.2d 720

454 Pa. 95

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. George Edward BUTLER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 3, 1973.

Richard W. Lins, Jr., Alexander Ogle, Somerset, for appellant.

Gordon E. Stroup, Dist. Atty., Bedford, for appellee.

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

OPINION

JONES, Chief Justice.

Appellant pled guilty to and was convicted on two counts of murder in the first degree. This appeal is taken from the imposition of two consecutive life sentences. ^[1]

The Commonwealth's evidence establishes the following operative facts: Marguerite Snyder, age sixty-nine, and Mary Deremer, age sixty-seven, were proprietors of a combination gas station, restaurant and grocery store in Cumberland Valley Township, Pennsylvania, known as the 'Beechwood Inn.' Early on the morning of December 1, 1971, the appellant entered the Beechwood Inn and, at gunpoint, instructed Mary Deremer to 'hand over the money.' She balked at the appellant's demand and called into a back room to Marguerite Snyder to get a gun. Appellant shot and mortally wounded Mary Deremer, and then walked to the other room and shot and mortally wounded Marguerite Snyder.

Police investigation proved futile until February 11, 1972, when Michael Howsare, an acquaintance of George Butler, informed police that appellant admitted responsibility for the Beechwood Inn homicides in a January 1972 conversation between Howsare and the appellant. Howsare also disclosed that certain items of evidence, including the death weapon had been thrown into the Juniata River by appellant. On February 21, 1972, another confidant of the appellant, David Price, told police that appellant similarly disclosed his responsibility for these homicides to Price in a December 9 1971, conversation and on the occasion revealed that the murder weapon and other inculpating items of evidence had been thrown into the Juniata River.

On the basis of information supplied by Howsare and Price, police commenced a search of the Juniata River at the location fixed by appellant's disclosures and, on March 29, 1972 recovered a .22 caliber revolver from that location. This revolver was identified as the death weapon when compared by ballistics tests to the bullets recovered from the bodies of the victims.

After the recovery of the weapon, the appellant was formally charged with murder and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was taken into custody by state police at the Meadows Race Track in Washington County at 12:20 p.m. on March 30, 1972, and immediately advised of his constitutional rights. The appellant was taken to his apartment to change his shoes and then transported to the state police barracks in Washington, Pennsylvania, where he was fingerprinted, photographed and fed. Thereafter, he was transferred to a district magistrate in Bedford County for preliminary arraignment and then to the Bedford County state police barracks, where he arrived at about 2:00 p.m. Approximately five and one-half hours after his arrest, at about 5:45 p.m., and immediately subsequent to a second recitation of his constitutional rights by state police, the appellant gave an oral confession which was later reduced to writing and signed by appellant.

On August 7, 1972, the appellant, with counsel, was brought before the court below to enter his plea. When he stood mute before the court, a plea of 'not guilty' was entered on his behalf. Appellant was brought before the court again on August 15, 1972, when his attorneys advised the court that he wished to change his plea. On that occasion, although he did not again stand speechless when confronted with the charges against him, the appellant responded 'no plea.' 'Not guilty' pleas were again entered on his behalf.

Twenty minutes later, the appellant returned to court a third time and pled guilty on both counts of murder. Before the pleas were entered, the court offered appellant a comprehensive explanation of the consequences of his action and engaged him in a lengthy colloquy to determine whether the intended pleading would be intelligent and knowing. The only issue before us is whether appellant's guilty pleas were voluntary. ^[2]

It is the appellant's position that his pleas of guilty were involuntary for the following reasons: the interval of time between the change from 'no plea' to 'guilty' dictated that the pleas of guilty should not have been accepted; appellant was motivated by fear of the death penalty; appellant was motivated by the court's erroneous determination, in a July 11--12, 1972, suppression hearing, that appellant's confession was admissible and that the murder weapon and other items of evidence recovered from the Juniata River were also admissible.

Appellant urges that the twenty-minute interval between his 'no plea' and 'guilty' plea should have motivated the court to refuse to accept the guilty pleas he finally entered. This argument is unaccompanied by allegations of coercion from any source whatsoever. We are unwilling to find that some undisclosed influence coerced the appellant to shift his position or that the brief time interval within which appellant acted to modify his plea should have prompted the lower court to discount it.

Appellant's claim that his plea was not voluntary because he was motivated by fear of the death penalty is based upon the following colloquy with the court:

'By the Court: About 15 or 20 minutes ago when you came into court, you remember, I said Mr. Lins (appellant's counsel) said you wanted to change your plea and at that time you stood mute, and that put them in a rather peculiar position. They do not wish to force you to do anything you do not want to do. I do not want them to do that and I feel sure they did not do that. I want you to say to me, Did they pressure you in the last few minutes or at any time to enter a plea of guilty?

A. No.

By the Court: Have they indicated to you at any time in their discussions since their first meething with you that any bargain had been made with me, the court, or the district attorney, the officers or with any person as to a possible sentence that might be imposed if you entered a plea of guilty?

A. No.

By the Court: What, if anything, have they or anyone else done to get you to change your plea of not guilty to a plea of guity? Anything?

A. No.

By the Court: Have you changed your plea because you were afraid the jury might find you guilty and sentence you to death; I would assume that is possible, is that right?

A. Yes.

By the Court: What did I tell you a few minutes ago? Did you understand when I said if you were tried before me without a jury on a plea of guilty and I would find you were guilty from all the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I would find you guilty of murder in the first degree but I would not impose the death sentence. Is that right?

A. Yes.

By the Court: I also said to you that is not a good reason for you to change your plea. If you didn't do it you should never admit to it and I am going to reserve the right to withdraw those pleas if you wish. Are these pleas really made with your own free choice and own choosing?

A. Yes.

By the Court: Do you wish to ask me any questions in connection with the case that you think I might be able to tell you?

A. No.' (Emphasis added)

We are asked in this connection to vacate the appellant's convictions and sentences on the strength of an affirmative answer to the question of whether it was 'possible' that the appellant was changing his plea because he feared the imposition of the death penalty. In a factual setting where police had obtained the appellant's confession, where appellant twice admitted his culpability in out-of-court statements to confidants and where these statements led was Motivated to enter a plea of guilty by weapon and items of property stolen from the Beechwood Inn, we cannot and will not strain to hold that appellant was Moivated to enter a plea of guilty by his fear of the death penalty. The passage from the record on which we are asked to ground a reversal indicates only a possibility that appellant's guilty plea was impelled by his fear of a death sentence. But Cf., Commonwealth v. Floyd, 451 Pa. 366, 304 A.2d 131 (1973). It seems most probable that appellant was Motivated by the Commonwealth's overwhelming case against him.

The appellant argues that his guilty plea was motivated by the lower court's refusal to suppress physical evidence found in the Juniata River: a .22 caliber revolver determined to be the death weapon by ballistics tests, coins stolen from the Beechwood Inn and two other weapons, one taken from the Beechwood Inn at the time of the subject homicides. Testimony from the suppression hearing indicates that on February 21, 1972, David Price disclosed to state police that George Butler had admitted his responsibility for the Beechwood homicides to Price. On the basis of Price's disclosures, Officer Tokarczyk of the state police asked Price to approach the appellant for the purpose of determining the location of physical evidence thrown into the Juniata River by appellant. It is appellant's position that because he was a 'prime suspect' at the time police asked Price to obtain information from the appellant, he should have been warned of his constitutional rights by Price.

Appellant cites no authority for the proposition that Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), should apply where an informant obtains inculpating information from a suspect before the suspect is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action. Appellant's suggested extension of Miranda and...