Commonwealth v. Dreamer
| Decision Date | 23 November 1936 |
| Docket Number | 244 |
| Citation | 324 Pa. 220,188 A. 117 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Dreamer, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued October 5, 1936
Appeal, No. 244, March T., 1936, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Washington Co., May T., 1936, No. 3, in case of Commonwealth v. Robert Dreamer. Judgment affirmed; record remitted.
Indictment for murder. Before HUGHES, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, penalty of death and judgment and sentence thereon. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was refusal of new trial.
The judgment is affirmed. The record is remitted to the court below so that the sentence may be executed.
Thomas L. Christman, for appellant.
James C. Bane, District Attorney, with him Wray G. Zelt, Special Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Before KEPHART, C.J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES JJ.
Robert Dreamer, the appellant, was convicted of the murder of Thelma Young, aged 17 years, on December 29, 1927. Death was the penalty imposed. Only two questions are raised on this appeal and neither requires extended discussion.
The young girl named in the indictment was beaten and murdered while defending herself against ravishment. On December 29, 1927, she left her home, attended a moving picture theatre, and afterwards was seen going in the direction of her home in North Franklin Township, near Washington, Pa. About 8 o'clock on the following morning her body was found on a vacant lot. It bore evidence of a desperate struggle against a brutal assailant, who beat her savagely, raped her and killed her. She was nearly denuded of clothing, she had been strangled, and her head had been lacerated by a brick, which was found near by, stained with blood.
This crime remained unsolved until January 21, 1936, when this appellant was arrested, and upon being confronted with a button picked up at the scene of the crime at the time the body was discovered, he admitted his guilt. His confession was reduced to writing. He subsequently repeated it. At his trial he repudiated it, but after hearing the evidence the jury had no reasonable doubt that he went to Baltimore Alley, waylaid his victim, and completely carried out his felonious purpose in the vacant lot where her body was found. His confession contained details which stamped truth upon it despite his subsequent repudiation.
There are but three assignments of error. The first reads as follows: "The learned trial judge erred in failing to instruct all prospective jurors to disregard the remark of a certain juror who expressed his opinion as to the guilt of the defendant while being examined upon his voir dire, and which opinion was detrimental and prejudicial to the defendant."
When prospective juror White was under direct examination upon his voir dire, he was asked by the assistant district attorney "As a result of what you have read in the newspapers or what you have discussed or heard in discussions, have you any fixed opinion as to the guilt or innocence of this defendant?" He answered: "Well, it looks like as if he might be guilty." Defendant's counsel then requested the court to instruct the jurors in the box and any prospective jurors to disregard entirely what that juror had just said. The trial judge instructed the jurors then in the box to "disregard any remarks that they have heard made by the juror on the stand." The juror who made the remark in question was subsequently "excused for cause." Later, during the selection of the jury, S. M. Stockwell was called and examined upon his voir dire. When asked as to whether he had a fixed opinion in reference to the defendant's guilt or innocence, he answered: "I would say guilty." In response to the objection of defendant's counsel, the court said: "We will strike that out and instruct the jury to disregard the answer of the juror and also any prospective jurors that may be called." This juror also was "excused for cause." We see no merit whatsoever in counsel's contention that the trial judge's monitory words were inadequate. No juror was accepted until he had qualified himself to give the defendant a fair and impartial trial. The trial judge in his charge made it...
To continue reading
Request your trial