Commonwealth v. Gable

Citation187 A. 393,323 Pa. 449
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. GABLE.
Decision Date07 October 1936
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
187 A. 393
323 Pa. 449

COMMONWEALTH
v.
GABLE.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 7, 1936.


187 A. 394

Appeal No. 167, March term, 1936, from sentence of Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Jail Delivery, Cambria County, September term, 1935, No. 6; John H. McCann, President Judge.

Jacob Gable was convicted of first-degree murder, and he appeals.

Judgment affirmed, and record remitted, with directions.

Argued before KEPHART, C. J., and SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, and BARNES, JJ.

J. H. Connell, Jr., of Cresson, for appellant.

Stephens Mayer, Dist. Atty., of Johnstown, for the Commonwealth.

SCHAFFER, Justice.

This is a case of first-degree murder. The jury fixed the penalty at death. The condemned, appealing to us from the sentence, submits three questions: (1) May the commonwealth introduce in evidence his written confession when it contains references to the commission by him of other crimes not connected with the homicide? (2) The defense being insanity, was it error for the trial judge to review in detail the evidence of the commonwealth and to instruct the jury that if they believed it, their duty was to find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree with the death penalty, without at that specific time referring expressly to the affirmative defense of insanity? (3) The defense being insanity, was it improper for the judge to refuse to instruct the jury that in the event of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, it would be his duty to commit the defendant to a state institution for the insane ?

The murder was a most cruel one. Its revolting details need not be recited. It is sufficient to say that the victim was a woman almost eighty years old who was a neighbor of defendant, living across the street from his home. He was twenty years of age and had been out of school for about four years. He had not worked for many months before the killing and was apparently loafing around, living by his wits. The deceased was in her home alone. This the defendant knew. He thought there was considerable money in the house and entered it shortly after midday for the purpose of stealing the money. He encountered the deceased, struck her with his fist, beat her with objects in the room, including a tea kettle and an electric iron, and stabbed her to death. He then ransacked the house, stealing such money and other articles as he could find. Shortly after its commission the crime was discovered. The defendant was arrested the following day. He made a confession in writing, in which the details of the killing were recited. He repeated them on the witness stand when called as a witness in his own behalf. As before stated, the defense was insanity. The attempted proof of it did not impress the jury, nor does it us.

In answering the first question submitted, it may be stated that it has been presented to us more than once, and our conclusion has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT