Commonwealth v. Haines
| Decision Date | 19 March 1917 |
| Docket Number | 57 |
| Citation | 101 A. 641,257 Pa. 289 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Haines, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued February 26, 1917
Appeal, No. 57, Oct. T., 1917, by defendant, from sentence of O. & T., Jefferson Co., April T., 1916, No. 4, on verdict of murder of the first degree, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Ernest Haines. Reversed.
Indictment for murder. Before CORBET, P.J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree upon which sentence of death was passed. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were in permitting Henry Ward Mottorn to be called as a witness on behalf of the Commonwealth, in overruling objections to the admission in evidence of the testimony of said Mottorn and instructions to the jury.
The second assignment of error is sustained, the judgment is reversed, and a venire facias de novo is awarded.
William L. McCracken, with him William T. Darr, for appellant. -- It was error to permit Mottorn to testify on behalf of the Commonwealth: Commonwealth v. Greene, 227 Pa. 86; Commonwealth v. Minnich, 250 Pa. 363.
It was error to permit Mottorn to testify as to another crime committed by defendant in no way connected with the crime with which he was charged: Commonwealth v. House, 223 Pa. 487; Snyder v. Commonwealth, 85 Pa. 519; Goersen v. Commonwealth, 99 Pa. 388; Swan v Commonwealth, 104 Pa. 218.
It was error to admit evidence as to statements made by defendant showing knowledge of certain matters which he had acquired after the homicide: Commonwealth v. Clark, 130 Pa 641.
Jesse C. Long, with him John W. Reed, for appellee. -- The defendant had no right to object to the calling of Mottorn as a witness: Commonwealth v. Demasi, 234 Pa. 570.
The admission of evidence as to other crimes committed by defendant was competent for the purpose of showing that Haines and Mottorn were together from time to time, near the date of the commission of the murder and that that intimacy between them became one of a chain in the circumstances which connected defendant and Mottorn with the crime charged against defendant: Turner v. Commonwealth, 86 Pa. 54; Com. v. Ferrigan, 44 Pa. 386; Shaffner v. Com., 72 Pa. 60; Kramer v. Com., 87 Pa. 299; Kilrow v. Com., 89 Pa. 480; Com. v. Pipes, 158 Pa. 25; Com. v. Johnson, 133 Pa. 293; Com. v. Bell, 166 Pa. 405; Com. v. Shields (No. 1), 50 Pa.Super. 1; Hester et al. v. Com., 85 Pa. 139; Com. v. Andrews, 234 Pa. 597; Com. v. Biddle (No. 1), 200 Pa. 640.
The evidence as to declarations made by Mottorn after the crime was competent for the purpose of showing that defendant had made many contradictory statements after the murder as to his whereabouts at that time.
Before BROWN, C.J., MESTREZAT, STEWART, MOSCHZISKER and FRAZER, JJ.
William S. Haines, a farmer, resided on his farm in Oliver Township, Jefferson County, in a house located near the Pittsburgh, Shawmut and Northern Railroad. His family consisted of himself, his wife, his son Ernest, and his daughter Floy. He left his home shortly after twelve o'clock, noon, Wednesday, March 22, 1916, and walked west on the track of the railroad in the direction of the village of Sprankle Mills, which is about one mile distant and consists of a schoolhouse, two stores, a blacksmith shop, a gas pump station, and a half dozen dwelling houses. The railroad station is about one-third of a mile southeast of the village, and about one mile west of Mr. Haines's residence, and between the residence and the station there is a railroad cut which is on a curve. While Haines was walking on the railroad track in the cut and 1,200 feet east of the railroad station, Henry Ward Mottorn, the son of a farmer residing in the neighborhood, fired two shots at him from a shot gun, the first taking effect in Haines's breast and the second striking him in the head resulting in almost immediate death. When he fired the shots, Mottern stood on the north embankment of the cut which is about thirteen feet above the track. Within a short time after Haines was killed, his body was found by two neighbors on the railroad in the cut. They reported their discovery to the agent at the railroad station, and the news was telephoned to the pump station where Mottorn and Ernest Haines, the son of the deceased, were at the time the message was received.
The evening of the day of the homicide Mottorn and Ernest Haines, the defendant in this case, were arrested and charged with the crime. They were jointly indicted as principals, but the court granted a severance, and they were tried separately. Mottorn was tried first, and, after the jury had retired, Haines was put on trial. Before the jury in the Mottorn case had returned a verdict and while it was deliberating, Mottorn was called as a witness by the Commonwealth to testify in the Haines case. The defendant objected to his testimony, but the objection was overruled and the testimony was received. Mottorn was the principal witness on behalf of the Commonwealth. The jury found a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree in both cases.
It is unnecessary in the consideration of this appeal to refer in detail to Mottorn's testimony given on the trial of Ernest Haines. He admitted, on the witness stand, that he had shot and killed the elder Haines after a prior unsuccessful attempt to do so, and testified that it was done in pursuance of a plan or arrangement formed by him and the defendant to rob the deceased of $250 which they knew the latter to have in his possession. He further testified that, on Monday evening prior to Wednesday, the day of the homicide, he entered the home of the deceased for the purpose of robbing him but was frightened away; that, in the village store, he and the defendant had again planned on Tuesday that he should procure a shot gun and shoot the deceased as he passed through the railroad cut going from his home to the village and the defendant was to be on hand to take the money from the body of the deceased and they would subsequently meet at the pump station and divide it; that on the day of the shooting the defendant and his sister preceded their father along the railroad to the railroad station where his sister left him and went to her school in the village; that the defendant saw his father coming and notified Mottorn who was stationed on top of the embankment and shot the deceased after he entered the railroad cut; that the defendant secured the money from his father's body, and shortly thereafter they met at the pump station and he gave it to Mottorn. After the latter's arrest, the money was found under the carpet in his room. The defendant testified in his own behalf, alleged that the relations between his father and himself were friendly, denied that he had ever been a party to planning his father's death or that he had any prior knowledge of or anything to do with the crime, and introduced witnesses, including his mother and sister, to corroborate his testimony.
The first assignment, if we understand the question intended to be raised, complains that the court erred in permitting Mottorn to testify before a verdict was rendered in his case and he was sentenced. As Mottorn was thereafter convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced, the question, if in fact it be...
To continue reading
Request your trial