Commonwealth v. Hazlett

• Decision Date: 16 April 1968
• Citation: 240 A.2d 555,429 Pa. 476
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Donald HAZLETT, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

240 A.2d 555

429 Pa. 476

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Donald HAZLETT, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 16, 1968.

John V. Snee, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Robert W. Duggan, Dist. Atty., Charles B. Watkins, Asst. Dist Atty., Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

O'BRIEN Justice.

This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence of the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Allegheny County. After being convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter and after denial of his post-trial motions, appellant was sentenced to six to twelve years imprisonment. The victim, Mark Brooks, stepson of appellant died on January 9, 1963, as the result of a ruptured spleen. Although there were multiple other injuries on the body of the decedent, the testimony of the pathologist, called by the prosecution, was that death resulted from rupture of the spleen, as a result of great force being applied in the area of that organ.

Appellant's motions for arrest of judgment and new trial were denied by the court below. He asserts, in support of his new trial motion, numerous trial errors, particularly in the admission of evidence. We find it unnecessary to consider any of those contentions, for we are of the opinion that the admitted evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and that the motion in arrest of judgment must be granted.

We are not unmindful of the standard to be applied in considering a motion in arrest of judgment, set forth fully in Commonwealth v. Tabb, 417 Pa. 13, 16, 207 A.2d 884, 886 (1965): 'In passing upon such a motion, the sufficiency of the evidence must be evaluated upon the Entire trial record. All of the evidence must be read in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and it is entitled to all reasonable inforences arising therefrom. The effect of such a motion is to admit all the facts which the Commonwealth's evidence tends to prove. See, Commonwealth v. Moore, 398 Pa. 198, 157 A.2d 65, 93 A.L.R.2d 616 (1959), and Commonwealth v. Wright, 383 Pa. 532, 119 A.2d 492 (1956). Also, in passing upon such a motion, all evidence actually reveived must be considered, where the trial rulings thereon were right or wrong. Cf. Rosche v. McCoy, 397 Pa. 615, 156 A.2d 307, 81 A.L.R.2d 377 (1959); Commonwealth v. Harbaugh, 197 Pa.Super. 587, 179 A.2d 656 (1962); and, Commonwealth v. Wright, supra (by implication). See also, Commonwealth v. Turner, 389 Pa. 239, 133 A.2d 187 (1957).' (Emphasis in original). See also: Commonwealth v. Mussoline, Pa., 240 A.2d 549 (1968). However, even under that standard, accepting all the disputed evidence and reading it in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the verdict cannot stand. It is unnecessary to describe at length the Commonwealth's evidence. Suffice it to say that the Commonwealth proved, in great...