Commonwealth v. Kelly
Decision Date | 27 January 1939 |
Docket Number | 322 |
Citation | 4 A.2d 805,333 Pa. 280 |
Parties | Commonwealth v. Kelly, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued November 29, 1938.
Appeal, No. 322, Jan. T., 1938, from judgment and sentence of O. & T. Phila. Co., April Sessions, 1938, Nos. 1076 and 1077 in case of Commonwealth v. William Kelly. Judgment reversed.
Indictment for murder. Before McDEVITT, P.J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict of first degree murder, with penalty of death, and judgment and sentence thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were various excerpts from charge of trial judge.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered.
Louis Marcus, with him Charles J. Roney, for appellant.
Vincent A. Carroll, Assistant District Attorney, with him Charles F Kelley, District Attorney, for appellee.
Before KEPHART, C.J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES JJ.
This is an appeal from the sentence of death imposed upon defendant, William Kelly, after he was convicted of murder in the first degree upon an indictment charging him with the malicious killing of Police Officer Henry Berry.
At about 1 p.m., on March 17, 1938, defendant entered the jewelry store of Max Perlstein at 1018 Girard Avenue, Philadelphia. He claimed that his intention was to sell two revolvers to Perlstein but the latter testified as follows: Defendant also fled.
A young colored girl, Mary Johnson, who had heard Perlstein's cries of "Hold up," followed defendant until they came where Police Officer Berry was directing traffic; and she then said to the latter: Officer Berry thereupon chased defendant a short distance, took him into custody, searched him, found one of the guns, and then took him to a truck. As the patrolman was opening the truck door, defendant pulled another gun (together with a handkerchief) out of the left-hand pocket of his overcoat and fatally shot the officer through the chest and spine. Defendant contended that the shooting was accidental. Another eyewitness to the shooting testified that the "colored man pulled out a gun from his overcoat pocket, from the left side, and he changed it over to the right hand, and when the officer was facing the driver and opening the door the man turned around like this and shot the officer in the chest."
Detectives later took the defendant into custody, and when they were walking along the street defendant threw up his hands, knocked one of the officers away and tried to escape. They shot him five times, and then took him to the hospital where on the next day they secured a four-page statement from him.
Defendant testified at the trial that he was out of employment and went to Perlstein's jewelry store "with the intention of selling the two revolvers." He said: He added: The Magistrate testified that he read the statement to defendant and the latter admitted it was his. In the statement the defendant said:
The jury returned a verdict of first degree murder with capital punishment. Then followed a motion for a new trial, its denial, the imposition of the death penalty, and this appeal.
Appellant complains of many alleged trial errors and emphasis is laid on that part of the court's charge reading as follows: "No accidental killing can possibly follow the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate a robbery, or the acts connected with it." This statement is too broad. The Act of March 31, 1860, P.L. 382, sec. 74, as amended by the Act of May 22, 1923, P.L. 306, provides that "all murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait or by any other kind of wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration of or attempting to perpetrate any arson, rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping, shall be deemed murder of the first degree." A killing of a human being in order to be murder must be done maliciously. "Malice aforethought is an element of murder in either degree and distinguishes it from manslaughter": Com. v. Gibson, 275 Pa. 338, 119 A. 403. There is some divergence of opinion in other jurisdictions as to what acts of a person engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any of the above felonies will make the felon guilty of murder when the death of another results from such acts. POLLOCK, C.B., in Regina v. Lee, 4 F. & F. 63, 176 Eng. Reports 468, makes this statement: "There is an ancient principle of law that if a man in the committal of a felony uses violence to the person, which causes death, even although he did not intend it, he is guilty of murder." In Wharton's Criminal Law (12th ed.), Vol. 1, page 747, sec. 511, appears the following: [1]
In 13 R.C.L., p. 845, sec. 148, it is declared: Wharton's Homicide (3d ed.), page 184, sec. 126, declares: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. ex rel. Smith v. Myers
...freeing murderers, communists and criminals on technicalities made of straw.' To similar effect is the statement in Commonwealth v. Kelly, 333 Pa. 280, 287, 4 A.2d 805 (1939): 'To this Commonwealth one must answer as a malicious criminal for any fatal injury he here causes a human being by ......
-
Commonwealth v. Garcia
... ... 48, 63-4, 195 A.2d 338, 345 (1963) ... See also ... Commonwealth v. Finnie, 415 Pa. 166, 202 A.2d 85 ... (1964); Commonwealth v. Carroll, 412 Pa. 525, 194 ... A.2d 911 (1963); Commonwealth v. Bolish, 381 Pa ... 500, 113 A.2d 464 (1955); Commonwealth v. Kelly, 333 ... Pa. 280, 4 A.2d 805 (1939); Commonwealth v. Gibson, ... 275 Pa. 338, 119 A. 403 (1923); Commonwealth v ... Drum, 58 Pa. 9 (1868) ("The distinguishing ... criterion of murder is malice aforethought.") ... Ignoring this ... inconsistency a more serious problem resulted ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Almeida.
...in the first degree. That is now the law of this Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Lessner, 274 Pa. 108, 118 A. 24; Commonwealth v. Kelly, 333 Pa. 280, 4 A.2d 805, and Id., 337 Pa. 171, 10 A.2d 431. They are not as novel as was the first decision at common law that if one shoots at ‘A’ and miss......
-
Com. v. Bolish
...it has often been said that it is 'common-law murder'. Cf. Commonwealth v. Exler, 243 Pa. 155, 89 A. 968, 969; Commonwealth v. Kelly, 333 Pa. 280, 4 A.2d 805; Commonwealth v. Dorazio, 365 Pa. 291, 74 A.2d 125. It would probably be accurate to say that our idea, [381 Pa. 510] our theory and ......