Commonwealth v. Melton
| Citation | 402 Pa. 628,168 A.2d 328 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Carl MELTON, AKA Carl Milton. |
| Decision Date | 13 March 1961 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Domenick Vitullo, Robt. W. Williams, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Paul M Chalfin, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty., Victor H. Blanc, Dist. Atty William H. Wolf, Jr., Arlen Specter, Asst. Dist. Attys Philadelphia, for appellant.
James F. McCort, Philadelphia, Thomas F. Burns, Media, for appellee.
Before CHARLES ALVIN JONES, C. J., and BELL, MUSMANNO, BENJAMIN R JONES, COHEN, BOK and EAGEN, JJ.
The defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree by a jury's verdict which fixed the penalty at death. The court en banc granted the defendant's motion for a new trial on the ground that the aggregate of untoward events happening at trial, including emotional outbursts by the bereaved husband of the homicide victim, the introduction in evidence of bloody color slides and the fact that the jury was drawn from a panel which had previously heard the defendant plead guilty before a three-judge court 'created such an inflammtory atmosphere that the jury's determination may well have been based upon other than the substantive factual evidence introduced.' The Commonwealth has appealed and asks us to reverse the order granting the defendant a new trial and to direct that judgment of sentence be entered on the jury's verdict.
The most important question of law involved is as to the Commonwealth's right to appeal in the circumstances. It is only where the question involved in purely one of law that the Commonwealth may appeal from an adverse ruling in a criminal case, for example, where a new trial is granted to a convicted defendant on the sole ground that the introduction of certain evidence at his trial was prejudicial error (Commonwealth v. Antonini, 165 Pa.Super. 501, 69 A.2d 436); or where an indictment has been quashed or judgment arrested after verdict of guilty (Commonwealth v. Wallace, 114 Pa. 405, 411, 6 A. 685); or where the defendant's demurrer to the Commonwealth's evidence has been sustained (Commonwealth Thomas, 382 Pa. 639, 117 A.2d 204, overruled on other grounds in Commonwealth v Redline, 391 Pa. 486, 508-509, 137 A.2d 472). Where, however, the reason for the action of the trial court, whereof the Commonwealth complains, is based upon an admixture of law and fact, the Commonwealth is without any right of appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Bosurgi
...... consistently, that the Commonwealth may appeal, in certain. areas, from an adverse ruling in a criminal case where the. question involved is purely one of law but cannot appeal. where the reason for the adverse ruling is an admixture of. law and fact: Commonwealth v. Melton, 402 Pa. 628,. 629, 630, 168 A.2d 328 and cases therein cited. On the. present appeal this requirement is satisfied. . . On occasion,. the Superior Court has considered, in slightly different. posture, the Commonwealth's right of appeal from pretrial. orders in criminal cases. In ......
- Commonwealth v. Melton
-
Com. v. Smalis
...was appealable by the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Long, 467 Pa. 98, 100 n. 2, 354 A.2d 569, 570 n. 2 (1976); Commonwealth v. Melton, 402 Pa. 628, 629, 168 A.2d 328, 329 (1961); Commonwealth v. Lewis, 299 Pa.Super. 367, 369, 445 A.2d 798, 799 (1982); Commonwealth v. Matsinger, 288 Pa.Super......
-
Com. v. Melton
... . Page 728 . 178 A.2d 728 . 406 Pa. 343 . COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania . v. . Carl MELTON, a/k/a Carl Milton, Appellant. . Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. . March 13, 1962. . [406 Pa. 344] . Page 729 . James Francis McCort, Philadelphia, for appellant. . [406 Pa. 345] William H. Wolf, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., ......