Commonwealth v. Paul

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MOSCHZISKER:
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Paul, 289 Pa. 452, 137 A. 606 (Pa. 1927)
• Decision Date: 09 May 1927
• Docket Number: 60
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Paul, Appellant

137 A. 606

289 Pa. 452

Commonwealth v. Paul, Appellant

No. 60

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 9, 1927

Argued April 11, 1927

Appeal, No. 60, March T., 1927, by defendant, from sentence of O. & T. Indiana Co., Dec. T., 1925, No. 2, for murder of the first degree, in case of Commonwealth v. Domenic Paul. Affirmed.

Indictment for murder. Before LANGHAM, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Plea of guilty on which the prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Error assigned, inter alia, was the sentence, quoting record.

The assignments of error are overruled; the judgment is affirmed.

B. A Sciotto, for appellant. -- The court should have stated its reasons for the sentence: Fischer v. Hale, 63 Pa.Super. 205; Hunt v. R.R., 224 Pa. 604; Rankin v. Rankin, 224 Pa. 514; Furth v. Stahl v. Stahl, 205 Pa 439.

L. E. Miller, District Attorney, with him E. E. Creps, for appellee.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MOSCHZISKER:

Defendant, charged with murder, pleaded guilty. The court below, under section 74 of the Act of March 31, 1860, P.L. 402, which provides that, on such a plea, "the court shall proceed, by examination of witnesses to determine the degree of the crime, and to give sentence accordingly," found the accused guilty of murder of the first degree and sentenced him to imprisonment for life; this appeal followed.

On Sunday, January 24, 1926, at about 8 P.M., defendant and the deceased, both Italians, had an angry argument, apparently about a game of cards that had been played between them the day before. Defendant talked freely about his prowess as a fighter, saying he had already fled from two states and one more would make no difference, that he was not afraid of the people in the vicinity if they came one by one and that some of these days some one from northern Italy would fall before him and not rise again, or words to that effect. Both disputants left the place where the quarrel started. Deceased went with another man to a near-by house, and, some twenty minutes later, when leaving that place, they were confronted by defendant, with his right hand in the pocket of his overcoat. The argument was resumed. Deceased's companion asked defendant to take his hand out of his pocket; he failed to do so and continued the argument. Defendant was advised to depart and not make trouble. He did move away, but almost immediately turned back to where deceased was standing and stopped, still keeping his hand in his overcoat pocket. Deceased made some move, whether to strike appellant or in an effort to get away from him, the witness testifying in this regard was unable to say; at any rate, defendant either slipped or was partly knocked down. He recovered his balance, wheeled, took two steps backward, drew a revolver from his overcoat pocket, and fired one shot, which struck his victim, the ball entering his back and passing clear through his body. Then defendant, revolver in hand, departed from the scene of the tragedy, admonishing those who endeavored to stop him that they had better stand back as he was going away. The sheriff of Indiana County was notified and in company with deputies went to the village of Dilltown, about half a mile distant; after making search in several places, at about 1:30 the following morning they entered the dwelling and store of one DeRubis, where they found accused, fully dressed, hiding under the counter in the store. When asked why he had shot...