Commonwealth v. Priest, 466

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: MR. JUSTICE FRAZER:
• Citation: 272 Pa. 549,116 A. 403
• Docket Number: 466
• Decision Date: 06 February 1922
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Priest, Appellant

116 A. 403

272 Pa. 549

Commonwealth
v.
Priest, Appellant

No. 466

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

February 6, 1922

Argued: January 4, 1922

Appeal, No. 466, Jan. T., 1921, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T., Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1920, Nos. 453-4, on verdict of murder of the first degree, in case of Commonwealth v. James Priest. Affirmed.

Indictment for murder. Before McCOLLEN, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree, upon which sentence was passed. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were (1) that "competent evidence did not warrant a conviction of murder of the first degree," and (2) refusal of new trial, quoting record.

The judgment is affirmed and the record remitted for the purpose of execution.

Joseph L. McAleer, with him C. Stuart Patterson, Jr., for appellant, cited: Com. v. Morrison, 193 Pa. 613; McCue v. Com., 78 Pa. 185; Com. v. DeMasi, 234 Pa. 570.

Charles F. Kelly, Assistant District Attorney, with him Samuel P. Rotan, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, cited: Com. v. Diaco, 268 Pa. 305; Com. v. Byrd, 269 Pa. 179.

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

OPINION

[272 Pa. 550] MR. JUSTICE FRAZER:

Defendant was convicted of murder of the first degree. A motion for a new trial was refused by the court below and the sole question raised on this appeal is whether there was competent evidence to sustain the verdict. Under the Act of February 15, 1870, P.L. 15, it is our duty to review both the law and the evidence and determine whether the ingredients necessary to constitute first degree murder have been proved. If there is competent evidence to support the verdict we cannot usurp the function of the jury and reverse merely because it might be contended they should not have believed the witnesses produced on behalf of the Commonwealth: Com. v. Danz, 211 Pa. 507, 512; Com. v. Diaco, 268 Pa. 305.

It appears from the evidence that defendant and his wife had domestic differences culminating in the latter leaving her home and going to that of neighboring friends, taking with her their youngest child, a baby seven months old. On discovering her whereabouts defendant called at the neighbor's house and endeavored to induce his wife to return to their home; in reply to his request she reminded him of his cruel treatment of her, the physical injury she had sustained at his hands, the threats he had...