Commonwealth v. Rose
| Decision Date | 07 July 1937 |
| Docket Number | 209 |
| Citation | 327 Pa. 220,193 A. 17 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. Rose, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued May 24, 1937
Appeal, No. 209, Jan. T., 1937, from judgment of O. & T Delaware Co., Dec. T., 1936, No. 286, in case of Commonwealth v. Edward Rose. Judgment affirmed.
Indictment for murder. Before MacDADE, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, with penalty fixed at death, and judgment and sentence thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were various rulings on evidence.
Judgment affirmed and record remitted for the purpose of execution.
John E. McDonough, with him W. A. Burns, G. Harmon Webb and R. Paul Lessy, for appellant.
Guy G. deFuria, Assistant District Attorney, with him Wm. B. McClenachan, Jr., District Attorney, for appellee.
Before KEPHART, C.J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
Edward Rose (properly, Ruzowicz) was convicted of murder in the first degree with the penalty fixed at death. His appeal to this court assigns trial errors for reversal. The record shows all the ingredients of murder of the first degree and amply warrants the conviction and sentence.
Rose, with two other companions, Duminiak and Oreszak, started out in Chester on a tour of robbery. Their aim was to hold up any likely victim or break into and rob any business establishment. They stole an automobile and with it drove to the City of Chester looking for victims. Sometime after midnight they noticed a colored man, Leon Butler, on the street. They decided to rob him and, with masks over their faces, proceeded to hold up Butler at pistol point, but found only a pocket knife on his person. After some conversation they concluded to force him to join the enterprise. The four men drove to a number of stores and gas stations, but were unsuccessful in their attempts to break in. They attempted to steal a larger automobile, but in this they also failed. They then drove to Linwood, and there tried to break into several stores but were frightened away. Thereupon they decided to go to a place called Lover's Lane, a dark and lonely spot where they had reason to believe they would find persons to rob. As they approached this place they saw a man and woman walking along the road and determined to rob them. Before they could turn their automobile, however, the intended victims disappeared, but they saw an automobile parked along the road with occupants. After masking themselves the four crept up to the automobile and discovered a colored man and girl in the car asleep. As the victim, Tranom, was awakened, he was covered with a gun by Rose and dragged from the car. Defendant beat and choked him while Butler went through his pockets. They found only 41 cents. While Rose and his companions were quarreling over this small sum, Tranom succeeded in breaking away and started to run to safety. Rose directed his companions to catch him, and, when Tranom was only 25 feet away, told one of them to shoot. The companion hesitated, and Rose grabbed the gun from his hand, firing three shots at Tranom, who fell, mortally wounded and died within a short time. They next turned their attention to the girl in the car. She was silenced by threats, and the marauders took her away with them. Rose was seated with her in the back seat and attempted to rape her. Being unsuccessful, they stopped the car, took the girl out of it, and three of them, Butler not taking part, proceeded to rape her. They talked of killing the girl, but Butler pleaded for her life and she went unharmed.
This is briefly the Commonwealth's story, on which it rested for a conviction, with some corroborative evidence. The assignments of error are directed chiefly to the admission of a statement by the accomplices which describes Rose's connection with the crime, and upon which the Commonwealth relied principally. This was the stenographic record of the interrogation of Rose and his companions by the district attorney. It contained statements made by Rose, Duminiak, Butler and Oreszak in the presence of each other, and was signed by the defendant as well as the others. Counsel objected to its admission because it was not Rose's statement alone, but included all participants.
Written statements in connection with the crime made by a defendant are always admissible in evidence: Commonwealth v. Insano, 268 Pa. 1. Appellant mistakes the purpose of the offer of this statement by the Commonwealth. It was not introduced as the testimony of his accomplices, thereby depriving him of the right of cross-examination, but it was offered as a confession by him in so far as he admitted the facts stated in his presence by the other participants in the crime, and explained his part in its perpetration. See Commonwealth v. Carelli, 281 Pa. 602; Commonwealth v. Spardute, 278 Pa. 37; Commonwealth v. Ballon, 229 Pa. 323; Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 282 Pa. 128. Appellant contends the statement should not have been admitted because during the first part of the examination the accused flatly denied any association with the crime and asserted that he was not present when it was committed. If he had persisted in this attitude and had consistently denied the statements of the other participants, or had he remained silent with no real duty to speak, no part of this examination would have been admissible against him: Commonwealth v. Johnson, 213 Pa. 607; Commonwealth v. Mazarella, 279 Pa. 465. Such statements become of probative value only where defendant has heard or read them, and conceded that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brenner v. Lesher
...and its authorship or adoption by the person allegedly making the statement: Pennsylvania v. Stoops, Add., 381; and see Com. v. Rose, 327 Pa. 220, 225. So also, with unsigned deposition, or an unsigned dying declaration. See Pennsylvania v. Stoops, supra; Allison v. Com., 99 Pa. 17, 33; a l......
-
United States v. Price, Civ. A. No. 16335.
...also Commonwealth v. Kurutz, 1933, 312 Pa. 343, 168 A. 28; Commonwealth v. Stabinsky, 1933, 313 Pa. 231, 169 A. 439; Commonwealth v. Rose, 1937, 327 Pa. 220, 193 A. 17. This limited purpose was carefully explained to the jury by the trial Upon relator's appeal from his second conviction, th......
-
Commonwealth v. Barnett
...of the defendant and not the statement; therefore, the confrontation clause was not implicated.Similarly, in the companion cases of Rose, supra and Oreszak, supra, the Pennsylvania High Court addressed the right to confront witnesses where written statements of a co-conspirator were introdu......
-
Com. v. Cheeks
...* * * 'This statement (the one used against defendant) and its effect as evidence were considered by this Court in Com. v. Rose, supra (327 Pa. 220, 193 A. 17, Rose was another of Oreszak's accomplices who had been previously tried). In that case its admission against Rose was upheld. Defen......