Commonwealth v. Senauskas

Decision Date08 October 1937
Docket Number242
PartiesCommonwealth v. Senauskas, Appellant
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Argued June 9, 1937

Appeal, No. 242, Jan. T., 1937, from judgment of O. & T Warren Co., June T., 1936, No. 1, in case of Commonwealth v Joe Senauskas, alias Joe Sennette, alias Gerald Chapman. Judgment affirmed.

Indictment for murder. Before ARIRD, P.J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Plea of guilty entered. Defendant adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was refusal of court to permit defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed and the record is remitted so that sentence may be carried out.

Harold S. Hampson, for appellant.

Lemuel B. Schofield, Assistant District Attorney, with him L. C. Eddy, District Attorney, for appellee.

Before KEPHART, C.J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE MAXEY:

The appellant, Joe Senauskas, was indicted for the murder of Metro Seminuk. Seminuk and his wife Mary lived in Warren County, Pa. He operated a filling station called the "Air Port Inn" on United States Highway Route No. 6, between Youngsville and Pittsfield and he also conducted there a small grocery store, and sold tobacco and beverages and maintained a room for dancing. About 12:15 a.m. on March 27, 1936, Seminuk, while standing on the driveway beside his gasoline pump, was shot through the heart, dying almost instantly. He was shot four times. On March 31, 1936, Senauskas was arrested by the State Police. At the barracks he admitted complicity in the shooting and showed the officers where the revolver was hidden. On April 5, 1936, he made a complete confession in writing. His fingerprints were found on glasses and beer bottles used by him shortly before the shooting at the Air Port Inn. At the time of the homicide his age was 18 years, four months and six days.

In his confession he stated that late in the evening of December 31, 1935, he met at a dance in Corry a man named John Polens who asked him if he knew any "racket people," and specifically, "any killers" in Cleveland. A little later Polens told him whom he wanted killed and why. Polens said he wanted the man killed because he, Polens, had lost possession of a farm through this man, and also because he had "defamed him and put the needles to him," as a result of which Polens, so he claimed, was unable to get a job. [1] A few days later Polens came to see appellant and the latter told him that he had already gotten in touch with the men in Cleveland and that "they would come and do it" but that they wanted part payment first. Polens then gave appellant $50, but, before doing so, he took him to the Air Port Inn and pointed out Seminuk. On March 26, 1936, Polens drove the defendant to Corry to take an automobile operator's test for a license. Polens then suggested to Senauskas that they get a car for the latter "to do the job." They went to Buffalo and rented an automobile. On their return they stopped near Youngsville and Polens produced a revolver and they each "shot into the woods just to see how the gun worked." They then went to Youngsville where Polens bought a half pint of whiskey and gave it to Senauskas. He also gave appellant seventeen dollars "to take the car back with and pay for the use of the car" after the designated victim at the Air Port Inn had been killed. Senauskas said that Polens told him "to give him about an hour's time" to get far enough away so that he could have an alibi. Senauskas states that he finished his half pint of whiskey and then went to the Air Port Inn and asked for "John" which was the name by which Polens had designated Seminuk. He was told that "John" was not there. He then left and went to Corry where he drank whiskey and beer. Defendant later went to the Garland Inn and reported to Polens that he had been to the Air Port Inn and that the fellow was not there. Polens told him to "hang around" as the man would be there. He said he drove past the Air Port Inn and then turned around. He stated that the next thing he remembered was when he awoke about 9 a.m., on March 27, 1936. He got into the automobile and went to Garland and made inquiries at Garland as to where Polens lived. The man to whom he made inquiries asked if he, the defendant, was from Warren, remarking that he thought perhaps he had come down to tell Polens "about the shooting they had at the Air Port Inn." This man said that someone had shot a man by the name of Metro. Then defendant stated in his confession: "I got scared and figured I shot the wrong man as the man I was to shoot I knew him as John." He later met Polens, who gave him $30, and assured him that "Metro and John were the same." Polens later handed Senauskas $120 and told him to leave this part of the country.

Senauskas was called for trial on June 2, 1936. He entered a plea of "not guilty." He was represented by Attorney Earle V. MacDonald, now deceased, who had been appointed counsel by the court. On June 2 five jurors had been selected and on the following morning the defendant in open court asked leave to withdraw his plea of "not guilty" and enter a plea of "guilty." This was granted and the plea entered. The case was continued until June 10, 1936, for the purpose of taking testimony to determine the degree and the sentence.

A hearing was held on June 10th. Defendant's confession and other evidence were received. The presence of Senauskas at the place of the homicide on March 26, 1936, was established by a witness who had talked with him at that place and had left at about 12 o'clock p.m. When the witness reached a point about 150 feet from the Inn, he saw the deceased and Senauskas come out of the door and walk around back of the car. He said the defendant got into the car and that he heard the deceased say, "She is full now," and then he saw him take the gasoline hose, walk behind the car, and hang it up on the pump. The deceased then walked to the left-hand side of the car, and immediately the witness heard "three or four shots in rapid succession and a scream at the same time." Immediately "the car started out very fast, traveling west without any lights." The witness ran back to the Inn and saw Seminuk lying alongside the driveway. He said: "He looked as though he was dead." Another witness also saw the defendant at the Air Port Inn.

The evidence conclusively proved the guilt of Senauskas of murder in the first degree, and on June 23, 1936, in the presence of defendant and his counsel, the court so fixed the degree of murder and imposed the death penalty.

On June 27, 1936, Attorney MacDonald presented to the court a paper entitled, "Motion for New Trial and Arrest of Judgment." Permission was asked to withdraw the plea of guilty. No reason of any kind was assigned to support this request. On June 26, 1936, the day before this motion was presented to Judge ARIRD, Attorney MacDonald presented a petition in the Supreme Court asking leave to withdraw the plea of guilty and for the appointment of another judge to hear the motion for a "new trial." This petition was supported by affidavits to the effect that the guilty plea had been "coerced" in that it was made in response to a promise by Judge ARIRD that the death penalty would not be imposed. The filing of this petition and the allegations it contained were not made known to Judge ARIRD, but he learned of it later from the public press.

On September 28, 1936, this Court directed JAMES I. BROWNSON, President Judge of the 27th Judicial District, to proceed to Warren County and dispose of the motion filed in the lower court for a new trial, arrest of judgment and permission to withdraw the plea of guilty, and a little later Judge BROWNSON was directed to report to this Court with respect to the allegations in the petition filed here to the effect that the defendant had changed his plea to guilty upon assurances from Judge ARIRD that the death penalty would not be imposed. On August 28, 1936, Attorney MacDonald died, and, on October 6 next, Judge BROWNSON appointed Attorney Harold S. Hampson counsel for Senauskas.

On October 27, 1936, Judge BROWNSON began a hearing which lasted five days. He then reported to the Supreme Court that the allegations in the petition had not been established and that, on the contrary, the evidence clearly "negatived the allegations" of any promises made. The Supreme Court on April 12, 1937, dismissed the petition. On May 7, 1937, an appeal to this court was taken.

There are nine assignments of error. The first assignment is based upon the court's refusal of defendant's motion for a new trial. This assignment is overruled.

The second assignment is as follows: "The court below erred in talking privately with the State Troopers, Deputy Sheriff Sheriff, and Warden, and in using the information so obtained in determining the degree of guilt of the accused, without affording the accused the right to meet these parties and to be present when they talked concerning him and to cross-examine them regarding their statements." This assignment is based on the following excerpt from the opinion of the court finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree: "Now I have talked with the State Troopers, and also the Deputy Sheriff, the ones that arrested Senauskas, and there was no question in their minds but that Senauskas was acting perfectly natural. I have also talked with the Sheriff and the Warden. Nothing wrong with Senauskas except he was a little nervous." It is important to note that the conversations the judge had with these men related to the mental condition of Senauskas, a matter not then nor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Com. v. Jacobs
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • May 1, 2006
    ...in our history the right has been limited, see, e.g. Commonwealth v. Gates, 429 Pa. 453, 240 A.2d 815 (1968), Commonwealth v. Senauskas, 327 Pa. 541, 194 A. 646 (1937), our modern cases have expressly rejected the notion that allocution is an anachronism in modern criminal practice. In Comm......
  • Com. v. Harper
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • September 22, 1992
    ...in our history the right has been limited, see, e.g. Commonwealth v. Gates, 429 Pa. 453, 240 A.2d 815 (1968), Commonwealth v. Senauskas, 327 Pa. 541, 194 A. 646 (1937), our modern cases have expressly rejected the notion that allocution is an anachronism in modern criminal practice. In Comm......
  • Commonwealth v. Hardy
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • August 29, 2014
    ...prior to resentencing.Commonwealth v. Hague, 840 A.2d 1018, 1019 (Pa.Super.2003) (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Senauskas, 327 Pa. 541, 194 A. 646, 649 (1937) (citing Blackstone's Commentaries, volume 4, page 376). Similarly, our Supreme Court has previously stated in Commonw......
  • Com. ex rel. Tate v. Banmiller
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1958
    ...143 A.2d 56 393 Pa. 496 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Richard TATE, Appellant, v. William J. BANMILLER, Warden. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.June 30, 1958. [143 A.2d 57] ... the question was asked Tate at the time of sentence. In ... Commonwealth v. Senauskas, 327 Pa. 541, at page 549, ... 194 A. 646, at page 649, 113 A.L.R. 814, this Court, after ... reviewing the common-law rule, prior decisions, and ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT