Commonwealth v. Shaffer
| Citation | 35 A. 924,178 Pa.St. 409 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. SHAFFER. |
| Decision Date | 11 November 1896 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
178 Pa.St. 409
COMMONWEALTH
v.
SHAFFER.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov. 11, 1896.
Appeal from court of oyer and terminer, Luzerne county.
Frank Shaffer was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
John F. Shea and E. F. McGovern, for appellant.
James L. Lenahan, Henry A. Fuller, and D. A. Fell, Jr., Dist. Arty., for the Commonwealth.
FELL, J. None of the assignments of error can be sustained, and they present no question which requires discussion. The defendant was convicted on his confession of guilt made before his arrest, repeated and reduced to writing during his confinement, and twice sworn to by him in court. Before his statement was made to the district attorney, and before he testified in court, he was fully informed that he was not required to speak, and was distinctly notified that what he should say might be used to secure his conviction. Because of his denial at the trial of the truth of his confession, and of his assertion that it had been made and repeated under the inducement of hope, the learned judge, after the most careful instruction upon the subject, submitted the question whether the confession had been made voluntarily, and, if so, whether it was true. The jury were told to reject it altogether if they found that it was not voluntary; and the vital question—its truth-was kept constantly before them.
The commission of a willful and deliberate murder was established beyond all doubt. The presence of the appellant in the immediate vicinity at the time was shown and admitted, and his statement, seven times repeated to different persons, three times reduced to writing, and twice sworn to by him, was corroborated by the proof of independent facts tending to sustain it. Five of the assignments of error relate to this corroboration. The appellant had stated in his confession, and testified in court, that Nelson Miller, who was charged in another indictment with the same offense, had placed the dynamite in position under the building, secured the battery, and connected the wires; and that after the explosion he had taken a pocketbook containing money from a trunk which was in the building. It was shown by other testimony that a trunk which was in the building at the time of the explosion was missing, and that the trunk and pocketbook were afterwards found in Miller's possession. This testimony, together with the testimony that Miller had a knowledge of the use of dynamite, and experience in exploding it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Gallagher
...the lawyer, the litigant and the tipstaff. [408 Pa. 590] The respondent-prosecutors cite the case of Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 178 Pa. 409, 35 A. 924, as a precedent for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. There is not the slightest similarity between the facts in that case and those be......
-
Com. v. Jones
...should be assigned to an alleged admission. Commonwealth v. Weiss, 284 Pa. 105, 130 A. 403 (1925); Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 178 Pa. 409, 35 A. 924 (1896). Out of an abundance of caution the trial judge immediately instructed the jury to disregard the reference to 'rape' 17, nevertheless, de......
-
Smith v. Gallagher, 5
...the lawyer, the litigant and the tipstaff. [408 Pa. 590] The respondent-prosecutors cite the case of Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 178 Pa. 409, 35 A. 924, as a precedent for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor. There is not the slightest similarity between the facts in that case and those be......
-
State v. Higdon, 40074
...231 S.W. 257; State v. Powell, 167 S.W. 559; People v. Fox, 3 N.Y.S. 359, 121 N.Y. 449, 24 N.E. 923; Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 178 Pa. 409, 35 A. 924. (4) That the court erred in permitting Assistant Circuit Attorney Bantle to comment and argue on points of law, without reading from the inst......