Commonwealth v. Shults
Decision Date | 25 May 1908 |
Docket Number | 83 |
Citation | 221 Pa. 466,70 A. 823 |
Parties | Commonwealth v. Shults, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 23, 1908
Appeal, No. 83, Jan. T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Phila. Co., June T., 1907, No. 175, on verdict of murder of the first degree in case of Commonwealth v. Francis Marion Shults. Affirmed.
Indictment for murder.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
Verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree, upon which sentence was passed.
Error assigned was portion of charge, quoted in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Judgment affirmed, and record remitted to the court of oyer and terminer for the purpose of execution.
Sidney L. Krauss, with him William A. Carr and W. Horace Hepburn for appellant.
Wm. Findlay Brown, assistant district attorney, with him Samuel P. Rotan, district attorney, for appellee.
Before MITCHELL, C.J., FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN and STEWART, JJ.
The only assignments of error that need be noticed are those relating to the evidence of the experts as to insanity, and these are practically all condensed in the exception to that portion of the charge in which the judge said to the jury:
The law as laid down in this passage, even taking it as it is, separated from its context is entirely accurate. "The jury are not bound to decide this case according to the views of the doctors one way or the other." That is correct. "It may be of value or it may be of no value, just as it appeals to you . . . it is for you to decide whether they are worthy of any consideration or whether they are not worthy of consideration at all, and if you think they are worthy of consideration you will decide how much they are worth and how much you will give to them." This is no more than telling the jury that the credibility of the testimony and the weight it is entitled to in reaching a verdict is exclusively for the jury to determine. That is the settled law of all the cases. And even if we seem to see in the phrasing of the charge that the judge did not think the testimony of much weight, that was not error. He might have gone further and told the jury in explicit terms that he considered it "very weak:" Com. v. Van Horn, 188 Pa. 143. So long as the jury were left in the free exercise of their own judgment there was no error. That the jury in this case were so left is beyond question. Even the particular passage excepted to, concluded with the words, "whether you will dismiss it or not is entirely a matter for you, and what effect you will give it is also a matter for you."
So far the passage of the charge excepted to has been considered by itself, apart from its context. But that is not the rule. The charge can only be considered fairly as a whole, and the charge in the present case repeatedly and most explicitly told the jury that the weight and effect of the testimony on every branch of the case was for them to decide on their own judgment.
The killing was admitted, and even the premeditation, the deliberate preparation for the murder, was not denied. The only possible point of doubt in the case arose from the apparent absence of any sane motive for the act. This was altogether a question for the jury, and if they took a severe view it was not from any error of the judge.
Judgment affirmed, and record remitted to the court of oyer and terminer for the purpose of execution.
I would sustain the assignments of error, so far as they allege inadequacy in the charge of the court on the question of insanity. I am convinced that the charge in this respect was insufficient, and to a certain extent misleading, and that the case was not submitted to the jury in accordance with the law as determined by this court. In Pannell v Commonwealth, 86 Pa. 260, the defense was insanity. As here, the trial judge seemed to regard the testimony of medical experts as of little or no value. There was a verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree. In reversing the judgment this court said, inter alia (p. 269): The doctrine announced in this case has never been doubted or overruled by this court. It is unquestionably sound, and should be followed in all cases where the defense is insanity. The testimony of medical experts is frequently, and sometimes the only, testimony upon which a defendant must rely to support the defense of insanity. Who can know so well the action or operation of the human mind as the medical expert who has made it a special study and matter of assiduous inquiry? He is universally recognized as the most competent to speak on the subject, and hence it is that in our system of jurisprudence his testimony is to be given very careful consideration by the jury where the defense is insanity. This being true, it devolves upon the trial court to explain to the jury the character of such testimony and the weight to be given to it. This is a duty incumbent upon the trial judge, and a failure to perform it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Melton
... ... A.2d 728, 732; Commonwealth v. Donough, 377 Pa. 46, ... 50, 103 A.2d 694; Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 373 Pa ... 150, 153, 94 A.2d 743." ... A jury or ... trial court can similarly believe all or a part of or none of ... the testimony of any witness. Commonwealth v ... Shults, 221 Pa. 466, 70 A. 823; Ray, to Use of ... Miller v. Philadelphia, 344 Pa. 439, 25 A.2d 145 ... The evidence ... to support the verdict of guilty of first degree murder with ... penalty of death may be thus summarized: Defendant found a ... companion named Rucker. He bought Rucker ... ...
-
Com. v. Melton
...A.2d 743." A jury or trial court can similarly believe all or a part of or none of the testimony of any witness. Commonwealth v. Shults, 221 Pa. 466, 70 A. 823; Ray, to Use of Miller v. Philadelphia, 344 Pa. 439, 25 A.2d The evidence to support the verdict of guilty of first degree murder w......
-
Com. v. Carroll
...694; Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 373 Pa. 150, 153, 94 A.2d 743; Commonwealth v. Phillips, 372 Pa. 223, 93 A.2d 455; Commonwealth v. Shults, 221 Pa. 466, 70 A. It we consider only the evidence which is favorable to the Commonwealth, it is without the slightest doubt sufficient in law to prove f......
-
Jackson & Perkins Co. v. Mushroom Transp. Co. Inc.
...was, of course, for the trier of facts. Compare Ray, to Use of Miller v. City of Philadelphia, 344 Pa. 439, 25 A.2d 145; Com. v. Shults, 221 Pa. 466, 70 A. 823. The plaintiff specified on the boxes that the plants were ‘highly perishable’ and were ‘easily frozen.’ From the evidence, we cann......