Commonwealth v. Simanowicz

• Decision Date: 07 November 1913
• Docket Number: 247
• Citation: 89 A. 562,242 Pa. 402
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Simanowicz, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

89 A. 562

242 Pa. 402

Commonwealth v. Simanowicz, Appellant

No. 247

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

November 7, 1913

Argued Oct. 7, 1913

Appeal, No. 247, Jan. T. 1913, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Schuylkill Co., March T., 1913, No. 418, of guilty of murder of the first degree, entered on a plea of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. John Simanowicz. Reversed.

Indictment for murder. Before KOCH, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

In a preliminary proceeding to determine the sanity of the prisoner the jury found the prisoner sane. Thereafter the prisoner, by his counsel, pleaded guilty and the court found him guilty of murder of the first degree and passed sentence of death. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned, among others, were the third, fourth and sixth which were as follows:

3. The court below erred, in the trial of the preliminary issue of the defendant's present insanity, in charging the jury as follows:

"Now he has had hallucinations; he has had delusions; and the doctors say to us that they are of a fixed and of a permanent character; that is, he cannot dissuade himself of those false impressions, whether they were derived externally from the intuition of the senses or were received in that way from the generation of his own impression, so he cannot get rid of them. If you believe that, if you think that is true, from all you have heard, and if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, then you ought to say that this man is insane."

4. The court erred in the trial of the said issue, in charging the jury as follows:

"The presumption of law is that everybody is sane, and before a person can be said to be insane by a jury, the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt by the fair preponderance of the testimony in the case."

6. The court erred, in the trial of the said issue, in charging the jury as follows:

"Therefore it is essential and necessary that a jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the sanity of an individual before they can say he was insane. Now are you so satisfied? If you are satisfied that the man is insane, from what these people have told you here, then you ought to say so, because then it would be his unfortunate condition, and we would be required to take him and put him in some place where he could properly be restrained until such time as he may be restored to health, if that be possible, and if not possible then to be kept in custody until such time as nature works his dissolution."

The third, fourth and sixth assignments of error are sustained. The judgment is reversed, and a venire facias de novo is awarded.

William M. Fausset, with him R. A. Reick, for appellant. -- The test of insanity is not precisely the same as on the main issue; it is whether the prisoner can make a rational defense: Freeman v. People, 4 Denio (N.Y.) 9; Com. v. Colandro, 231 Pa. 343.

E. J. Maginnis, with him M. F. Duffy and C. A. Whitehouse, District Attorney, for appellee. -- The subsequent plea of guilty cured whatever errors occurred in the trial of the preliminary issue.

Before FELL, C.J., BROWN, MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FELL:

When the prisoner was called to the bar of the court to plead to the indictment charging him with the crime of murder, his counsel presented a petition, signed by them in his behalf, in which it...