Commonwealth v. Walker
| Citation | 129 A. 453 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. WALKER. |
| Decision Date | 18 May 1925 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
COMMONWEALTH
v.
WALKER.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 18, 1925.
Appeal from Court of Oyer and Terminer, Philadelphia County; Harry S. McDevitt, Judge.
John Walker was convicted of first degree murder and he appeals. Affirmed, and record remitted.
Argued before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., and FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER, and SCHAFFER, JJ.
G. Edward Dickerson, of Philadelphia, for appellant.
Samuel P. Rotan, Dist, Atty., and Charles P. Kelley, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Philadelphia, for appellee.
SCHAFFER, J. On separate occasions, two different juries have found appellant guilty of first degree murder. Our examination of the record of his last trial, which is before us, satisfies our minds that the evidence produced warranted that jury's findings.
Elaboration of the facts is not necessary in order to show the basis for our conclusions as to the alleged errors brought to our attention. It will be sufficient to say that the defendant and deceased had been together during the day of the shooting, and had been drinking. They were in defendant's house, and about midnight an argument arose between them, which resulted in appellant's ordering the deceased to leave. While the argument was in progress, defendant went upstairs and returned within a few moments. The commonwealth contends that defendant's purpose in leaving the room was to get his revolver. This the defendant denies, alleging that the revolver was all the time on a dresser in the room where he and deceased were scuffling, whence defendant took it to protect himself. The testimony
showed, however, that deceased was proceeding to depart from the room when defendant shot at him, and, following him into the entryway, fired at least two more shots with fatal effect. Defendant then went to his bedroom, where he locked himself in. On the door being forced open by police officers, defendant was found in bed. He told stories to the officers which were false and conflicting, and, when shown the body of the dead man, denied knowing him; subsequently he admitted the killing, alleging that it was done in self-defense. The circumstances connected with the shooting were detailed by an eyewitness.
The argument in appellant's behalf for a reversal is based upon (1) the fact that a former convict served upon the jury; (2) the instructions of the court as to self-defense; (3) remarks of the court as to the credibility of the commonwealth's principal witness; (4) alleged unfairness of the charge; (5) instructions as to the degree of defendant's intoxication as bearing upon the grade of his crime. The last contention would seem to be the one most strongly urged.
After the trial, an affidavit...
To continue reading
Request your trial