Commonwealth v. Westwood
Decision Date | 23 November 1936 |
Docket Number | 193 |
Citation | 188 A. 304,324 Pa. 289 |
Parties | Commonwealth v. Westwood, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued September 29, 1936
Appeal, No. 193, March T., 1936, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1935, No. 43, in case of Commonwealth v. James J. Westwood. Judgment affirmed.
Indictment for murder. Before McNAUGHER, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree with recommendation of life imprisonment and judgment and sentence thereon. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were various rulings on evidence.
The judgment is affirmed. The record is remitted to the court below that sentence may be carried out.
William H. Coleman, with him M. Barney Cohen, for appellant.
Chauncey E. Pruger, Assistant District Attorney, with him Andrew T Park, District Attorney, for appellee.
Before KEPHART, C.J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES JJ.
The appellant, James J. Westwood, was charged with the murder of his wife, Martha. After trial he was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal followed.
About 1:45 A.M., [*] July 10, 1935, Bertha Westwood, a daughter, aged 19 years, heard shots in her mother's bedroom located on the second floor of the Westwood home. She entered the room and saw blood flowing from her mother's face. The other children, Martha, aged 12, and Jimmy, aged 7, also came in. Bertha notified the police station that somebody had shot her mother, and asked them "to find Daddy." The records of the telephone company show that this call was made at 1:48 A.M. Her father arrived at the house about 3:30 A.M. The deputy coroner testified that three bullets imbedded in the head and body of Mrs. Westwood caused her death. She was thirty-seven years of age.
Early in the evening of July 9, 1935, the defendant took his wife and Martha and Jimmy to a moving picture show, where he left them to go to his office, he being a Justice of the Peace of the Borough of McKees Rocks. About 10 P.M., he, in company with Thomas Drexler and Mrs. Catherine Cole (a married woman) went to Carnegie. They returned to McKees Rocks about midnight. Peggy Moran joined the party at the latter place. Miss Moran became Mrs. Belmas on October 17, 1935. These four persons then proceeded in Drexler's car to Peyton's roadhouse, about six miles from the defendant's home, arriving at 12:15 A.M., July 10th. The defendant claims that he did not leave this roadhouse until he departed with the other members of the party about 2:30 A.M., except for an interval of about fifteen minutes when he went out of the roadhouse into Drexler's parked automobile with Miss Moran. He claimed that he then re-entered the roadhouse. Mrs. Belmas (nee Moran) testified that when they left the car the defendant told her to go in one door of the roadhouse and he would enter by another. She next saw the defendant talking to two men at the bar. Later he told her to hurry up and finish her drink. The following questions and answers appear on the record: She fixed this time at 2:30 A.M.
A neighbor, named Sophie Sehar, who lived in the third house from Mr. and Mrs. Westwood, said that she awoke on the morning of July 10th, with a baby who was "teething." From a roomer who came in, she learned that it then was "twenty minutes of two." About seven minutes later she heard some shots. She said: She was asked, "Whose gate?" She answered, She added, According to her testimony and that of others, good visibility was assured her by near-by electric lights and by moonlight. Mrs. Sehar went to another window and again saw Westwood. She said: Then she heard Bertha Westwood scream: "My Mother is shot." She said, "Somebody asked her [Miss Westwood] who," and the latter answered: The witness told her husband what had happened. He struck her and "pulled her by the neck" and told her to She subsequently made statements to casual questioners, describing in general terms, but in terms inappropriate to Westwood, the man she saw leaving the Westwood home. One witness testified that on "the morning after" the shooting he heard Mrs. Sehar say to an insurance agent (who was not called as a witness) that the man she saw coming from the Westwood home right after the shooting was "too big to be Jimmy." When asked about this while on the witness stand, Mrs. Sehar said: "So many ask me questions, I was scared." She explained that her husband had threatened her and her daughter if they told that they had seen Westwood at the time and place stated. Mrs. Sehar reported to her parish priest three weeks later that it was Westwood she saw coming out of the gate. She also told her lawyer the same thing about six or seven days after the homicide. As to her later actions on the morning of July 10th, she testified: She not only put this in her prayer book, but noted the date. She had known Westwood since 1920. When asked if she was positive in her identification, she replied:
Her daughter, Anna, aged 18, heard two shots. Her mother called her. Both looked out of the window. Anna testified: Later she told certain persons she could not identify the man she had seen leaving the Westwood home that morning, but, like her mother, she attributed such statements to her father's angry orders. As a witness, she positively placed the defendant at the scene of the crime.
Walter Monaghan, assistant county detective, testified that he met the defendant after the homicide. He had previously arranged to go fishing with constable Meisner, and have the defendant come to the house for them. After dressing he looked at his watch and it was 2:26 A.M. Another woman was in the rear seat. They drove to the McKees Rocks police station. George Matovich came out and asked the defendant, "Have you been to your home?" The reply was: "No." Matovich said: "You better get down there, you wife's shot." The defendant said: "Come on, Walter." The witness was asked if Westwood asked Matovich anything about the shooting. The answer was, "Just what I stated is what happened." They went to the Westwood home, arriving about 3 A.M. A policeman there informed them that Mrs. Westwood was dead. Westwood then laid down over his wife's feet. The witness said: He helped him up. "There were tears in Westwood's eyes." Monaghan asked him if he knew of any reason for this shooting. The defendant replied, "I have no enemies." He was then asked if his wife had any enemies. He replied: "No, she was a good woman." After talking to Mrs. Sehar early that morning Monaghan again interrogated the defendant about this shooting. The latter said: Monaghan testified that William Westwood, defendant's brother, said to defendant at about 4 A.M.: "My God, Jimmy, why did you have to do this?" The latter answered: As a matter of fact, the defendant was not "with Walter" until at least forty minutes after the shooting. Monaghan was asked: The defendant's brother, William Westwood, corroborated Monaghan as to the accusation he [William] made to defendant and as to the defendant's reply except that the brother said that defendant declared he was "with Walter and Tim [Drexler]."
A neighbor of defendant testified that on the morning of July 10, 1935, the defendant had a bull terrier dog, that when strangers entered the Westwood home, the dog "would bark and leap around," and that when Westwood came home "the dog wouldn't bother at all." Another witness testified that he knew this dog and that the dog would keep barking and growling when strangers came near the house but that when Westwood came into the house, the dog walked up to him and did not make any noise. A woman who lived next door to the Westwoods testified that she came home...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Fields
...the further contention that the test was unreliable. See, also Wharton's Criminal Evidence, 12th Ed., Vol. 2, § 644. In Commonwealth v. Westwood, 324 Pa. 289, 188 A. 304, evidence of such a test was held to be admissible, as was the testimony of one or more experts on each side concerning i......
-
Commonwealth v. Darcy
...of this Court there was no error in permitting the jury to visit the locus of the crime in the absence of the prisoner. In Commonwealth v. Westwood, 324 Pa. 289, 308, we "It is established that no right of a defendant is violated when he is not present at a view of the premises where the al......
-
Com. v. Littlejohn
...250 A.2d 811 ... 433 Pa. 336 ... COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ... John LITTLEJOHN, Appellant ... COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ... Leonard ARCHAMBAULT, Appellant ... Supreme Court of ... " Commonwealth v. Westwood, ... 324 Pa. 289, 304, 188 A. 304, 310 (1936). Since this rule clearly encompasses the testimony complained of here, there is no supportable basis ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Karmendi
... ... that" she was a party to this murder. [ 3 ] Evidence ... of conduct which was obviously the outward manifestation of a ... guilty secret, has in the scales of justice often been of ... decisive weight against an accused. In Com. v ... Westwood, 324 Pa. 289, 301, 188 A. 304, we said of such ... conduct: "The Commonwealth plausibly argued that the ... defendant's conduct after the homicide betrayed a guilty ... conscience. His words and acts were not the normal words and ... acts of an innocent husband suddenly apprised of the ... ...