Commonwealth v. Zeringo
| Decision Date | 12 June 1969 |
| Citation | 214 Pa.Super. 300,257 A.2d 692 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert J. ZERINGO. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
H. Huhn, Peter J. Verderame, Bristol, for appellant.
John J. Collins, Asst. Dist. Atty., Doylestown, Ward F. Clark Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN SPAULDING, and CERCONE, JJ.
On June 5 1967, a fourteen year old boy riding a bicycle was killed when struck by an automobile driven by appellee. Appellee was indicted for involuntary manslaughter and went to trial before a judge and jury in Bucks County. At the close of the Commonwealth's testimony the trial judge sustained a demurrer to the evidence and the Commonwealth appealed.
In determining the validity of a demurrer in a criminal case the test is whether the evidence of record and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom would support a verdict of guilty, and the evidence must be read in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth's case. Commonwealth v. Green, 210 Pa.Super. 482, 233 A.2d 921 (1967). Viewing the evidence in that light and applying the required standard, we conclude that the lower court's action was correct.
It must be kept in mind that this was a criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter and not a civil action for damages in which all that must be shown is the defendant's negligence. Where, as here, the act causing death is not in itself unlawful, to make it criminal the negligence of the defendant must be such a departure from prudent conduct as to evidence a disregard of human life or an indifference to consequences. Commonwealth v. Hartle, 200 Pa.Super. 318, 188 A.2d 798 (1963). In Commonwealth v. Clowser, 212 Pa.Super. 208, 214, 239 A.2d 870, 873 (1968), we said that '(T)he driver's conduct must be reckless, careless, or wanton before he may be convicted of involuntary manslaughter by automobile.'
Appellee was driving in an eastwardly direction on a two lane highway on a clear day. The road was straight both east and west of the collision site. Decedent was riding his bicycle in the same direction as appellee and was two feet from the edge of the pavement in the same eastbound lane of the highway. At impact appellee's right headlight was broken. There was glass in the eastbound lane for fourteen paces and the body came to rest forty-six to forty-nine paces east of the point where the glass began. The appellee's automobile was stopped 217 paces beyond the body. Each pace was estimated to be approximately three feet. No skid marks were made by appellee's automobile. The only witness to speed stated that appellee was going fifty miles per hour before the collision and had reduced to forty miles per hour at the time of impact. A passenger in appellee's automobile, called by the Commonwealth, said that he and the appellee were fifty feet away when they saw the boy on the bicycle, that the boy turned and look at them and then rode his bicycle across their path toward the middle of the road. He further testified that appe...
To continue reading
Request your trial