Goersen v. Commonwealth

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: Mercur
• Citation: 99 Pa. 388
• Decision Date: 20 March 1882
• Parties: Goersen <I>versus</I> Commonwealth.

Page 388

99 Pa. 388 Goersen versus Commonwealth. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. January 19 and 20, 1882. March 20, 1882.

Page 389

January 19th and 20th 1882.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT, and GREEN, JJ.

ERROR to the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Philadelphia county: Of January Term 1881, No. 123.

Page 390

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 391

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 392

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 393

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 394

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 395

Edmund Randall and William H. Ruddiman, for the plaintiff in error.—The purpose of an indictment is to inform a defendant of the offence charged against him, that, if innocent, he may prepare to defend himself upon the trial.

The indictment in this case gave the prisoner no intelligence of the facts charged as a crime against him, and afforded him no opportunity for preparation to meet the allegations of the Commonwealth subsequently made on the trial.

The indictment must contain a specific description of the offence. Wharton's Crim. Prac. & Pl. 154-166. This indictment is apparently drawn up under the provisions of the act of March 31st 1860, § 20: . . . . "It shall be sufficient, in every indictment for murder, to charge that the defendant did feloniously, willfully and of his malice aforethought, kill and murder the deceased." This section must, however, be read in connection with the rest of the act, including section 11: "Every indictment shall be deemed and adjudged sufficient and good in law, which charges the crime substantially in the language of the act prohibiting the crime." Now this indictment charges the offence set out in section 74, same act:- "All murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison . . . . shall be deemed murder in the first degree."

This indictment does not charge that the defendant did kill and murder by poison, and is not therefore drawn in conformity with the act prohibiting the crime.

The indictment is in direct violation of section 9 of the Declaration of Rights, giving the accused the right "to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him."

The evidence as to Mrs. Souder's death was clearly improperly admitted: Regina v. Oddy, 5 Cox C. C. 210. There was lacking any evidence of motive on the prisoner's part to murder Mrs. Souder in connection with murdering his wife. This was essential to justify the admission of the evidence: Shaffner

Page 396

v. Commonwealth, 22 P.F. Smith 60; State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245; Wharton's Crim. Ev. 8 ed. 50.

It is true that no specific exceptions were taken to the charge, but the court will overlook this.

"It is the duty of a judge, trying a man for his life, to charge fully upon the law, without regard to points presented by counsel. The rule that a judge is not to be convicted of error for what he omits to say, ought not to be applied in a capital case. The prisoner has a right to have the jury properly instructed upon every question of law legitimately raised by the evidence, and this right he cannot waive, nor can his counsel do so for him:" Meyers v. Commonwealth, 2 Norris 131. The charge of the judge palpably violated this rule. It was directly against the prisoner, giving undue prominence to the theory of the prosecution and wholly disregarding that of the defence and the facts on which it was based.

George S. Graham, district attorney, and Henry S. Hagert, for the Commonwealth.—The indictment is in the form commonly used in this county since the Act of March 31st 1860. Prior to that Act it was not necessary to specify the degree in the indictment: Commonwealth v. Gable, 7 S. & R. 424; White v. Commonwealth, 6 Binn. 183; or to allege that the murder was committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any one of the offences named in the Act of 1794. Commonwealth v. Flanagan, 7 W. & S. 418; Rhodes v. Commonwealth, 12 Wr. 396. And since the Criminal Procedure Act of 1860, the means used need not be set out: Lane v. Commonwealth, 9 P. F. S. 374.

It is alleged that the indictment is bad because in violation of the 9th section of the Declaration of Rights, which gives the accused the right "to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him." But in Cathcart v. Commonwealth, 1 Wr. 115, the Act of 1860 was expressly held not to be in conflict with the Declaration of Rights, and in Commonwealth v. Twitchell, THOMPSON, C. J., in refusing an allocatur, held that the provisions of the Act were not in conflict with a similar provision of the Constitution of the United States. To the same effect is the later case of Campbell v. Commonwealth, 3 Norris 199, decided on the authority of Cathcart v. Commonwealth.

It is not to be doubted that evidence of collateral independent crimes cannot be received when offered simply to prove the prisoner's connection with the crime charged; or in other words, a man cannot be convicted of one offence by proving him to have been guilty at some other time of another and

Page 397

independent offence; but neither is it to be doubted that evidence may be given of extraneous crimes where they form part of the res gestæ, or tend to exhibit a chain of circumstantial evidence of guilt in respect to the act charged, or where it is alleged that the crime in question was one of a system of mutually dependent crimes, or where such evidence tends to establish the identity of the person by whom, or the instrument with which, the crime was committed, or to prove guilty knowledge, intent or motive; and in cases of alleged murder by poison, other cases of death by the administration of poison at the hands of the party charged may be given in evidence, to rebut the defence of suicide or accident; or in chief, to exclude the possibility of death by either of these latter causes: King v. Wylie, 1 New Rep. 92; Queen v. Ellis, 6 B. & C. 145; Queen v. Cobden, 3 F. & F. 833; Queen v. Dossett, 2 Carr. & K. 306; Queen v. Harris, 4 F. & F. 342; Kramer v. Commonwealth, 6 Norris 299; Queen v. Taylor, 5 Cox C. C. 138; Queen v. Richardson, 2 F. & F. 343; Queen v. Salt, 3 F. & F. 834: Queen v. Foster, 24 L.J. (M. C.) 134; Kilrow v. Commonwealth, 8 Norris 480; Queen v. Reardon, 4 F. & F. 76; Queen v. Voke, Russ. & Ryan C. C. 531; Queen v. Clewes, 4 Carr. & P. 221; Walter v. People, 6 Park. 15; Johnson v. State, 17 Ala. 618; Ferrigan v. Commonwealth, 8 Wright 386; Turner v. Commonwealth, 5...