Goersen v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 06 October 1884 |
| Citation | 106 Pa. 477 |
| Parties | Goersen <I>versus</I> Commonwealth. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ. CLARK, J., absent
ERROR to the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Philadelphia county: Of January Term, 1884, No. 185.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Edmund Randall, for the plaintiff in error, presented an elaborate oral and printed argument on all the questions in the case. With reference to the 9th assignment of error (the separation of the jury and the unauthorized admission of a physician into the jury room) he argued that under the bill of rights, the constitution and the law, the accused is entitled to trial by an impartial jury, who must give their verdict under oath, upon the evidence, under all the safeguards established by law, and absolutely apart from foreign influence, or opportunity for such influence. It is of vital importance that no infringement be permitted on this ancient and salutary rule. It is not a question, in Pennsylvania, whether a juror was actually influenced by improper and illegal means, but whether an illegal opportunity existed for the introduction of such influence: Peiffer v. Commonwealth, 3 Harris, 468; Cooley's Const. Lim., 392. If it be said that the illness of the juror made it necessary to call in the physician, the answer is that the jury must be discharged, or the verdict set aside.
Yes — where the irregularity was a necessity caused by act of God.
I am aware that the question of the effect of separation of jury during a trial for murder, was raised in the recent case of Alexander v. Commonwealth, 9 Out. 1, but it arose there upon an assignment of error to the refusal of the court below to grant a motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, and it was held that that was a matter within the discretion of the court below, and not the subject of review on writ of error. I do not put the error assigned in this case upon that ground, but upon the defendant's constitutional right to an impartial jury acting under all the safeguards which the law has wisely provided in cases where the prisoner's life is at stake.
George S. Graham, district-attorney for the Commonwealth, defendant in error.—The juror was suddenly in severe illness, in the night time, liable to die without medical attendance, and the coroner's physician was called in. There was no separation in fact, the door between the two communicating rooms being open. The evidence established that the physician only examined and consulted with the juror as to his illness, nothing passed between them as to the case; it was a necessity of humanity, and no more separation than when on trial jurors are necessarily permitted to retire temporarily upon the call of nature.
We have given to this case that careful examination and consideration, which its magnitude demands. The controlling questions which arise were presented when the case was here before, (3 Out., 388).
As we adhere to our rulings then made, and as the evidence is substantially the same in the latter trial, as in the former, we deem it unnecessary to discuss many of the assignments separately or at length.
The alleged errors covered by the first four assignments were properly argued together by the counsel for the prisoner. They relate to the admission of evidence and the effect thereof.
It was said in the former case, a defendant cannot be convicted of the offence charged merely because he has committed another offence either of a similar or dissimilar kind: nor can such evidence be received to impeach his general character nor merely to prove a disposition to commit crime.
We then proceeded to state some of the circumstances under which evidence may be given of the commission of another offence by the defendant. The court followed that ruling. It was justly admissible to prove motive, to show guilty knowledge and purpose and to rebut any inference of mistake and to connect the other offence with the one charged as part of the same object to be attained. There was therefore no error in admitting the evidence; nor was there any in refusing to strike out the testimony of Budd.
The evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kent
... ... from disobedience to the court's order. See Moss ... v. Com. , 107 Pa. 267; Goersen v ... Com. , 106 Pa. 477; Keenan v ... State , 8 Wis. 132; Maclin v ... State , 44 Ark. 115; State v ... Harrison , 36 W.Va. 729, ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Luccitti
... ... Warren ... S. Burchinal, District Attorney, with him Donald R. Hart, ... Assistant District Attorney, for appellee, cited as to ... remarks of Com. v. Biddle, 200 Pa. 640; Com. v ... Meyers, 290 Pa. 573 ... As to ... threats: Kramer v. Com., 87 Pa. 299; Goersen v ... Com., 106 Pa. 477; Com. v. Johnson, 133 Pa ... 293; Com. v. Bell, 166 Pa. 405; Com. v ... Valverdi, 218 Pa. 7; Com. v. Jones, 269 Pa. 589 ... As to ... flight: Marcinkiewicz v. Kutawich, 87 Pa.Super. 260; ... Thompson v. DeLong, 267 Pa. 212 ... Before ... ...
-
Kennard v. State
... ... 272; ... State v. Payton, 90 Mo. 220, 2 S.W. 394; Coleman ... v. State, 59 Miss. 484; State v. O'Brien, 7 ... R.I. [336], 337; Goersen v. Commonwealth, 106 ... Pa. 477 [51, Am.Rep. 534]; ... [10 A.2d 714] ... People v. Bonney, 19 Cal. 426; 1 Bish.Crim.Pro. §§ ... 993, 994; 12 ... ...
-
State v. West
... ... State, 22 Ohio St. 486-491; McLain v. State, 10 ... Yerg. 242, 31 Am. Dec. 573; State v. Populus, 12 La ... Ann. 710; Peiffer v. Commonwealth, 15 Pa. 468, 53 ... Am. Dec. 605; Abbott's Criminal Briefs, 286; 2 Spelling ... on New Trial and Appellate Practice, sec. 59; Daniel v ... State, ... no misconduct on the part of the jurors, the mere separation ... of the jury is not ground for a new trial." To the same ... effect see Goersen v. Commonwealth, 106 Pa. 477, 51 ... Am. Rep. 534; People v. Symonds, 22 Cal. 352, where ... there is a very good discussion of the principle of ... ...