Prine v. The Commonwealth
| Citation | 18 Pa. 103 |
| Parties | Prine <I>versus</I> The Commonwealth. |
| Decision Date | 06 October 1851 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Negley, for the Commonwealth.—The record shows that the prisoners were arraigned, plead, &c. It is only in capital cases that the record must show, or state distinctly, that the prisoner or prisoners were present at the trial, verdict, and passing of the sentence. The entry of the sentence is the evidence of the defendant's presence in Court when sentenced, in all cases not capital: 6 Barr 384.
The opinion of the Court was delivered, Oct. 6, by GIBSON, C. J.
It is undoubtedly error to try a person for felony in his absence, even with his consent. It would be contrary to the dictates of humanity to let him waive the advantage which a view of his sad plight might give him by inclining the hearts of the jurors to listen to his defence with indulgence. Never has there heretofore been a prisoner tried for felony in his absence. No precedent can be found in which his presence is not a postulate of every part of the record. He is arraigned at the bar; he pleads in person at the bar; and if he is convicted, he is asked at the bar what he has to say why judgment shall not be pronounced against him. These things are matter of substance, and not peculiar to trials for murder: they belong to every trial for felony at the common law, because the mitigation of the punishment does not change the character of the crime. How could the Court record them as facts, if the truth were not so? Our looseness in recording forms of procedure, especially in criminal cases — if we have any forms left — has grown till the knowledge of the principles of which they were the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Boner v. Boles
... ... 546; Richardson v. Hand, 182 Kan. 326, 320 P.2d 837; Lee Lim v. Davis, 75 Utah 245, 284 P. 323, 76 A.L.R. 460; Crutchfield v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 291, 46 S.E.2d 340; Jessup v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 610, 39 S.E.2d 638. See also 15 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, Sections 443 and 459; 24 C.J.S ... 906; People v. Winchell, (N.Y.), 7 Cow. 525; State v. Cherry, 154 N.C. 624, 70 S.E. 294; Ex Parte Lyde, 17 Okl.Crim. 618, 191 P. 606; Prine v. Commonwealth, 18 Pa. 103; Andrews v. State, 34 Tenn. 550; Powell v. Commonwealth, 182 Va. 327, 28 S.E.2d 687; Noell v. Commonwealth, 135 Va. 600, ... ...
-
State v. Rice
... ... State, 101 Nev. 419, 422, 705 P.2d 149 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1130, 106 S.Ct. 1999, 90 L.Ed.2d 679 (1986); Commonwealth v. Banks, 513 Pa. 318, 355-56, 521 A.2d 1, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 211, 98 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987); Commonwealth v. Fahy, 512 Pa. 298, ... Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 372, 13 S.Ct. 136, 36 L.Ed. 1011 (1892) (quoting Prine v. Commonwealth, 18 Pa. 103, 104 (1851)) ... This court has not determined whether the Washington Constitution grants a ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Diaz
... ... Diaz observes that Pennsylvania law for nearly 200 years has made clear that the denial of the right to be present at trial, for any portion thereof, necessitates the grant of a new trial. Diaz Brief at 12-13 (citing Dunn v. Commonwealth , 6 Pa. 384 (1847) ; Prine v. Commonwealth , 18 Pa. 103, 105 (1851) ). Further, relying on Pana , he states that the absence of a needed interpreter implicates a host of constitutional rights, including his right to be present, his right to participate in his defense and his right to consult with counsel. Id. at 13-14 ... ...
-
State v. Nolan, 2007 Ohio 1299 (Ohio App. 3/22/2007)
... ... to state that the exclusion of the defendant from part of the proceedings is "`contrary to the dictates of humanity.'" Id., quoting Prine v. The Commonwealth (1851), 18 Pa. 103. This remains good law today. In Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Commt. v. McGrath (1951), 341 U.S. 123, 71 ... ...