Rudy v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 07 October 1889 |
| Docket Number | 357 |
| Citation | 18 A. 344,128 Pa. 500 |
| Parties | JOHN W. RUDY v. THE COMMONWEALTH |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued May 20, 1889
ERROR TO THE COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER OF LANCASTER COUNTY.
No. 357 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 93 January Term 1888, O. & T.
On January 20, 1888, the grand jury returned as a true bill an indictment charging John W. Rudy with the murder of Christian Rudy. The prisoner being arraigned pleaded, not guilty.
On June 6, 1888, the indictment was called for trial, and, the panel of jurors being exhausted before a jury was obtained, a special venire was awarded. Upon the return of this venire the eleventh juror was obtained, when the list of jurors summoned thereon was also exhausted. A special alias venire was then issued, and from those summoned and returned H. L Trout was called as a juror, and was stood aside by the commonwealth. To this standing aside the prisoner objected but the objection was overruled; exception. H. L. Musser was then called, not challenged, and was sworn as the twelfth juror.
The trial then proceeded when it was made to appear that Christian Rudy, the deceased, was an inmate of the Lancaster County almshouse, and was last seen alive about half past four o'clock, December 4, 1887. The steward of the almshouse testified that he then saw the deceased walking slowly in the direction of the place where his body was found the morning of the next day, December 5th, in a field not far from the almshouse. There was an incised wound above the ear made apparently by a sharp instrument, and the back part of the head was crushed as if by a blow from a blunt instrument.
John W. Rudy, the prisoner, was the only son of the deceased, and was about thirty years of age and a carpenter by trade. Late in the afternoon of Sunday, December 4th, he was seen near the place where his father's body was afterwards found. He was also seen at that place the next morning by a witness who described his movements thus:
There was no direct testimony establishing the guilt of the prisoner but many other implicating circumstances were shown in evidence. His hatchet was examined and what were considered by experts to be stains of human blood were found upon it. It was shown that the deceased was the beneficiary in a policy or certificate of life insurance issued by a beneficial association, the proceeds of which in part were distributable on his death to the prisoner.
Jacob Witch, a witness called for the prisoner, testified that on Monday morning the witness went out where the body of the deceased was found lying in the field; several men were there, including the prisoner who was standing near the dead body; the witness asked the prisoner, "What is that for a dead man?" The defendant replied, "That is my father; the poor-house fellows killed him."
Q. What else, if anything, did John say to you about the way these poor-house people treated his father?
Objected to by the commonwealth.
Q. Did or did not John Rudy, at the time he said, "some one of the poor-house fellows killed my father," also say, they have stolen his goods, and were always annoying him and teasing him, in the presence of the body, immediately after it was discovered that his father was killed?
Objected to by the commonwealth.
By the court: It does not refer to the killing at all. Objection sustained; exception.
Q. Did Christian Rudy complain to you that the people at the poor-house and the inmates abused him and treated him badly?
Objected to by the commonwealth.
By the court: Objection sustained; exception.
The prisoner introduced the testimony of several witnesses that at five o'clock on the evening of December 4th he was at his home, a mile and a half from the place where the murder was committed, with no evidence of the crime on his person or clothing, and from that hour until the next morning he was accounted for.
At the close of the testimony, the court, LIVINGSTON, P.J., after instructing as to the law of homicide, in the different degrees, the weight to be given to circumstantial evidence and the principles governing its consideration, charged the jury as follows:
In addition to and under his plea of not guilty, the prisoner sets up as a defence an alibi; that is to say, he alleges, and has offered evidence for the purpose of showing, that he was not present at the place where the murder was committed, at the time when it was perpetrated, but that at that time he was at another place, or other places, and could not, therefore, be guilty of the high crime charged against him. The evidence as to this part of the defence should be carefully scrutinized and weighed by the jury as in all cases. It requires, frequently, very great nicety as to the recollection by witnesses of particular dates and events, of particular hours, half hours, and even minutes, of a day or night on which the offence to which it relates was committed, and this, too, frequently at long periods after the commission of the crime.
When an alibi is satisfactorily established, it forms one of the strongest, fullest and most perfect defences it is possible for a man to make, because no man can be in two separate and distinct places at one and the same time.
[The setting up of an alibi by the prisoner does not relieve the commonwealth from furnishing, as it has done here, full proof of the commission of the offence or crime charged.] Nor does his setting up an alibi as a defence change the burden of proof cast upon the commonwealth by his plea of not guilty, or waive his right to demand from the commonwealth, before he can be convicted, full and complete proof of his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.
[Where a defence rests on proof of an alibi, such proof must cover the whole time during which the crime charged was perpetrated, the time when the evidence shows it was committed, so as to preclude the possibility of the presence of the prisoner at the place where, and at the time when, it was perpetrated.]
[The value of this defence, the alibi, clearly consists in the prisoner proving his alibi to the satisfaction of the jury; if he fails to do so, it is valueless as a complete defence.] But an alibi is as much a traverse of the crime charged, however, as any other defence; and proof tending to establish it, though not clear, may, with other facts of the case, raise a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, and therefore it must not be excluded from the cause and the jury.
Where the fact of killing proved by the commonwealth, is, as in this case, not defined distinctly in point of time, but may have taken place within or between certain periods of time, the alibi must cover the entire period in its proof, otherwise the evidence given in proof of the alibi may be true, and the fact proved by the commonwealth may also be true. There is no contradiction, unless the evidence supporting the alibi covers the whole period. [And where the evidence is so imperfect as not to satisfy the jury as to an alibi, they will not find it to be a fact, and will not say it is a defence,] but will then look at and examine all the evidence in the cause, including that which relates to the alibi, and from the whole evidence make up their verdict.
You gentlemen of the jury, must be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to warrant you in finding a verdict of guilty, 1. That Christian Rudy was murdered, that a murder was committed. 2. That John W. Rudy, the prisoner at the bar, is the guilty par...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Scoleri
...(Emphasis supplied.) When given these instructions were in full accord with the then existing principles of the law. Rudy v. Commonwealth, 128 Pa. 500, 507, 508, 18 A. 344; Commonwealth v. Barrish, 297 Pa. 160, 167, 168, 169, 170, 146 A. 553; Commonwealth v. Jordan, 328 Pa. 439, 446, 196 A.......
-
Com. v. Richardson
...[or may be sufficient of itself to] raise the reasonable doubt of guilt which entitles a defendant to acquittal. Rudy v. Commonwealth, 128 Pa. 500, 507, 508, 18 A. 344; Commonwealth v. Andrews, 234 Pa. 597, 604, 83 A. 412; Commonwealth v. Delfino, 259 Pa. 272, 279, 102 A. 949; Commonwealth ......
-
Commonwealth v. Donough
... ... this case-and, it seems necessary to repeat, in every case ... which requires a criminal intent, even though an affirmative ... defense is presented-has, of course, the burden of proving ... that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged beyond a ... reasonable doubt. Rudy v. Com., 128 Pa. 500, 18 A ... 344; Com. v. Jordan, 328 Pa. 439, 446, 196 A. 10; ... Com. v. Woong Knee New, 354 Pa. 215, 47 A.2d 450, ... supra; Com. v. Noble, 371 Pa. 143, 88 A.2d ... 760, supra; Com. v. Sallade, 374 Pa. 429, ... 433, 97 A.2d 528; Turner v. Com., 86 Pa. 54, 74; ... Com. v ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Silcox
... ... James ... Scarlet, W. J. Baldy with him, for appellant, cited, on 1st ... assignment: 4 Bl. Com. 342; Prine v. Com., 18 Pa ... 103; Dougherty v. Com., 69 Pa. 286; on 3d and 4th ... assignments: Stouffer v. Latshaw, 2 Watts, 165; ... Meyers v. Com., 83 Pa. 131; Rudy v. Com., ... 128 Pa. 500; Fawcett v. Fawcett, 95 Pa. 376; on 5th ... assignment: Goersen v. Com., 99 Pa. 388; on 6th ... assignment: Fawcett v. Fawcett, 95 Pa. 376; Linn ... v. Com., 96 Pa. 285; on 7th assignment: Stokes v ... Miller, 10 W.N. 241; Egbert v. Payne, 99 Pa ... ...