Watson v. Commonwealth

Decision Date25 October 1880
Citation95 Pa. 418
PartiesWatson <I>versus</I> The Commonwealth.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

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

Error to the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1879, No. 144.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

M. Swartzwelder, H. H. McCormick and Blakeley & Bigham, for plaintiffs in error.

John S. Robb, District Attorney, Robert M. Gibson and W. S. Patterson, for the Commonwealth.

Mr. Justice TRUNKEY delivered the opinion of the court, October 25th 1880.

An alibi is as much a traverse of the crime charged 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. When the evidence is so imperfect as not to satisfy the jury they will not find the fact. Where the Commonwealth rests upon positive and undoubted proof of the prisoner's guilt, it should not be overcome by less than full, clear and satisfactory evidence of the alleged alibi. But the evidence tending to establish an alibi, though not of itself sufficient to work an acquittal, shall not be excluded from the case, for the burden of proof never shifts, but rests upon the Commonwealth throughout, upon all the evidence given in the cause taken together, to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the prisoner's guilt: Turner v. Commonwealth, 5 Norris 54. Stress was there put on the fact that the case depended on circumstantial evidence, and that the instruction excluded the evidence of an alibi from the consideration of the jury if it failed to reach sufficient strength alone to work an acquittal. Where the testimony relied on to convict is mainly that of an accomplice, the reason is quite as strong for requiring all the evidence to be considered. Direct testimony from a corrupt source should receive as careful scrutiny as circumstantial evidence. In one case the inquiry is of the credibility of the witness; in the other, if the circumstances be clearly proved, inquiry is whether the alleged fact is the only reasonable inference. Testimony tending to weaken faith in a corrupt witness is as material to the ends of justice as that which shakes confidence in an inference from circumstances.

The defendants' eighth point was rightly affirmed. This was followed by an explanation of a reasonable doubt and a substantial repetition of the point. Then, after calling attention of the jury to the evidence of an alibi, the court say: "If, therefore, in the first place, the Commonwealth has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt, I mean to say, in looking at the evidence, the Commonwealth's, it has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants were present at and participated in the burglary in question, it will be your duty to convict, unless the defendants, having set up the defence of alibi, have satisfied you that this, their defence, is well taken. What I want to have you understand is, that if you come to the conclusion, and are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants were there and participants in the burglary, then it will be your duty to convict, unless the defendants have made out their case of alibi, or that they were elsewhere, and in that case it will be your duty to acquit." This language has the merit of being easily understood. If the jury failed to find an alibi, all testimony tending to establish it was excluded from their consideration. Immediately preceding its utterance the jury were told that "the defence, outside of the allegation that the Commonwealth has not made out a case, and which it is for you to say, is an alibi." Nothing could be plainer than that the testimony of the Commonwealth was alone submitted on which the jury were to determine whether the defendants were guilty if they were not satisfied the alibi was proved. Such emphatic restriction eclipsed the defendants' eighth point, previously affirmed, and was error.

Complaint is made of the remarks of the court respecting circumstantial evidence; but we are not convinced that they contain error. This case depended chiefly on direct testimony, and it can hardly be said that the charge on the circumstantial was inadequate. Nor were the statements untrue, for such evidence is often more to be depended on than the absolute assertion of a witness who is without credit, and it may compel belief of a fact when the positive assertion of an impeached witness would go for naught. If counsel desired instructions, such as that the hypothesis of guilt should flow naturally from the facts proved, and be consistent with them all; and that circumstantial evidence against the accused must be such as to exclude, to a moral certainty, every hypothesis but that of his guilt of the offence imputed to him, to warrant his conviction, they could have had them by putting proper points. As a general rule a court will not be convicted of error for omitting to charge on a matter not requested. Here the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • The State v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 21 Noviembre 1893
    ... ... v. State , 16 Ohio St. 583; Pollard v. State , 53 ... Miss. 410; Miller v. People , 39 Ill. 457; Hopps ... v. People , 31 Ill. 385; Watson v. Commonwealth , ... 95 Pa. 418; Turner v. Commonwealth , 86 Pa. 54; ... Landis v. State , 70 Ga. 651; Chappel v ... State , 7 Cold. 92; ... ...
  • State v. Rice
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 15 Junio 1901
    ... ... Brown, 54 Cal. 243; Lord v. Dunster, 79 Cal ... 477, 21 P. 865; Sutton v. People, 119 Ill. 250, 10 ... N.E. 376; Saylor v. Commonwealth, 97 Ky. 184, 30 ... S.W. 390; Mercer v. Lowell Nat. Bank, 29 Mich. 243.) ... 2. The existence of intense popular excitement and prejudice ... 190; Commonwealth v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451; ... State v. Reitz. 83 N.C. 634; Walters v ... State, 39 Ohio St. 215; Watson v. Commonwealth, ... 95 Pa. 418; State v. Hardin, 46 Iowa 623, 26 Am ... Rep. 174; State v. Watson, 7 S.C. 63; State v. Webb, ... 6 Idaho ... ...
  • Glover v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 18 Julio 1906
    ... ... 360; Toler v. State, 16 Ohio St. 583; Pollard v ... State, 53 Miss. 410, 24 Am.Rep. 703; Miller v ... People, 39 Ill. 457; Watson v. Commonwealth, 95 ... Pa. 418; Landis v. State, 70 Ga. 652, 48 Am.Rep ... 588; Chappel v. State, 7 Cold. (Tenn.) 92; State ... v. Jaynes, 78 ... ...
  • Commonwealth v. Jermyn
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 27 Diciembre 1930
    ...evidence of an accomplice, (Com. v. Haines, 257 Pa. 289, 297, 101 A. 641; Cox v. Com., 125 Pa. 94, 103, 17 A. 227; Watson v. Com., 95 Pa. 418, 424; Com. v. Craig, 19 Pa.Super. 81, 94), it likewise be for failure to instruct a jury not to consider as evidence against one defendant hearsay de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT