Commonwealth v. Moore

Opinion by

Mk. Justice Benjamin R. Jones,

The defendant, Leola Moore, was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter by a jury in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Dauphin County and by that court sentenced to pay a fine of f5. and to be committed to the State Industrial Home for Women for an indeterminate term. From that judgment of sentence this appeal was taken.

Isaac David Moore and Leola Moore, husband and wife, lived at 1608 Wallace Street, Harrisburg, having come to Harrisburg from South Carolina several years prior to the incident which gave rise to this criminal prosecution. On the mid-afternoon of July 5, 1958, in his home, Isaac Moore received at the hands of Leola Moore, the defendant, a Avound which resulted in his death.¹

At approximately 3:15 p.m. on that date the deceased entered his home and, finding the defendant in the dining room, inquired why she had not prepared anything to eat; the defendant explained that she had cleaned the kitchen floor and was Avaiting for it to dry but the deceased, instead of accepting this explanation, cursed defendant. The defendant Avent into the kitchen followed by the deceased. Defendant picked up a butcher knife, 11% inches long, and returned to the dining room. The deceased from the kitchen threAV a portable radio at defendant which, according to defendant, struck her and, according to the Commonwealth, landed near her feet. Defendant then started toward the living room and the deceased started folloAving her. Defendant turned, raised her arm and stabbed the deceased inflicting a wound which caused his death within an hour. Although unarmed as he followed defendant, the deceased was saying something and in an angry mood. There was no evidence of any attempt on defendant’s part to run aivay from deceased, although there was evidence on the part of the Commonwealth that she could have left the house by the back door before her husband followed her to the kitchen or by the front door after deceased had thrown the radio at her.

Dr. Lippard described the character of the wound inflicted: “Yes, the wound, as I say, entered the soft parts of shoulder. It went behind the main bone of the arm. It vented, of course, across the arm pit and then entered the chest between the fourth and fifth ribs. It then went across the chest and cut open the sac which covers the heart. It then terminated at one of the major arteries which leave the heart, the pulmonary artery.” Although the knife blade was 11% inches long the wound to the pulmonary artery was somewhat longer from which the inference may be drawn that the knife was wielded with force.

Defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in overruling her demurrer at the close of the Commonwealth’s case and thus her motion in arrest of judgment should be granted; (2) the trial court was in error in allowing the jurors to deliberate for eleven hours — ■ 7:08 p.m. to 6:10 a.m. — without making any provision for them to rest and sleep; (3) the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth, in rebuttal, to present the testimony of a witness concerning a threat alleged to have been made by defendant four months prior to the homicide; (4) the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence.

Defendant’s first contention, i.e., that her motion in arrest of judgment should be granted, is premised upon the alleged failure of the Commonwealth to prove that the killing of deceased was intentional. In considering this contention the defendant would have us review the refusal of the court below to sustain her demurrer which we cannot do: Commonwealth v. Spanos, 167 Pa. Superior Ct. 629, 631, 76 A. 2d 243 and cases therein cited. The Act of June 15, 1951, P.L. 585, §1, 19 PS §871, provides: “Hereafter, in all criminal prosecutions in this Commonwealth in which the jury shall have rendered a verdict against the defendant, the defendant may . . . make a motion in arrest of judgment on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge, and if the Court, after consideration of the entire record, shall decide that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, it shall forthwith discharge the defendant and dismiss the case.” Under this statutory provision we consider the “entire record” in passing upon the motion in arrest of judgment and, in so doing, the sufficiency of the evidence must be tested according to the Commonwealth’s testimony and the reasonable inferences arising therefrom: Commonwealth v. Wright, 383 Pa. 532, 119 A. 2d 492; Commonwealth v. Jackson, 187 Pa. Superior Ct. 2, 144 A. 2d 249; Commonwealth v. Elias, 186 Pa. Superior Ct. 137, 140 A. 2d 341.

Time and time again this Court has held that the fatal use of a deadly weapon against a vital part of the body of another, when established as a fact, warrants the inference that the act was done with the specific intent to take lire.² Our present Chief Justice, speaking for this Court in Commonwealth v. Samuel Jones, 355 Pa. 522, 526, 50 A. 2d 317, stated: “It is in respect of the alleged intent to take life that the appellant ascribes failure to the Commonwealth’s proofs in the instant case, apparently overlooking the fact that such intent, being subjective, is often unsusceptible of direct proof but must be found in the implications of objective manifestations, such as the character of the weapon used by the slayer. Not infrequently, therefore, specific intent to take life is shown by proof of the offender’s use of a deadly weapon, for while an intention to kill may be shown by the defendant’s expressed words or declarations or other conduct, such intent may be just as effectively inferred from the deliberate use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part for a manifest purpose: [citing cases].” See also: Commonwealth v. Nelson, 396 Pa. 359, 152 A. 2d 913; Commonwealth v. Ballem, 386 Pa. 20, 123 A. 2d 728; Commonwealth v. Vassar, 370 Pa. 551, 561, 88 A. 2d 725; Commonwealth v. Wucherer, 351 Pa. 305, 312, 41 A. 2d 574; Commonwealth v. Kelly, 333 Pa. 280, 4 A. 2d 805; Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9. Apparently conceding that the knife was a “deadly weapon,” defendant argues that the knife was not used on a “vital part” of deceased’s body and, therefore, the inference of a specific intent to kill did not arise. In this connection it is argued that Dr. Lippard changed his testimony in respect to whether or not the wound was inflicted on a “vital part” of the deceased’s body. On direct examination Dr. Lippard testified: “Q. Now Doctor, there has been some reference in remarks in this case as to vital parts of the body. Would you determine from your experience whether or not you regard the area wounded as a vital part of the body? A. Yes, definitely a most vital part of the body.” (Emphasis supplied). On cross-examination the doctor testified: “Q. Now, do you consider the fleshy part of the arm behind the bone as a vital part of the body? A. No.” It is obvious that the doctor did uot change his testimony and that in his opinion the area wounded was a “vital part” of deceased’s body. The court below in its opinion well covered this situation: “The fact that in reaching this most vital part of the body the knife passed through the flesh of the upper arm is of no moment. A weapon may be used in such a way that death is improbable; however, we must consider not only the nature of the weapon, but also the manner in which it is used and all the attending circumstances: Commonwealth v. Kluska, 333 Pa. 65 (1939). In the instant case the weapon is a butcher knife 11 inches long, secured and used by the defendant against her husband who was unarmed and thrust with such force and in such a manner that it caused a stabbing wound longer than its blade in a diagonal path into the heart.” No more vital area exists in the human body than the heart area; it was in this area that defendant wounded her husband and from the use of the knife in the manner in which it was employed, from the wound which it inflicted and under all the circumstances the inference was fully warranted that defendant’s act was done with the specific intent to take life. This contention of the defendant is without merit.

Defendant next argues that the court erred in keeping the jury together for an unusually long time without opportunity to rest and thus prejudiced the defendant. During the trial the jury had had rooms at the Penn-Harris Hotel. On the last day of the trial the jurors checked out of the hotel and brought their luggage with them to the courthouse. The jury retired for deliberation on the verdict at 7:08 p.m. after which time the jurors were fed. At 11:15 p.m. the jury requested and were given additional instructions on the various degrees of homicide and, in the words of the trial judge, at that time “gave no indications of fatigue or illness.” At approximately 3 a.m. counsel for the defendant requested that the jury be given sleeping quarters and that their deliberation be suspended while they rested and slept, but this request was refused. On his own volition the trial judge called the jury into the court room at 5:00 a.m. The following colloquy ‘then took place: “the court: Are there any questions that you think the Court might be able to answer; any additional questions that you might have that would help? This is, of course, an important case, as you well know, and you have deliberated on it very conscientiously. It is an important case to both the Commonwealth and the defense and the verdict, of course, must be unanimous, and we want to give you every opportunity to continue to deliberate, hoping that you can come to a unanimous verdict, the fore-lady : Your Honor, I as Forelady — we have deadlocked as far as I am concerned, the court: And you feel that any longer deliberations would not solve the deadlock, is that what you mean? the forelady: We have been trying, the court : Well, we are going to send you back again for another effort to see if you can’t come to a unanimous verdict, and we urge you to make every effort to do that.” The jury finally reached a verdict at 6:08 a.m.

Defendant argues that it was reversible error on the part of the trial court to require such extended deliberation without rest for the jurors of whom ten were women. It is very significant that the jurors made no complaint nor any request that their deliberations be suspended and that they be given an opportunity to rest.

Many years ago in People v. Olcott, 2 Johns. Cas. 301, Mr. Justice Kent said: “The doctrine of compelling a jury to unanimity by the pains of hunger and fatigue, so that the verdict in fact be founded not on temperate discussion and clear conviction, but on strength of body, is a monstrous doctrine that does not, as St. Ger-main evidently hints, stand with conscience, but is altogether repugnant to a sense of humanity and justice.” A verdict brought about by judicial coercion is a nullity in the eyes of the law: Miller v. Miller, 187 Pa. 572. If the instant verdict were brought about by any compulsion or if there was anything of record to indicate that the instant verdict was reached because of the jurors’ desire for rest and sleep or fatigue we would have no hesitancy in setting such verdict aside. However the instant record does not disclose such motivation for this verdict. The extent of time during which a jury is kept together for deliberation is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge; only for an abuse of such discretion should his action be reversed. Defendant argues that the court violated the Act of August 9, 1955, P. L. 323, §2336, 16 PS §2336, which provides that the county commissioners “shall provide and maintain a separate room or rooms, at or adjoining the Court House, upon order of the Court, for the comfort, accommodation and convenience of woman jurors, and such rooms shall be provided with suitable furniture for the use of women jurors who may be serving upon juries unable to bring in verdicts upon the day in which the case was placed in their hands. . . .” We fail to follow the logic of this argument in its applicability to this case. There is no evidence of record that appropriate quarters for the women jurors had not been provided nor that any request was made on the part of any of. the jurors that the jury’s deliberations be suspended and that provision be made for appropriate quarters for rest and sleep during the suspension of such deliberations. In Commonwealth v. Tenbroeck, 265 Pa. 251, 108 A. 635, affirming a verdict of second degree murder, this Court said: “The jury, after forty-eight hours’ deliberation, came into court and reported their inability to agree upon a verdict, whereupon the trial judge explained the nature of the case and importance of reaching a verdict and said, ‘You must agree,’ but added, ‘If someone of you should become physically unable to remain, the situation would be different, but as long as you are physically able to remain, it is your duty to undertake to agree.’ He also expressed great sympathy for the jury and enjoined them to continue their deliberations. Considering, as we must, all, that the judge said, it did not constitute such a coercion of the jury as to invalidate the verdict.. . .” We find nothing to substantiate the defendant’s charge that this verdict was arrived at through any judicial coercion or because of fatigue from lack of rest.

Defendant’s third contention is that the trial court erred in permitting the reception into evidence of the rebuttal testimony of a Commonwealth witness, Constable Grimwood. The defendant had taken the stand and had testified, inter alia, that she loved her husband, had never threatened to kill him and had never told anyone that she would kill him. Grimwood testified that, in March 1958, he was attempting to apprehend the deceased and, while chasing deceased through his home, defendant said “If you don’t soon get him, you will be coming after me, because I am going to kill him.” The court admitted this testimony for two purposes; first, as it might affect the credibility of the defendant and second, to show possible intent. For both purposes this testimony was clearly admissible. In Commonwealth v. Minnich, 250 Pa. 363, 371, 95 A. 565, we stated: “With respect to this latter it need only be said that threats and all declarations of personal hostility are admissible in evidence, as showing malice and tending to show criminal intent charged.” To the same effect see: Commonwealth v. Patskin, 372 Pa. 402, 93 A. 2d 704; Commonwealth v. Peyton, 360 Pa. 441, 62 A. 2d 37; Commonwealth v. Minoff, 363 Pa. 287, 69 A. 2d 145.

Lastly, defendant contends that she is entitled to a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We have made an independent review of both the applicable law and the evidence and we are satisfied that the Commonwealth presented evidence which not only fully supported the present verdict but would have supported a verdict of murder. The defendant, from our examination of the evidence, was indeed fortunate to have received a manslaughter, rather than a murder, verdict.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

1 The cause of death was described by Dr. Dippard: “I found a penetrating wound which entered his body through the left shoulder, entered the chest and entered a major vessel leaving his heart. This wound led to a massive fatal hemorrhage, which was the cause of death.”

2 The distinction, between murder and manslaughter is the presence or absence of malice. The specific intent that death shall result is not essential to a finding of voluntary manslaughter. While it is true that a specific intent to take life, coupled with adequate provocation and passion, constitutes voluntary manslaughter rather than murder in the first or second degree, it is equally true that an intent to inflict serious bodily injury, which results in death, coupled with adequate provocation and passion, does not constitute murder in the second degree but is voluntary manslaughter, it is seen, therefore, that where there is a non-malicious felonious killing with a specific intent either to kill or to seriously injure, it is voluntary manslaughter. Compare Commonwealth v. Vanchaski, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 294.