Commonwealth v. Corsino

Citations

• 261 Pa. 593
• 104 A. 739
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 795

Syllabus

<p>- Criminal law — Murder—Charge—Effect of reputation evidence —Self-defense—Measure of proof — Scope of cross-examination — Discretion of court — Loss of indictment — Substitution of copy— Substitution in absence of defendant — Interpreter—Duty to swear ■ — Correctness of interpretation — •New trial.</p> <p>1. On the trial of an indictment for murder, it was not error to charge that character evidence was not offered on the theory that a man of good -reputation could not commit a crime, for' frequently such a man has become involved in crimes which belie his reputation, where the trial judge explained fully the difference between character and' reputation, and further -charged that evidence of reputation for good character is substantive evidence and is to be considered with the other evidence in the case, and in some instances may create a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt, and affirms without qualification points presented by the defendant on this branch of the case, which correctly stated the law on the subject.</p> <p>2. In charging the jury on the matter of self-defense, where defendant admitted that he shot and killed deceased, but claimed it was done in self-defense, it was not reversible error for the trial judge to say that such defense should be established by “satisfactory proof,” where the remaining portion of the charge showed clearly that he did not thereby mean that self-defense should be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and -where he further charged that such defense need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt, but by what is called in law a fair preponderance or weight of the evidence, and that if on the whole they had a reasonable. doubt as to defendant’s guilt, they should acquit him.</p> <p>, 3. It was not error to tell the jury that the defense was self-defense.</p> <p>4. The cross-examination of witnesses is largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and where a question has been fully answered, his refusal to allow a r