Commonwealth v. Digeso
Citations
- 254 Pa. 291
- 98 A. 882
- 1916 Pa. LEXIS 721
Syllabus
<p>Criminal law — Murder—First degree — Evidence—Sufficiency — Trial — Cross-examination of defendant — Charge—Practice, O. T.</p> <p>1. On the trial of an indictment for murder it appeared that deceased, an ice cream vender, while driving his wagon along a street was met by the defendant and two companions; that a conversation took place in which deceased said to defendant “if you put your hand in my money box again I will break your head”; that deceased started to drive on and was followed by defendant who said, “me no afraid of you”; that deceased then took up an axe handle and shook it, striking defendant a slight blow in the face; that defendant stood still for about thirty seconds, and while deceased remained in the wagon drew a revolver and fired at him three times, lowering and raising his arm between each shot, the last of which was fatal. Defendant contended that the killing was in self defense and adduced evidence of his drunkenness at the time of the shooting. Held, (1) the fact that deceased scratched defendant’s face with a stick, under such circumstances, was no justification for the shooting; (2) the question of the intoxication of the defendant was for the jury, and a verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree was warranted.</p> <p>2. In such case the court did not err in overruling the defendant’s objections to questions put to him on cross-examination where one question when objected to, was not pressed and no request was made to the trial judge to direct the jury to disregard it, and where the other questions, complained of as immaterial, were answered by defendant without objection at the time.</p> <p>3. In such case the overruling of an objection to a quéstion put to the defendant on cross-examination as to the amount of money in his possession at the time of the shooting, and to which defendant replied; was not prejudicial to the defendant, and was not error.</p> <p>4. A point for charge so drawn as to omit the undisputed fact that defend
Judges: Frazer, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Walling
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.