Commonwealth v. Endrukat

Citations

• 231 Pa. 529
• 80 A. 1049
• 1911 Pa. LEXIS 881

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Murder—Insanity—Verdict—Twice in jeopardy.</p> <p>1. Where a prisoner has been put on trial for murder, and his insanity at the time of the trial has been set up in defense, and the jury instructed by the trial judge to pass upon both the question of his guilt and the question of his sanity at the time of the trial, and has returned as one verdict (against the objection of the prisoner), that the prisoner is guilty of murder of the first degree, and insane at the time of the trial, and the jury has been discharged, and thereafter the court of its own motion sets aside the verdict and grants a new trial, the prisoner may again be put on trial upon the same indictment.</p> <p>2. In such a case it was the duty of the jury at the first trial to return a verdict that the prisoner was insane at the time of the trial without more. The additional finding that he was guilty of murder was without authority, was a mere nullity, and should not have been accepted by the court. There was no trial at all on the charge against him, and he was no more in jeopardy after the jury had been sworn than he was before he had been called upon to plead.</p> <p>3. Where a court through inadvertence or otherwise accepts a verdict which a jury is powerless to render, it may thereafter, of its own motion, set such a verdict aside.</p>