Commonwealth v. Marcinko

Citations

• 242 Pa. 388
• 89 A. 457
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 891

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Murder—Premeditation — Manslaughter — Evidence to reduce crime to manslaughter — Charge—Misstatement of evidence.</p> <p>1. A trial judge in charging' tbe jury in a homicide case may express his opinion on the weight and effect of the evidence and may say to the jury that there is.no evidence in the case to reduce the crime to manslaughter, provided such an opinion is warranted by the evidence, and would not amount to binding instructions.</p> <p>2. On a trial for murder it was admitted that the deceased was killed by the defendant. The Commonwealth contended that the defendant stabbed the deceased with intent to take his life, and the defense was that the killing was accidental. The defendant testified that while he was fighting with a third person, the deceased struck him a number of times, that he was knocked down by this third person and ir. falling “put the knife in” the deceased. The court in its charge said that in its opinion defendant was not guilty of manslaughter, that “there is no evidence in this case of any heat or passion or provocation at all,” that “even the defendant does not contend that Holland (the deceased) did anything to him,” and that “there was, so far as the evidence in this case goes, on both sides, absolutely nothing that happened between this man an; • Holland, nothing at. all.” Held, error.</p> <p>3. In such case the grade of the ofíense was for the jury under the evidence, and the charge of the court “Now, that being so, either one of two things happened; either the contention of the Commonwealth is correct that this man was angry or cross and stepped out there and stuck this knife into Holland, or the contention of the defense is correct that it was all the result of an accident when he was knocked down,” deprived the jury of the right to determine the facts upon the evidence, if in their opinion the evidence warranted, to find defendant guilty of manslaughter, and amounted to a binding instruction that the jury mus