Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Morrison

Citations

  • 266 Pa. 223
  • 109 A. 878
  • 1920 Pa. LEXIS 539

Syllabus

<p>Criminal lana — Murder—Evidence—Proof as to an immediately preceding crime — Continuity of events— Bes gestee — Motive.</p> <p>1. On the trial of an indictment for murder, the Commonwealth may show that, immediately preceding the killing, the prisoner entered a jewelry store, assaulted the proprietor and his wife, attempted to rob the store, took to flight, was pursued by the deceased, and that, when the latter impeded his flight, he was shot and killed by the prisoner.</p> <p>2. The evidence as to the previous assaults and attempted robbery was not offered to show a distinct offense from that charged in the indictment, but to show that the killing was the probable result of a series of acts which had their inception in the attempt to perpetrate a robbery. It was also relevant as showing that the motive of the prisoner, in the shooting, was his desire to gain his liberty.</p> <p>3. It may be further considered competent, in view of the unbroken continuity of the events, as a part of the res gestse.</p> <p>Criminal law — Murder—Condition of prisoner’s mind — Burden of proof — Bebuttal.</p> <p>4. Where the prisoner in a murder trial claims as a defense that he was under the influence of a drug at the time of the killing, the Commonwealth may in rebuttal submit the testimony of witnesses who had observed the prisoner at and immediately after the killing.</p> <p>5. The general presumption is that every man is normal and is possessed of ordinary faculties; such defenses as intoxication, insanity and aphasia (or mind not conscious of its acts), are affirmative defenses and the burden is on the defendant to establish them. The Commonwealth cannot undertake the burden of showing a sound mind when it does not know the nature of the defense, and can become acquainted with it only when offered. Countervailing evidence can then be offered solely by way of rebuttal.</p> <p>Criminal law — Murder—Evidence—Order of proof — Abuse of discretion — Appeal.</p> <p>6. Generally the or

Judges: Brown, Frazer, Kephart, Moschzisker, Walling

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced 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.