Commonwealth v. Handsome
This text of 314 A.2d 17 (Commonwealth v. Handsome) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion by
The sole issue is the voluntariness of appellant’s confession. The record does not indicate that the confession was other than “the product of a rational intellect and free will.” Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 207-08, 80 S. Ct. 274, 280-81 (1960); Commonwealth v. Hallowell, 444 Pa. 221, 225-26, 282 A.2d 327, 329 (1971); see Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S. Ct. 1761 (1966); Commonwealth v. Eiland, 450 Pa. 566, 301 A.2d 651 (1973); Commonwealth v. Holton, 432 Pa. 11, 247 A.2d 228 (1968).
[117]*117Admission of the confession at trial was thus proper. On this record, there is no basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict of voluntary manslaughter.
The judgment of sentence is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
314 A.2d 17, 455 Pa. 116, 1974 Pa. LEXIS 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-handsome-pa-1974.