Commonwealth v. Juliana

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Juliana

135 A. 318, 287 Pa. 559, 1926 Pa. LEXIS 394

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 22, 1926

DocketAppeal, 311

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A. 318 (Commonwealth v. Juliana) 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.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Juliana, 135 A. 318, 287 Pa. 559, 1926 Pa. LEXIS 394 (Pa. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Sadler,

The defendant, Juliana, was jointly indicted with Bentley, Curry and Doris for the killing of Harry M. *560 Cooper on May 4, 1926. A separate trial was awarded, and a verdict of murder of the first degree rendered, whereupon sentence of death was imposed. The facts involved in the killing have been set forth in the opinion herewith filed in the case of Bentley, an accomplice, and need not be repeated. An examination of the evidence shoAvs the presence of all the essential elements of the crime charged, and justified the finding made.

It is asserted, however, that trial errors were committed in sustaining challenges for cause in certain instances, where jurors stated they had no conscientious scruples against capital punishment generally, but did have Avhere it appeared the fatal blow was delivered by an accomplice during the course of the criminal transaction, and not by the defendant. That the action of the court below was proper under like circumstances has been pointed out in the case of Bentley, filed herewith, and further discussion is unnecessary. The claim of nonresponsibility for the acts of the co-conspirator, is likeAvise Avithout merit. Reference is made to the opinion in the case of Doris, jointly indicted with defendant, for a discussion of the controlling legal principles. The assignments of error, raising only the two questions indicated, are overruled.

The judgment is affirmed, and it is directed that the record be remitted for the purpose of execution.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Sadler,

The defendant, Juliana, was jointly indicted with Bentley, Curry and Doris for the killing of Harry M. *560 Cooper on May 4, 1926. A separate trial was awarded, and a verdict of murder of the first degree rendered, whereupon sentence of death was imposed. The facts involved in the killing have been set forth in the opinion herewith filed in the case of Bentley, an accomplice, and need not be repeated. An examination of the evidence shoAvs the presence of all the essential elements of the crime charged, and justified the finding made.

It is asserted, however, that trial errors were committed in sustaining challenges for cause in certain instances, where jurors stated they had no conscientious scruples against capital punishment generally, but did have Avhere it appeared the fatal blow was delivered by an accomplice during the course of the criminal transaction, and not by the defendant. That the action of the court below was proper under like circumstances has been pointed out in the case of Bentley, filed herewith, and further discussion is unnecessary. The claim of nonresponsibility for the acts of the co-conspirator, is likeAvise Avithout merit. Reference is made to the opinion in the case of Doris, jointly indicted with defendant, for a discussion of the controlling legal principles. The assignments of error, raising only the two questions indicated, are overruled.

The judgment is affirmed, and it is directed that the record be remitted for the purpose of execution.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A. 318, 287 Pa. 559, 1926 Pa. LEXIS 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-juliana-pa-1926.