Commonwealth v. Metzler

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Metzler

451 A.2d 1352, 499 Pa. 122, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 601

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 4, 1982

Docket364 E.D. Allocutur Docket 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 451 A.2d 1352 (Commonwealth v. Metzler) 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. Metzler, 451 A.2d 1352, 499 Pa. 122, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 601 (Pa. 1982).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The Commonwealth filed a petition for allowance of appeal from an Order of the Superior Court which reversed Arthur J. Metzler’s conviction of aggravated assault. Metzler was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to no less than fifteen months nor more than four years imprisonment. The Superior Court reversed, ruling that the Commonwealth’s evidence of sanity was so inadequate, as a matter of law, the fact finder could not be satisfied of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Metzler, 300 Pa.Super. 19, 445 A.2d 1277 (1982).

An examination of the record convinces us that there was sufficient evidence of sanity to allow the trial judge to determine that Metzler failed to meet either part of the M’Naghten test. In order to escape criminal responsibility, defendants must show they are laboring under such a defect of reason, at the time of the act, that they are either [124]*124incapable of knowing what they were doing or were incapable of judging that it was wrong. Commonwealth v. Demmitt, 456 Pa. 475, 321 A.2d 627 (1974). Evidence was presented to show that Metzler initially flirted with the victim and was rebuffed. After he assaulted the victim, he immediately left the premises. Upon being apprehended less than one hour after the assault, he admitted striking the victim. At trial, Metzler testified that he knew what he was doing and that it was bad.

Therefore, in reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, Commonwealth v. Blevins, 453 Pa. 481, 309 A.2d 421 (1973), it was error for the Superior Court to reverse Metzler’s conviction for aggravated assault. Accordingly, we hereby grant the Commonwealth’s petition, reverse the Order of the Superior Court, and reinstate the conviction and sentence of Metzler as entered by the trial judge.

ROBERTS, J., files a dissenting statement.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The Commonwealth filed a petition for allowance of appeal from an Order of the Superior Court which reversed Arthur J. Metzler’s conviction of aggravated assault. Metzler was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to no less than fifteen months nor more than four years imprisonment. The Superior Court reversed, ruling that the Commonwealth’s evidence of sanity was so inadequate, as a matter of law, the fact finder could not be satisfied of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Metzler, 300 Pa.Super. 19, 445 A.2d 1277 (1982).

An examination of the record convinces us that there was sufficient evidence of sanity to allow the trial judge to determine that Metzler failed to meet either part of the M’Naghten test. In order to escape criminal responsibility, defendants must show they are laboring under such a defect of reason, at the time of the act, that they are either [124]*124incapable of knowing what they were doing or were incapable of judging that it was wrong. Commonwealth v. Demmitt, 456 Pa. 475, 321 A.2d 627 (1974). Evidence was presented to show that Metzler initially flirted with the victim and was rebuffed. After he assaulted the victim, he immediately left the premises. Upon being apprehended less than one hour after the assault, he admitted striking the victim. At trial, Metzler testified that he knew what he was doing and that it was bad.

Therefore, in reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, Commonwealth v. Blevins, 453 Pa. 481, 309 A.2d 421 (1973), it was error for the Superior Court to reverse Metzler’s conviction for aggravated assault. Accordingly, we hereby grant the Commonwealth’s petition, reverse the Order of the Superior Court, and reinstate the conviction and sentence of Metzler as entered by the trial judge.

ROBERTS, J., files a dissenting statement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 A.2d 1352, 499 Pa. 122, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-metzler-pa-1982.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack