Commonwealth v. Moyer

353 A.2d 447, 466 Pa. 464, 1976 Pa. LEXIS 514

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 17, 1976
• Docket: 373
• Status: Published

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

POMEROY, Justice.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree for the death by stabbing of his nine year old brother. After the denial of his post-verdict motions, Moyer was committed for life to the Farview State Hospital in lieu of sentence, pursuant to section 410 of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966.¹ This direct appeal followed.²

The evidence at trial established that on the morning of May 15, 1978, at approximately 7:00 a. m., Moyer, then nineteen years of age and living away from home, broke into the home of his parents in Stowe, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.³ Neither of his parents was home at that time; the only person in the house was Moyer’s nine year old brother, Harry, who was sleeping in an upstairs bedroom. Moyer entered the kitchen of the house, removed a large butcher knife from a drawer and proceeded upstairs to his brother’s bedroom. There he repeatedly stabbed his brother in the stomach and chest areas. A wound to the heart proved fatal. Appellant fled to his Pottstown rooming house where he was arrested a short time later. Upon questioning by the police, Moyer admitted that he had killed his brother.

At trial Moyer’s defense was one of insanity. He produced psychiatric testimony to the effect that at the time of the killing, due to mental disturbance, he did not know the quality of his act or that it was wrong. This testimony thus met both parts of the M’Naghten test for insanity. Commonwealth v. Demmitt, 456 Pa. 475, 481, 321 A.2d 627, 631 (1974). In connection with his insanity defense the appellant submitted the following point for charge: “The Commonwealth has the burden of proving the defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial court refused to charge as requested,⁴ 5and instead instructed the jury that the defendant bore the burden of proving his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. While this was the law at that time,⁵ it is so no longer. Commonwealth v. Williams, 463 Pa. 370, 344 A.2d 877 (1975); Commonwealth v. Cropper, 463 Pa. 529, 345 A.2d 645 (1975); Commonwealth v. Simms, 462 Pa. 26, 333 A.2d 477 (1975); Commonwealth v. Vogel, 458 Pa. 200, 321 A.2d 633 (1974); Commonwealth v. Rose, 457 Pa. 380, 321 A.2d 880 (1974); Commonwealth v. Demmitt, supra.

In Commonwealth v. Demmitt, we made it clear that where, as here, there is evidence in the case sufficient to raise the issue of insanity, the burden is then upon the Commonwealth to establish the defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. This is so because, as we stated in Commonwealth v. Rose, supra, “[i]n any criminal prosecution, the Commonwealth has an unshifting burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the crime. . . . [T]he defendant has no burden of persuasion.” 457 Pa. at 389, 321 A.2d at 884. The refusal to charge as requested by appellant was thus prejudicial error and mandates the granting of a new trial.

The Commonwealth argues that our decisions in Demmitt and Rose, supra, should not be given retrospective effect because they were expressions of state evidentiary law and not founded upon constitutional principles. See Commonwealth v. Rose, 457 Pa. at 386, 321 A.2d at 883. The retroactive effect of those decisions is, however, no longer an open question in cases such as this, where the issue has been properly preserved at trial. See Commonwealth v. Williams and Commonwealth v. Simms, supra. Furthermore, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S,Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975), it seems likely that our decisions in those cases were constitutionally required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Judgment of sentence reversed and a new trial ordered.⁶

EAGEN, J., concurs in the result. NIX, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which JONES, C. J., joins.

1 . Act of October 20, 1966, Special Sess. No. 3, P.L. 96, art. IV, § 410, 50 P.S. § 4410.

2 . Section 410(e) of the Mental Health and Retardation Act of 1966 provides:

“[w]hen a defendant is committed to a facility, an appeal shall lie in the same manner and with like effect as if sentence to a penal or correctional institution had been imposed, and may be taken by defendant or his counsel.”

Thus Moyer’s appeal is to be treated in the same manner as though it were from a sentence of life imprisonment imposed pursuant to the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act. Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, art. II, § 202(1), 17 P.S. § 211.202(1) (Supp.1975-76).

3 . Appellant was convicted of burglary by the same jury that found him guilty. Apparently no judgment of sentence has been imposed on the burglary conviction, and therefore it is not now the subject of an appeal.

4 . While the record is unclear whether defense counsel specially excepted to the court’s refusal of the point for charge, that is of no moment. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 463 Pa. 370, 373 n. 1, 344 A.2d 877, 879 n. 1 (1975).

5 . Trial was held between January 22 and January 31, 1974.

6 . Appellant has raised several other issues which, because of our disposition of this case, we need not consider.