Commonwealth v. Earnest

17 Citing cases

  1. Wilson v. Tritt

    CIVIL ACTION No. 15-1455 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2016)

    A specific intent to kill also sufficiently shows that the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. See Commonwealth v. O'Searo, 352 A.2d 30, 37 (Pa. 1976) ("requirement of premeditation and deliberation is met whenever there is a conscious purpose to bring about death"); Commonwealth v. Earnest, 21 A.2d 38, 40 (Pa. 1941) (premeditation and an intent to kill can be formulated very quickly). "[E]vidence of the conduct of the accused and the circumstances surrounding the crime may be considered in determining the mental state which accompanied the act."

  2. Yarnal v. Brierley

    324 F. Supp. 311 (W.D. Pa. 1971)   Cited 4 times

    It is the fully formed purpose and not the time lapse which demonstrates the premeditation necessary to sustain a first degree murder conviction. Commonwealth v. Carroll, 412 Pa. 525, 194 A.2d 911 (1963); Commonwealth v. Earnest, 342 Pa. 544, 21 A.2d 38 (1941); Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9 (1868). "The specific intent to kill which is necessary to constitute in a non-felony murder, murder in the first degree, may be found from a defendant's words or conduct or from the attendant circumstances together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, and may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body of another human being."

  3. Commonwealth v. Clemons

    200 A.3d 441 (Pa. 2019)   Cited 68 times
    Finding officer's testimony relevant to police action while investigating missing person's report; finding limiting instruction cured any prejudice resulting from officer intimating defendant had previously been in trouble with the law

    "Whether the intention to kill and the killing, that is, the premeditation and the fatal act, were within a brief space of time or a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was in fact intentional, willful, deliberate and premeditated." Commonwealth v. Earnest , 342 Pa. 544, 21 A.2d 38, 40 (1941). Because the evidence here clearly established that, at the time of the actual murder, Clemons acted with specific intent to kill, it does not matter whether the Commonwealth proved that the Facebook conversation constituted the premeditation for Kunco's murder.

  4. Commonwealth v. Jordan

    65 A.3d 318 (Pa. 2013)   Cited 59 times
    Concluding the trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to show the surveillance video in slow motion

    The law does not require a lengthy period of premeditation; indeed, the design to kill can be formulated in a fraction of a second. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 603 Pa. 340, 983 A.2d 1211, 1220 (2009); Drumheller, supra;Commonwealth v. Earnest, 342 Pa. 544, 21 A.2d 38, 40 (1941) (“Whether the intention to kill and the killing, that is, the premeditation and the fatal act, were within a brief space of time or a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was in fact intentional, willful, deliberate and premeditated.”). Specific intent to kill as well as malice can be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the victim's body.

  5. Commonwealth v. Robinson

    468 Pa. 575 (Pa. 1976)   Cited 65 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion where retained counsel represented defendant at a preliminary hearing but did not enter his appearance for four months; where the trial court specifically and personally advised defendant on two separate occasions that retained counsel had to be present for trial; where retained counsel failed to appear for the scheduled trial date; where the trial court then postponed the trial three times before requiring defendant to proceed with appointed counsel; and where all efforts of the court and the district attorney to locate defendant's retained counsel and ascertain his intentions were unavailing

    It is well-settled that the period of premeditation necessary to form the requisite specific intent may be very brief. Commonwealth v. Carroll, 412 Pa. 525, 194 A.2d 911 (1963); Commonwealth v. Earnest, 342 Pa. 544, 21 A.2d 38 (1941); Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9 (1868). In addition, although proof of a motive is not necessary to establish a specific intent to kill, the jury from the testimony might reasonably have inferred that Robinson deliberately intended to vent his malice toward his wife and Harris, both of whom had indicated to him before he left to get his gun that he was interfering with the bar's business, not only against them directly, but against a customer of the bar as well.

  6. Commonwealth v. O'Searo

    466 Pa. 224 (Pa. 1976)   Cited 148 times
    Holding that issue of witness credibility is within the knowledge of the average layperson and must be determined solely by the factfinder

    This is emphasized by those decisions which have stated that the design to kill can be formulated in a fraction of a second.Commonwealth v. Earnest, 342 Pa. 544, 21 A.2d 38 (1941); Commonwealth v. Scott, 284 Pa. 159, 130 A. 317 (1925). An analysis of our decisions indicate that the courts in this jurisdiction have determined that the distinction between murder of the first and second degree is the presence of a specific intent to kill.

  7. Commonwealth v. Williams

    455 Pa. 539 (Pa. 1974)   Cited 24 times
    In Williams, the decedent, Mrs. Amos, had been burned, thus making a determination of the exact cause of death extremely difficult.

    However, such intent may be proved circumstantially, Commonwealth v. Petrisko, 442 Pa. 575, 275 A.2d 46 (1971), and no particular length of time is required to form the requisite intent. Commonwealth v. Carroll, 412 Pa. 525, 533, 194 A.2d 911 (1963); Commonwealth v. Earnest, 342 Pa. 544, 549, 21 A.2d 38 (1941). The task of the appellate court in reviewing the sufficiency claim is to determine whether, accepting as true all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which, if believed, the jury could properly have based its verdict, it is sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime or crimes of which he has been convicted.

  8. Commonwealth v. Carroll

    412 Pa. 525 (Pa. 1963)   Cited 65 times
    In Commonwealth v. Carroll, 412 Pa. 525, 194 A.2d 911, the Court (with two concurring in the result) pertinently said (page 537): " '... society would be almost completely unprotected from criminals if the law permitted a blind or irresistible impulse or inability to control one's self, to excuse or justify a murder or to reduce it from first degree to second degree.

    ' " Defendant argues that, conversely, a long time is necessary to find premeditation in a "good man." We find no merit in defendant's analogy or contention. As Chief Justice MAXEY appropriately and correctly said in Commonwealth v. Earnest, 342 Pa. 544, 21 A.2d 38 (pages 549-550): "Whether the intention to kill and the killing, that is, the premeditation and the fatal act, were within a brief space of time or a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was in fact intentional, wilful, deliberate and premeditated. . . . As Justice AGNEW said in Com. v. Drum: 'The law fixes upon no length of time as necessary to form the intention to kill, but leaves the existence of a fully formed intent as a fact to be determined by the jury, from all the facts and circumstances in the evidence.' "

  9. Commonwealth v. Johnson

    368 Pa. 139 (Pa. 1951)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that while accurate, it was prejudicial to inform the jury that "life imprisonment means what it says"

    It was the jury's duty to impose the penalty which they thought appropriate in view of the nature of the crime and the character of the defendant as revealed by his previous record and their impressions of him at the trial, and they had no right, apart from such relevant considerations, to speculate as to whether the Board of Pardons might at a future time, wisely or unwisely, exercise some form of clemency. In Commonwealth v. Earnest, 342 Pa. 544, 551, 21 A.2d 38, 41, Mr. Justice (later Chief Justice) MAXEY said: "Appellant's chief complaint as to the address [of the district attorney] is that the district attorney argued to the jury in effect that if a life sentence was imposed instead of the death penalty, some future Board of Pardons might release the convict 'in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, . . . it can always let them out and it does'. . . . Such an argument is improper and is out of place in an address by a district attorney." If the thought when thus conveyed to the jury by the district attorney was "improper and out of place" it would certainly be all the more objectionable when conveyed to the jury by the trial judge even though by way of a response to their express inquiry.

  10. Commonwealth v. Davis

    69 A.2d 123 (Pa. 1949)   Cited 10 times

    All that the law requires is that photographs should not be introduced merely for the purpose of exciting the emotions of the jurors, but only where they are helpful in aiding them in their investigation of the crime and the defendant's guilt, and that purpose should be carefully explained to them. The matter is one for the exercise of the trial judge's discretion: Commonwealth v. Webb, 252 Pa. 187, 198, 97 A. 189, 193; Commonwealth v. Ware, 279 Pa. 282, 285, 123 A. 795, 796; Commonwealth v. Winter, 289 Pa. 284, 289, 137 A. 261, 263; Commonwealth v. Sydlosky, 305 Pa. 406, 409, 158 A. 154, 155; Commonwealth v. Dreamer, 324 Pa. 220, 223, 224, 188 A. 117, 118; Commonwealth v. Ferry, 326 Pa. 129, 132, 133, 191 A. 130, 131, 132; Commonwealth v. Peronace, 328 Pa. 86, 93, 94, 95, 195 A. 57, 60, 61; Commonwealth v. Yeager, 329 Pa. 81, 87, 88, 196 A. 827, 831; Commonwealth v. Earnest, 342 Pa. 544, 550, 21 A.2d 38, 40, 41."