Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialtestimonyfelonycredibility
trialverdicttestimonyfelonysustainedcommon law

Related Cases

Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 124 S.Ct. 1256, 157 L.Ed.2d 1166, 72 USLW 4193, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1501, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2293, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 153
View Case »
Crocker v. State, 573 S.W.2d 190
View Case »
U.S. v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210
View Case »
Evans v. Commonwealth, 290 Va. 277, 776 S.E.2d 760
View Case »
People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 738 N.E.2d 773, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2000 N.Y. Slip Op. 08893
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Com. v. Chermansky, 430 Pa. 170, 242 A.2d 237, 32 A.L.R.3d 1072

Facts

The case arose from the fatal shooting of Marcelle Hardison at approximately 2:30 a.m. on March 19, 1966, near Chermansky's home. Chermansky testified that he was awakened by a noise and observed an unknown individual tampering with houses across the street. After securing his rifle and confronting the individual, he fired a shot intending to scare him, which resulted in Hardison's death. The prosecution's evidence indicated that Chermansky fired the fatal shot with a deer rifle, but he claimed the shooting was accidental or justifiable.

Issue

Whether Chermansky's actions constituted justifiable homicide or whether the evidence supported a conviction for second-degree murder.

It is urged that, viewing the trial testimony in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, a finding of murder cannot be sustained or, in the event this position is not affirmed, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Rule

The use of deadly force by a private person to prevent the escape of a felon is justified only if the felony committed is one that threatens death or great bodily harm, and the person against whom the force is used is the one who committed it.

A private person in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. And in Pennsylvania we have always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented at trial, noting that the jury had the right to determine the credibility of Chermansky's testimony. Despite his claims of justification, the court emphasized that the intentional taking of human life is presumed unlawful unless proven otherwise. The jury found that Chermansky's actions demonstrated a reckless indifference to human life, which supported the conviction for second-degree murder.

That the trial court correctly and fairly instructed the jury on the law is not challenged. In arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict, Chermansky apparently assumes that, since his explanation of the killing was not contradicted at trial, it must be accepted as true and the killing declared justifiable as a matter of law. This position is incorrect.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence warranted the finding that the killing was not excusable and resulted from an unlawful act.

We find no error of law in the record and no abuse of discretion by the court below in refusing a new trial.

Who won?

The Commonwealth prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the conviction based on the jury's determination that Chermansky's actions were not justified.

You must be