# Commonwealth v. Demmitt

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 1, 1974 · 456 Pa. 475

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631141

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Demmitt, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 1, 1974
- **Citations:** 456 Pa. 475; 321 A.2d 627; 1974 Pa. LEXIS 553
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nix
- **Judges:** Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino
- **Cited by:** 101 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631141

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Nix :
While I am in complete agreement with the basic philosophy expressed by the majority, I do believe that the continued use of the “presumption of sanity” is unwise.
The presumption of innocence requires the Commonwealth to prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In re: Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970); Commonwealth v. Bonomo, 396 Pa. 222, 229 , 151 A.2d 441 (1959). In Bonomo , we properly observed: “It is utterly inconsistent . . . for courts to hold the prosecution has the burden of proving every essential ele *484 ment beyond a reasonable doubt even where the defendant offers no evidence; but that if he does offer any evidence the prosecution is relieved of the burden to prove that one of the essential elements he challenges. This is equally true of what is called the risk of nonpersuasion and of the burden of going forward with evidence.” (Emphasis added). 396 Pa. at 230 .
It is inconsistent with the above concept to employ a procedural device which lessens the Commonwealth’s burden of proof. Amy presumption, even if it merely shifts the burden of producing evidence, is offensive to the presumption of innocence, and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In my understanding, the majority’s use of the term “presumption of sanity” does not imply a shifting of either the burden of production or persuasion; rather it is merely an attempt to express the view that the Commonwealth’s burden in this regard can be satisfied from its proof of the events surrounding the commission of the crime and the accused’s apprehension.
I do not believe that we need indulge in a meaningless and potentially confusing “presumption” to emphasize the above concept. Such an approach opens the door for questions such as the quantum of evidence required to dispel the “presumption”. More importantly, rather than clarifying, the use of the presumption obfuscates the issue. Where the Commonwealth introduces evidence of the commission of a crime and the surrounding circumstances, that evidence, in addition to establishing the accused’s participation, usually also reflects a mind capable of appreciating the nature and quality of its acts. If the Commonwealth’s evidence as to identity remains unchallenged, the jury may obviously accept it as true. So too, where the testimony surrounding the crime shows a sane mind within the meaning of M’Naghten, and no challenge is offered on the issue, sanity may also be accepted by the jury — not be *485 cause of a fictional presumption, but rather as the result of the evidence offered.
The burden upon the Commonwealth is constant. Proof of each element must be established either by direct or circumstantial evidence. Where the evidence, albeit circumstantial, establishes sanity the jury is entitled to make that finding. In absence of such evidence the presumption of innocence mandates that the prosecution must fail.
If the behavior of the accused during the criminal act and his behavior upon apprehension does not justify a finding of legal sanity the presumption of innocence would prevent the use of a “presumption of sanity” from supplying that element. In such case the Commonwealth must come forward with independent evidence of sanity to meet its burden.
Thus, in either instance no useful purpose is served by resorting to the use of the fictional presumption. In view of the confusion it is likely to create, I would have discarded the concept.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9631141. Public record. Not legal advice.