evidence of the defendant’s schizophrenia did not prevent him from making a knowing, intelligent statement during a confession
How later courts described this case
- evidence of the defendant’s schizophrenia did not prevent him from making a knowing, intelligent statement during a confession
- “The determination of whether a confession is the product of a rational intellect necessitates our consideration of the totality of the circumstances.”
- Roberts, X, dissenting, joined by Pomeroy and Manderino, JJ.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Pomeroy:
Appellant having made a timely request for an instruction on voluntary manslaughter, I must again note my disagreement with the law of this Commonwealth which allows the trial judge to decline to so charge because there has been no evidence introduced to support such a verdict. See, Commonwealth v. Kenney, 449 Pa. 562, 570 , 297 A. 2d 794 (1972) (Roberts, J., dissenting, joined by Pomeroy and Manderino, JJ.); Commonwealth v. Davis, 449 Pa. 468, 477, 479 , 297 A. 2d 817 (1972) (separate opinions in Opposition to Affirmance by Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ., joined by Manderino, J.); Commonwealth v. Banks, 447 Pa. 356, *401 364 , 285 A. 2d 506 (1971) (Pomeroy, J., dissenting, joined by Boberts, J.); Commonwealth v. Matthews, 446 Pa. 65, 78 , 285 A. 2d 510 (1971) (Pomeroy, J., dissenting, joined by Boberts, J.). As long as Pennsylvania law permits the jury to return a manslaughter verdict in such circumstances, the Fourteenth Amendment, as 1 view it, requires that a charge on that offense be either mandatory or totally interdicted: it should not be left to the unfettered discretion of the trial judge whether to charge or not. Until this Court chooses one or the other alternative, I believe the Constitution requires the charge to be given in all cases.
Mr. Justice Boberts and Mr Justice Manderino join in this dissenting opinion.