# Memorandum — Cuyler v. Matthews > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_0470%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Memorandum - **Published:** January 1, 1975 - **Citation:** 420 U.S. 952 ## Text Supreme Court, U. S. FILED 1975 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1974 No. 573 ROBERT L. JOHNSON, Superintendent and DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner : v. WILLIAM MATTHEWS, Respondent PETITIONER’S REPLY MEMORANDUM F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney ABRAHAM J. GAFNI, Deputy District Attorney for Law Sreven H. Gotps.atr, Assistant District Attorney Chief, Anpeals Division — 4 Ret Bonnie Bricance LEADBATTER, Assistant District Attorney Desoran FE. Grass, Assistant District Attorney Room 666, New Sg : Philadelphia, 19107 PRESS OF ALLEN, LANE ® SCOTT, PHILADELPHIA IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER THERM, 1974 ROBERT L. JOLUNSON, Superintendent and DINTRICT APTORNEY OF PHILADELPIELA COMMONWEALTIL OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner WILLIAM MATTILE WS, Respondent Perinonxer’s Reriuy Memornaxnpum In respondent’s brief opposing certiorari, extensive treatment was afforded decisions of the Supreme Court ef Pennsylvania. Beeause the Commonwealth originally reserved the issue (see petition for writ of certiorari at 19). some confusion may have occurred concerning the preeise nature of the Pennsylvania practice held unconsti- moe, Seo Ey OPE wr mw Neha ka aah ate nrc BOR RUA ay oa ai aon wh Nia DS a Ba i art ch dedtut ca abr md spd ERA NS A Bai a OR SG a SRT AS tutional by the court below. This is relevant to this Court's decision as to the grant of certiorari only insofar as a clear understanding. of the Pennsylvania practice is necessary to determine whether there is a genuine contliet between the Court of Appeals’ decision and the other authorities cited in the Commonwealth's petition. A brief review of the Pennsylvania caselaw' is therefore submitted to show that the decisional contliets previously asserted are not rendered illusory by some anomalous quirk of state court practice. In Pennsylvania, as in virtually every other jurisdic- tion, voluntary manslaughter is considered a lesser’ in- 8 offense ina murder indietment.2 Conomonwealth . Gable, TS & KR 423 (1821): Commonwealth ve Nellyon, 278 Pa. 59, 122 A. 166 (1923). Thus, juries have the power vat render a manslaughter verdiet where the eharge is murder. Therefore, if there was any evidence, however slight. whieh would support a manslaughter verdict, the court was required to charge the jury on the lesser offerse. llowever, where there was no evidence whatever tending to reduce the crime to manslaughter, no such charge was Tequired. Commonwealth v. Buceiers, WS Pal 535, 26 A. 228 (1893): Commonwealth v. Crossmire, 146 Pa. 304, 27 A. 40 (1893): Commonwealth v. Eckerd, 174 Pa. 137, 3 A. 3805 (1896): Commonwealth v. MacMurray, 198 Pa. 51, 47 A. 952 (1901): Commonwealth vo Sutton, 205 Pa. 605, ad AL 781 (1908): Commonwealth vo Curcio, 216 Pa. 380, 6 AL 792 (1907); Commonwealth vo LeGrange, 227 Pa. 368, 76 A. 638 (1910): Commonwealth vo Morrison, 266 Pa. 223, 109 AL STS (1920): Commonwealth v. Pava, 268 Pa. 520, 112 A. 108 (1920): Commonwealth v. stale 278 Pa. 37, 122 A. 161 (1923): Commonwealth v. Robinson. ! Prior to May 2, 1974. 2 Involuntary manslaughter is not a lesser ineluded offense. Hilands v. Commonwealth, 114 Pa, 372, 6 A.267 . 1886); Commonwealth v. Weinberg, 276 Pa. 255, 120 A.402 (1922). Pa ERE tat A Ahi NE AO DA eh aE TR LATE AS 3 8305 Pa. 802, 157 A. G89 (1931); Commonwealth v. x eager, 829 Pa. SIL. 196 AL S27 (1988); Commonwealth v. Flax, O31 Pa. 145, 200 A. 682 (1988): Commonwealth vo LaRue, SSt Pa. 18. 2 Ad 8620 (1955): Commonwealth v. Foster, 364 Pa. 288, 72 A.2d 279 (1950): Commonwealth v. Pavillard, 42.1 Pa. 571, 220 A.2d SOT (1966): Common- wealth ve Dews, 429 Pa. 555, 239 Ad 882. (1968); Cam- monwealth ve Corb, 482 Pa. 551, 247 Ad 584 (1968): Commonwealth v. Heckathoru, 429 Pa. 534, 241 Ad 97 (1968): Commonwealth v. Banks, 447 Pa. 356, 285 A.2d TW (1971): Commonwealth ve Kenney, 449 Pa. 962, 297 A.2d 794 (1972): Commonwealth vo Jones, 450 Pa. 442, 2900 Ad 288 (1973): Commonwealth v. Cannon, 453 Va. 389, 309 A.2d 384 (1973). The typieal case in which the charge was never re- quired was the clear felony-murder situation, in’ whieh malice was supplied by the intent to commit the under- Iving felony, so evidence of passion and prevocation are irrelevant. Brown v. Commonwealth, 76 Pa. 319, 339 (1874) : Clark v. Commonwealth, 123 Pa. 555, 575, 16 A. 795, 799 (1SSS): Set aiceeiiisoats v. Meleskie, 278 Pa. 383, 123 A. 310 (1924): Commonwealth vo Davis, 440° Pa. 468, 297 A2d S17 (972 . cert. denied, 414 ULS. 836 (1973). In this regard, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania noted: farbarous indeed would be a law permitting the plea of provoeation and hot blood to a man who when attempting rape flies into a frenzy and kills his victim because she forcibly defends herself... But no such rule exists in our eriminal jurisprudence. Commonwealth ve Meleskie, supra at 3886, 128 A. at 311. The final series of cases comprising the “*Penusyl- Vania practice presently under review’ cite the long- ‘Opinion of the court below, Commonwealth's petition for writ of eerti our, Appendix Boat ot. ee ee, Ce een S Tsar 4 established common law doctrine that a jury verdict on a lesser-included offense will not be disturbed because the evidence clearly shows the defendant to be guilty of the higher grade of crime. Nine such cases have been found: Commonwealth v. Nellyon, 278 Va. 59, 122 A. 166 (1923); Commonwealth v. Arcuroso, 288 Pa. 84, 128 A. 668 (1925); Commonwealth v. Steele, 362 Pa. 427, 66 A.2d 825 (1949): Commonwealth v. Frazier, 411 Pa. 195, 191 A.2d 369 (1963): Commonwealth v. Frazier, 420 Pa. 209, 216 A.2d 337 (1966) (on appeal from retrial); Commonwealth v. Cooney, 431 Pa. 153, 244 A.2d 651 (1968); Common- wealth v. Dennis, 433 Pa. 525, 252 A.2d 671 (1969); Com- monwealth vy. Harry, 437 Pa. 532, 264 A.2d 402 (1970); Commonwealth v. Hill, 444 Pa. 323, 281 A.2d 859 (1971): Commonwealth v. Butcher, 451 Pa. 359, 304 A.2Qd 150 (1973).4 The first and leading case in this series, Com- monwealth v. Kellyon, supra, established the principle and advanced most of the theoretical framework cited by later eases to support the rule. This theoretical framework did not rest on any novel analysis by the court. Instead it relied solely on the well-settled common law doctrine of lesser-included offenses. As precedent it cited no idiosyn- cratic Pennsylvania jurisprudence, but a well-recognized treatise on English and American common law.’ 4 Both Commonwealth v. Nelson, 396 Pa. 359, 152 A.2d 913 (1959), and Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 439 Pa, 348, 266 A.2d 726 (1970), often cited as examples of this rule, contain similar language. However, in each of these eases the deceased died of wounds incurred in a fight in which he was the original and continuing aggressor. Thus, the jury in either case might justifiably have found provocation and hot blood, 513 Ruling Case Law 757 § 65 (1916). Two liter cases, Commonwealth v. Prazier, (420) Pa.), supra, and) Commonwealth v. Butcher, supra, advert to an additional reason for the rule: as the prohibition against double jeopardy would prevent reversal and retrial for the higher offense, the only alterna- tives are to affirm the judgment of the lower degree of crime or to discharge the criminal altogether. As the latter course would vield an abhorrent result by compounding the lenient with the ridiculous, appellate courts must aftirm even apparent compromise or sympathy verdicts. Suttiee it to say that this is net so much a legal preeept as a recognition of the reality existing in every jurisdiction subject to the United States Constitution. = eee” CLARO BE SOI ie PO ALA DI EN OLE BREEAM CI Be BO ORT TN 5 No additional cases lurk in the cobwebs to distinguish the Pennsylvania practice under consideration from the practice in the other jurisdictions cited to this Court in the Commonwealth's petition for writ of certiorari.’ A comprehensive review of the cases belies the suggestion of any bizarre state practice. Thus the clear conflict between the holding of the court helow and other jurisdictions is genuine, and capable of resolution only by this Court. Respectfully submitted, KF. Exmerr Firzparrnick District Attorney ABRAHAM J. GAFNI Deputy District Attorney for Law Steven HL. Gouppiarr Assistant District Attorney Chief, Appeals Division Bonnie Brigance LEADBETTER Assistant District Attorney Denoran KE. Giass Assistant District Attorney Similarly the notion of “unrestricted discretion” asd expricious conduct by trinl courts is based upon nothing more than an imaginative extrapolation of the above-cited cnses. RI SF ERIE TNT A FOE Oi i a as --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385608_0470%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.