The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1892-04-15
THE GALLONS AWAITS HIM !.
ELMER BRUNER AGAIN CONVICTED
OF MURDER IN THE
FIRST DEGREE

[
| Sam uel Recs. and who, at the trial. plead
guilty and left the responsibility of fixing
! the degree upon Judge Barker. was brought
| into court. when the Judge. in Il lengthy
! opinion which be give below, found him
! guilty Of murder i'm the first degree.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
| The de fcudaut above named was tried at
the December term Tor murder, and the
! jury rendered a verdict of murder in the
| first degree. This verdict was set aside
and a new trial ordered, and. when the de-
feudant was arraigned the second time, he
| pleaded guilty 10 the Indictment. and the
! duty of fixing the degree thus dcYulyvd
| upon the Court.
| About the same length of time was con
sumed in hearing the testimony on the ar
| gumentS by the Court on the trial, and
| there was no material change in the cvi-
dence on either side. excepting that the
! defendant. who was not called at the trial,
| testified in his own behalf at the hearing
| before the Court. his testimony being sub
StantiaIiy the same aS that of Charles Bru-
ner. both at the trial and at the hearing. 50
that. excepting 70 the confederation of the
testimony thus furnished. the testimony
was substantially the same at the hearing
before the Court aS that on which the jury
rendered Il verdict of murder in the first
degree.
In granting a new trial we did not inveS-
ugato or consider the merits of the de-
fcndant'S case. and we distinctly stated
that we had no opinion tocNprcSS "a to his
guilt or inuocensc. but were compelled TO
grant new trial because certain fixed
rules governing such trials had been Vio-
lated. whcrcy lac might not have had the
fair and impartial trial guaranteed by law.
Whether the jury were actually Influenced
by THESE violations was not for uS 10 con-
slider: il was enough for uS TO know that
they might have been.
by his plea the defendant admits that
the killing Of Samuel RecS by him was un-
lawful aud malicious. Every unlawful
and malicious killing in Pennsylvania is
murder. either of the first or second de-
gree: the difference between the degrees.
plainly and simply stated. being. that
when a deliberate intention 10 Kill exists il
is murder in the first lcgrcc. and where
none exists il i murder in the second de-
gree our statute. however. in making
the distinction. says: '-All murder which
shall he pcrpetratcd by means of poison.
or by lying in wait. or by any other kind
| killing. or which shall be committed in the
/ preparation of. or attempt 10 pcrpetratc
| any arson. rape. robbery. or burglary.
| shall be- deemed murder in the first degree.
/ and all other kinds of murder shall be
| deemed murder in the second degree"
! 1t was not claimed 10y the Commonwealth
/ that this murder was committed in the
| preparation or attempt To pcrpctratc any
N..F =
! Assembly. or by poison or lying in wait
and. Therefore, we have only to deal with
| that kind of murder in the first degree
| described as wiful. deliberate. and prcmed
| itatcd and in which the essence OF the Of
| fence is the intention 10 kill.
! If an intention TO kill exists tits ''wilful:"
| if the intention 10 kill be- accompanied by
! such circumstances a. evidences mind
fully conscious of its own purpose and de-
! sign. it is ''deliberatc:' and if sufficient
! time be afforded 10 enable the mind To full
! " form the design to kill. and TO select the
| instrument or 10 frame the plan TO carry
this design into execution. il i ''prcmed:-
tatcd:' the proof that the intention To Kill
existed in a given case. and the DISPOSE
tion Of mind TO constitute murder in TIE
first degree need not not be express and
positive. but may be inferred from tho
circumstances Of the case: and if from all
the facts attending tho killing "A jury can
fully, reasonably. and satisfactorily infer
the existence of the intention to kill. and
the malice of heart with which 1t was
done they will be warranted i'm 50 doing.
and rendering verdict accordingly.
I'm the absence Of express and positive
proof Of intent. what facts are sufficient to
D.
upon the body Of another. at some vital
part. with a manifest intent TO use ii upon
him. a deadly weapon, must, i'm the alb
seucc of qualifying facts, be presumed TO
know that its use is likely TO kill, and
knowing this, must be presumed to intend
the death which is the probable and ordi-
nary consequence of his act: and he who 80
uses a weapon without sufficient cause or
provecation. must be presumed to do il
from a bad heart, therefore it follows as a
natural and logical sequence. that where
death results from such use. and there was
sufficient time to deliberate and fully form
the conscious purpose TO kill. he who thus
takes life Is guilty Of murder in the first
degree. unless there be sufficient legal rea-
son or cause of cNtcnuation.
Now applying these tests 10 the case in
hand: The defendant had been detected
in the commission OF attempted commission
of the felony Of larce ny. and, while vet ON
the premises Of the party whose property
me- was trying 90 steal. nc killed him. Ac
curding To his testimony and that of his
accomplicc, the deceased was pursuing him
with a gun when he fired the fatal shot:
according 10 the theory of the Common
wealth dcdUccd from the position of the
body " hen found. of the gun ard blood
marks. and other circumstances, the shoot
ing was done under entirely different cir
eumStauccS. and while the defendant was
endcavoring 10 escape from the premises
and avoid arrest. However this may be.
according 10 the defendants own teStimo-
ny and that of his accOmplicc, he was but
a few feet from the deceased when he fired
a pistol in his face and killed him; the
weapon was Il deadly one. used against
a vital part; he manifeStly Intended 10 use
il, and. under the rules above laid down.
we cannot reasonably and satisfactorily
infer anything else than that there was a
fully formed intent 10 take life; 10 infer
anything else would be 10 violate all rules
of logic and reasoning.
We find, then, that fully formed intent
TO take the life of Samuel Rces existed in
the mind Of the defendant at the time of
the shooting; the killing then was will
full" That defendants mind was fully
conscious Of its own design. and that Suf
ticicnt time for delibeIation and prcmedi-
tation was afforded 10 enable his mind
To fully frame this design TO kill, is appar-
ent tO Us from the circumstances. He had
placed his hand on his pistol, he says. be
fore lac lefJ the house, thus showing his
intention % use il if necessary TO escape
from tie premises without arrest. Some
little time elapsed before the shot was fired,
at least ample time for him To fully frame
and consider his intent, and from these
and other circumstances we find the killing
was deliberate and premeditated" On
these points our mind is at rest-that the
killing was the result of a fully formed in
tent. and was Milful. dclihnratr and nre-