Opinion ID: 1892409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: frank pettit's trial

Text: The Information. In the information on which the case was tried, the State, basically in the language of § 28-305(1), charged that Frank Pettit did unlawfully and feloneously [sic], kill another, to-wit: one Pandora Pettit, without malice, either upon a sudden quarrel, or cause the death of another, to-wit: one Pandora Pettit, unintentionally while in the commission of an unlawful act.... The unlawful act alleged in the information was criminal assault in the third degree, a violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-310(1)(b) (Reissue 1985), which states: A person commits the offense of assault in the third degree if he [or she] ... [t]hreatens another in a menacing manner. Evidence. During his testimony, Frank Pettit acknowledged that he and Pandora had been quarreling about his suicidal effort just before the shooting and that during the argument or quarrel, Pandora had convinced Frank not to commit suicide. Frank Pettit did not recall whether he had released the safety on the rifle that evening as a step toward suicide and could not recollect how many live rounds were in the rifle's clip or magazine when the weapon discharged. However, Frank Pettit was adamant that he never aimed the rifle at Pandora Pettit, pointed the weapon at Pandora with the intention to hurt her, had his finger on the rifle's trigger when the weapon discharged, or intended to shoot Pandora. Pettit asserted that the shooting was unintentional and accidental because I was raising the gun with one hand at the same time that I was sitting up, and that I was also pulling the clip out or attempting to when the rifle discharged. A forensic firearms specialist negated malfunction of Frank Pettit's rifle. The rifle had a properly functioning safety located on the stock behind the bolt. If the safety is engaged to prevent discharge of the rifle, the safety could be released by motion in the direction of the muzzle, such as thumb pressure exerted on the safety. When pressure of 3½ to 3¾ pounds was applied to the rifle's trigger, the cocked hammer was released and drove the firing pin against the cartridge in the weapon's breech. Such trigger action was in accordance with the manufacturer's standards and was otherwise acceptable for Frank Pettit's rifle, which showed no susceptibility for accidental discharge through shocks or jolts to the rifle. Examinations disclosed no gunpowder residue on Pandora's body and indicated that the rifle's muzzle was at least 15 inches from the nylon jacket when the rifle fired. The bullet hole in the jacket did not align with the wound in Pandora's chest unless the jacket were elevated somewhat on Pandora's torso, indicating that when the bullet struck Pandora, she had raised her arms above her head or had elevated her arms while she was removing the jacket. An autopsy established that Pandora's death was caused by a bullet's destruction of the upper lobe of her right lung and that there were no bruises or contusions on Pandora's body except for the bullet wound. According to the pathologist, The bullet entered the body in a perpendicular plane. If one assumes a body as being upright and the bullet goes almost straight in in this fashion. On entry into Pandora's body, the bullet struck her third and fourth ribs, which may have deflected the bullet from a straight path and caused the bullet to fragmentate. Bone fragments from her shattered ribs punctured Pandora's lung. However, the pathologist acknowledged that the bullet's perpendicular path to Pandora's torso could mean that the bullet was fired at a slightly upward angle if Pandora happened to be bending at the waist when the bullet entered her body. The pathologist concluded: There is no way thatfrom the autopsy, that we can tell what position Mrs. Pettit was in when this bullet struck her, so whether she was vertical or horizontal, I can't tell, but I can tell that from that plane of her body, the bullet entered in a perpendicular fashion to whatever plane her body was in. As a witness for Pettit, a psychiatrist testified without objection that, on the night Pandora Pettit was shot, Frank Pettit was suicidal and suffered the disease of alcoholism to a severe degree and further testified that Frank Pettit would not willfully... or intentionally harm or kill Pandora. At the close of all the evidence, the court overruled Pettit's motion for a directed verdict or dismissal of the charges against Pettit. Instructions. The court denied Pettit's requested instruction: If the shot which caused the death of Pandora Pettit was wholly accidental so far as the Defendant was concerned and not while the Defendant was in the commission of an unlawful act, your verdict should be not guilty. To warrant a verdict of guilty the State must satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon, at the time and place in question was not accidentally discharged or if accidentally discharged that the Defendant was then engaged in an unlawful act directly connected therewith. The court instructed the jury that to convict Frank Pettit of manslaughter, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Frank Pettit killed Pandora Pettit [and that] he did so without malice, either upon a sudden quarrel, or unintentionally, while he was in the commission of some unlawful act. Regarding the unlawful act mentioned in the foregoing instruction, the court informed the jury: An assault in the third degree is, under the Nebraska Criminal Code, an unlawful act within the meaning of the manslaughter statute. `Assault in the Third Degree' is committed by threatening another person in a menacing manner. The court gave an additional instruction in the language of § 28-305(1): A person commits manslaughter if he kills another without malice, either upon a sudden quarrel, or causes the death of another unintentionally while in the commission of an unlawful act. Concerning the manslaughter charge against Frank Pettit for Pandora Pettit's death upon a sudden quarrel, the court gave no instruction relative to accident or intent to kill as an element of manslaughter based upon a sudden quarrel. In his summation, the prosecutor noted the absence of an instruction on accident and argued: What iswhat's the defense that has been offered to you? Isn't the defense based on the evidence and argument from counsel that this was an accident? The statute doesn't say it's not the crime of manslaughter if it is an accident, does it? If you accept as truth everything that the defendant told you on the witness stand, he is guilty of manslaughter because this took place under or upon upon is the language of the statutethat this took place upon a sudden quarrel. You don't find accident as a defense in the statute.... The jury returned a verdict that Frank Pettit was guilty of manslaughter as charged.