Opinion ID: 1519154
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Justifiable Homicide

Text: A private person in fresh pursuit of one who has committed a felony may arrest without a warrant. Commonwealth v. Micuso, 273 Pa. 474, 117 A. 211 (1922); Commonwealth v. Long, 17 Pa. Superior Ct. 641 (1901); 2 Trickett, The Law of Crimes in Pennsylvania 683 (1908). And in Pennsylvania we have always followed the common law rule that if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified. See Commonwealth v. Micuso, supra; 2 Trickett, supra. We hasten to note that before the use of deadly force is justified the private person must be in fresh pursuit of the felon and also must give notice of his purpose to arrest for the felony if the attending circumstances are themselves insufficient to warn the felon of the intention of the pursuing party to arrest him. The common law principle that a killing necessary to prevent the escape of a felon is justifiable developed at a time when the distinction between felony and misdemeanor was very different than it is today. [1] Statutory expansion of the class of felonies has made the common law rule manifestly inadequate for modern law. [2] Hence, the need for a change or limitation in the rule is indicated. We therefore hold that from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private person in order to prevent the escape of one who has committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason, murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery, common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which normally causes or threatens death or great bodily harm. [3] We also note that for the use of deadly force to be justified it remains absolutely essential, as before, that one of the enumerated felonies has been committed and that the person against whom the force is used is the one who committed it or joined or assisted in committing it. Commonwealth v. Duerr, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 484, 45 A. 2d 235 (1946). If the private citizen acts on suspicion that such a felony has been committed, he acts at his own peril. For the homicide to be justifiable, it must be established that his suspicion was correct. That the trial court correctly and fairly instructed the jury on the law is not challenged. In arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict, Chermansky apparently assumes that, since his explanation of the killing was not contradicted at trial, it must be accepted as true and the killing declared justifiable as a matter of law. This position is incorrect. Firstly, the truthfulness of Chermansky's testimony was for the jury to determine. Even though it was uncontradicted, the jury still had the right to accept it totally, to believe part of it or to reject it completely. Commonwealth v. Wilkes, 414 Pa. 246, 199 A. 2d 411 (1964). Secondly, the intentional taking of human life is presumed to be unlawful and the burden of proving otherwise is upon him who attempts to justify it. Commonwealth v. Wilkes, supra. In other words, justifiable homicide is an affirmative defense. Commonwealth v. Weinberg, 276 Pa. 255, 120 A. 406 (1923). Whether Chermansky did or did not meet this burden was for the jury to say. This is particularly so in this case because certain evidence did cast doubt upon whether or not Hardison was in fact a felon. It is also urged that proof of malice is lacking and that, at most, Chermansky acted under an honest mistake and thus his crime could rise no higher than voluntary manslaughter. It is true that malice, express or implied, is an absolute essential of murder. However, legal malice may be inferred and found from the attending circumstances. Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 428 Pa. 188, 236 A. 2d 768 (1968). It consists either of an express intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, or of a `wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences and a mind regardless of social duty' indicating an unjustified disregard for the probability of death or great bodily harm and an extreme indifference to the value of human life. Commonwealth v. Carroll, 412 Pa. 525, 194 A. 2d 911 (1963). By its verdict the jury clearly rejected Chermansky's plea of justification. In the absence thereof, his conduct certainly could be found to evidence a reckless indifference to the value of human life.