Opinion ID: 2289965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the Trial Judge Erred in Instructing the Jury as to Accepting the Confession as Evidence

Text: After the Jury had been fully instructed and had initially retired, they returned to the courtroom with several questions. One of them was, Must all twelve jurors accept the statement as evidence, or is this a majority vote? The reply of the court was: I said that when you render your verdict, it must be unanimous. Now, it is not necessary that for example, if some juror is determined that acquittal should be based on one set of facts, and another that it should be based on another set of facts, you are all unanimous on the verdict, why of course that is the important thing. Of course, insofar as the verdict of guilty is concerned, if you are all unanimous on the question of the defendant's guilt, why then you render your verdict just in that respect. Now, if you are not unanimous on the guilt or innocence of the defendant, then you just have to deliberate further. The question of the statement is just one of the factors in the whole case, and this you must consider along with all of the other factors in the case as you determine what your verdict should be. `Now, I think that answers your question. When you return your verdict it must be unanimous. After a sidebar conference with counsel, at which defense counsel objected to the court's answers as inadequate, the judge continued: I will just add one thing more, members of the jury. As I have previously explained to you, it is the Commonwealth's burden to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and of course, all twelve of you must agree to that before you can render a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, of course, if you do not all agree on that, you continue to deliberate. If you have a reasonable doubt, why then you render your verdict accordingly. I think I have explained this at great length to you in my original charge, and I see some of you shaking your heads in assent, which I assume indicates that you recall that. The appellant insists that the only correct answer to the jury's question was a direct, flat statement that they must unanimously accept the evidence, and that unless the statement was so accepted and considered, there was insufficient evidence upon which to convict. Certainly the jury had to be unanimous in accepting the confession as voluntary; they also had to accept the confession as evidence to some degree because, as stated several times by Judge DOTY in his main charge, The Commonwealth's case rests or falls upon the statement given by the defendant. It does not follow, however, that each juror need accept the validity or veracity of the confession to exactly the same extent as every other juror, and that is apparently the thought which the judge was expressing in his answer to the jury's question. In a careful and thorough charge the judge had previously explained to the jury at least twice that they had to find the statement to be voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt before considering it as evidence. [9] The supplemental charge, while perhaps not as specific as it could have been, made it clear that while the jury had to be unanimous in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there was no requirement that each juror individually support that finding of guilt on precisely the same evidence or by according exactly the same weight to various pieces of evidence. When the instructions are read and considered as a whole, Commonwealth v. Lopinson, 427 Pa. 284, 234 A. 2d 552 (1967); Commonwealth v. Whiting, 409 Pa. 492, 187 A. 2d 563 (1963), it is evident that the jury was told that they must find the statement to have been voluntarily made, that thereafter they must individually determine to what extent the statement was true or false (i.e., to what evidentiary weight it was entitled) and that they must unanimously find the defendant guilty in light of the evidence. We think the presentation of these various considerations was fairly and accurately done, and that no prejudicial error was committed. Finding no error in the lower court proceeding, we affirm the judgment of sentence. Mr. Justice COHEN took no part in the decision of this case.