Opinion ID: 2257638
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court must determine whether the evidence, and all reasonable inferences deducible from that, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, are sufficient to establish all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Weiss, 565 Pa. 504, 776 A.2d 958, 963 (2001). In the specific context of first-degree murder, the evidence is sufficient if the Commonwealth established that the defendant: (1) with a specific intent to kill, (2) unlawfully killed another person (3) willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. Commonwealth v. Spotz, 552 Pa. 499, 716 A.2d 580, 583 (1998); 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502. Specific intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the victim's body. Commonwealth v. Bond, 539 Pa. 299, 652 A.2d 308, 311 (1995). In the first issue he raises on appeal from his death sentence, Appellant contends that he did not act willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. Rather, according to Appellant, he committed the killing in the heat of passion or, alternatively, as a result of temporary insanity. We find no evidence to support either contention. The evidence established that Appellant drove to his estranged wife's place of employment, brandished a handgun, and forced her into his vehicle. The next morning, the Northumberland County 911 Center received a call from Appellant in which he indicated that he had shot his wife and himself. Shortly thereafter, the Pennsylvania State Police located Appellant and observed that he was severely injured from a gunshot wound to the chest. In the passenger seat was the body of Debra with fatal gunshot wounds to her chest and left temple. After a trooper advised Appellant of his rights, he again admitted that he had shot his wife and himself. Appellant explained that his wife had left him and would not give him a second chance and disclosed that he had planned to kill her. From the floor of Appellant's vehicle police recovered the following: (1) a .44-caliber magnum handgun, which had four spent casings and two live rounds; (2) ammunition; (3) impact marks; and (4) blood spattering that indicated that the homicide occurred in the vehicle and that the shot came from the driver's side where Appellant was seated. After conducting a search of the residence of Appellant, police found a letter written by him a day prior to the homicide in which he indicated that he planned to kill his wife and himself. The letter further related that Appellant would be the last man that she'll ever make love to if this goes the way I want. If not, she'll be dead anyway. No one will look upon her beautiful face anymore. She will have a closed casket viewing. (Transcript of sentencing hearing, 2/22/05, at 47). After performing an autopsy on the body of Debra, Dr. Samuel Land, a forensic pathologist, determined the cause of death to be gunshot wounds to head and chest and the manner of death to be homicide. ( Id. at 62). Notwithstanding the contention of Appellant that he killed Debra in the heat of passion, the above evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed the homicide willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. The facts with which the trial court was presented leave little, if any, room for inference to the contrary; in fact, Appellant cites none in support of his contention. The suicide letter written one day prior to the homicide clearly reflects premeditation on the part of Appellant, as does his abduction of Debra from her place of employment, having armed himself with a powerful handgun. With respect to the alternative contention of Appellant, that he was insane at the time of the homicide, there was sufficient evidence to the contrary to support his first-degree murder conviction. Pursuant to Section 315(a) of the Crimes Code, [t]he mental soundness of an actor engaged in conduct charged to constitute an offense shall only be a defense to the charged offense when the actor proves by a preponderance of evidence that the actor was legally insane at the time of the commission of the offense. 18 Pa.C.S. § 315(a). Consistent with the common law M'Naughten test for legal insanity, Section 315(b) defines legally insane as laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know either: (1) the nature and quality of the act; or (2) that the act was wrong. 18 Pa.C.S. § 315(b). Appellant underwent two mental health evaluations prior to his plea and sentence. [8] Nevertheless, Appellant cites no aspect of the record suggesting that, at the time he shot Debra, a mental illness precluded him from knowing either the nature or quality of the act of killing her or that killing her was wrong. At trial, Appellant failed to present any testimony or other evidence indicating that he was legally insane at the time of the homicide. Therefore, Appellant cannot avail himself of this defense and the first-degree murder conviction must stand, as the Commonwealth produced sufficient evidence to support it, as explained above.