Opinion ID: 2306390
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Charge on Voluntary Manslaughter

Text: Appellant next argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the jury charge defining voluntary manslaughter because the charge failed to state that the Commonwealth bore the burden of proving the elements of the offense. [21] This claim is waived as Appellant did not raise it on direct appeal. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b). Appellant, however, further claims that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue on appeal. [22] Accordingly, we shall examine the claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness for purposes of determining whether there is arguable merit to the claim of appellate counsel ineffectiveness. Significantly, Appellant acknowledges that the trial court generally instructed the jury that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. [23] He argues, however, that such instruction should have been repeated in the specific charge on voluntary manslaughter, as it was in the instructions given to the jury on other offenses. Appellant submits that because the jury was not informed that the Commonwealth bore the burden of proof in this regard, and because the trial court stated that it is necessary that the circumstances indicate an absence of malice, N.T. 6/16/1988 at 460, the jury may have believed that Appellant was required to prove the absence of malice, which is necessary to demonstrate voluntary manslaughter. When viewed in its entirety, it is undisputed that the trial court's charge clearly informed the jury that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving every element of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Holloway, 559 Pa. 258, 739 A.2d 1039, 1047-48 (1999) (rejecting claim that trial court erroneously neglected to instruct the jury that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving each and every element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt when trial court so instructed the jury). Appellant offers no support for the proposition that the trial court is required to repeat such instruction each time it explains the elements of a different offense. As cogently noted by the Commonwealth, [i]n light of the trial court's clear instructions that the Commonwealth bore the burden of proving every element of the crime, there is no reason to conclude that the jury would understand just the opposite with respect to the offense of voluntary manslaughter. Appellee's Brief at 47. Under these circumstances, Appellant's challenge to the voluntary manslaughter instruction fails. Thus, the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the instruction lacks arguable merit, and appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise the meritless claim on direct appeal.