Court Opinion

ID: 9753827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:31:37.215977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:43.325108
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen :
In order to convict the defendant in this case of murder in the first degree, the burden was upon the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had a specific intent to kill. It is true such intent may be established by circumstantial evidence, but whether the evidence be direct or circumstantial it must still meet the reasonable doubt standard, and is legally insufficient if it leads only to suspicion.1 In short, the intent to kill may not be guessed or conjectured. In my view, the evidence instantly was legally insufficient to establish such an intent beyond a reasonable doubt, *550and the jury’s finding this intent existed was necessarily based on pure speculation.2
The record is completely barren of proof as to the circumstances of Mrs. Amos’ death, as well as the cause of her death. Did Mrs. Amos die in the fire or was she dead beforehand? How did her death occur? These questions are just not answered in this record. I agree the proof and reasonable inferences arising therefrom would permit a finding the defendant was responsible for the death, and that she acted with malice, but to rule the proof was adequate to establish the necessary intent to kill requires mental gymnastics in which I refuse to engage.
Another glaring error in the majority opinion is the statement the trial court erred in excluding the Commonwealth’s medical testimony as to the cause of Mrs. Amos’ death. The only pertinent evidence found in the residue of the fire was a portion of a skeleton. Other pieces thereof were found several feet away and the medical witness offered the opinion the bones had been torn asunder by scavengers. The body organs, tissue and muscle were all missing. Despite this, the medical witness stated, “the most likely” or “the probable cause” of death was burning and/or asphyxiation. When asked to explain the basis for this conclusion, the witness stated: “In the absence of other evidence one would have to assume” and “I have no other evidence and this would have to be my assumption.” Why the trial court erred in refusing to permit the assumptions of this witness to be considered by the jury escapes me.

 The principle that the Commonwealth must establish every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt is not only basic to our system of criminal justice, it is one of the major safeguards of the constitutional protection of due process of law. Cf. In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068 (1970).

 The majority opinion stresses the defendant’s deceptive conduct and misleading statements in concluding the intent to kill was established, citing Commonwealth v. Kravitz, 400 Pa. 198, 161 A. 2d 861 (1960), and Commonwealth v. Sauders, 390 Pa. 379, 134 A. 2d 890 (1957). Although Kravitz and Sawders are authority for the proposition that deceptive conduct and misleading statements indicate guilt, these decisions do not say deceptive conduct and misleading statements indicate a specific intent to kill.