Court Opinion

ID: 9694311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:36:16.915436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:59.295654
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority holds that appellant was properly denied the opportunity to present evidence that he believed the force he used was necessary to protect himself because there was no evidence that appellant’s belief was reasonable. I cannot agree.
, If appellant’s belief was unreasonable he could be convicted of voluntary manslaughter,* but might still have a valid *59defense to a murder charge, if the jury credited his story. Appellant’s belief that force was necessary, even if unreasonable might convince the jury that the killing was committed without malice, thereby negating an element of the crime of murder.
Accordingly, I dissent.

 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2503 (1973) provides that a person who commits an intentional or knowing killing under an unreasonable belief that the killing was necessary to protect himself is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Appellant did not request an instruction on voluntary manslaughter, but this does not constitute a waiver of a claim that the killing was committed without malice. Appellant’s belief that he was acting in self-defense might serve to negate malice. Because this evidence might serve to negate an element of the crime, appellant was entitled to introduce evidence of his belief, even though the evidence might prove appellant guilty of another crime. If there is a concern that appellant might be found not guilty of murder where the evidence indicates that he was guilty of voluntary manslaughter, the Commonwealth should request an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. For example, we do not require a murder defendant to *59request an instruction on aggravated assault before he may introduce evidence that his action did not cause the death of the victim. So too here, we cannot require the defendant to request a voluntary manslaughter instruction before he may introduce evidence that he believed his action was necessary to protect his life.