Court Opinion

ID: 9701744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:35:50.232911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:28.414338
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts:
The central issue in this appeal is whether the state’s suppression of evidence tainted Hough’s decision to enter a guilty plea so that it cannot now be said that the plea was knowingly entered. The majority opinion’s only allusion to this issue is its restatement of the rule that a guilty plea is equivalent to a conviction; this general rule, however, assumes that the plea was knowingly entered.
At the time Hough made his decision to plead guilty, it was irrelevant under the law of this Commonwealth whether the fatal bullet was fired by a co-felon or a third party.* In either event Hough would have been guilty of first degree murder. At the hearing below *425Hough did not even attempt to offer a tenable explanation as to how knowledge of the source of the bullet would have caused him to enter a different plea. In view of this I find his self-serving statements that the source of the bullet was the decisive factor in his decision to enter a guilty plea to be inherently incredible.
If Hough had entered a not guilty plea in 1947, a jury would have had to return a first degree verdict unless (1) it found he was not guilty of the robbery (2) it engaged in a form of “jury nullification” by disregarding its instructions; a third possibility is that this Court might have used Hough’s case, if appealed, to limit its then broad construction of the felony-murder rule. Hough concedes that he was a participant in the robbery, and I fail to see why, since his current sentence is the minimum for first degree murder, the later two possibilities justify a new trial.
My concurrence in this case, however, should in no way be viewed as even a semblance of condonation of the Commonwealth’s action in suppressing this evidence. Indeed I fully share the view that such action is repugnant to our civilized notions of justice and deserves the strongest condemnation. Were I to have found that Hough was,at all prejudiced, I would not hesitate to grant him a new trial.
Because I do not believe that the suppressed evidence was a relevant factor in his decision to plead guilty and because, in view of his life sentence, he has not been prejudiced, I concur in the result.
Mr. Justice Jones joins in this concurring opinion.

 Commonwealth ex rel. Hough v. Maroney, 402 Pa. 371, 167 A. 2d 303 (1961).