Court Opinion

ID: 9766801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:59:43.256983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:26.322680
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
The majority “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel”.
Approximately 10:00 a.m., August 30, 1963, Ott entered Louis Glostein’s shoe store at 2953 Kensington Avenue in Philadelphia. Ott followed Glostein into the rear storeroom, picked up an 8-1/2 pound iron bar used as a door prop in the storeroom, and struck Glostein on the head at least three times, shattering the bone on the top of the head and depressing the brain itself one inch. Ott took Glostein’s wallet, containing, inter alia, approximately $200 in bills, the wedding band and a picture of Glostein’s deceased wife, and a Canadian dollar bill, and also picked up a box containing a pair of Smart Style brand, black buckled shoes, and then left the store.
Glostein, a fragile seventy-five year old man, died eight days later, without regaining consciousness, from the head injuries and an interim, complicating pneumonia.
When Ott was apprehended eleven days after the attack on Glostein, he blurted out, in response to a question asking why. he ran away, “Because I killed that man.” Glostein’s Canadian dollar bill and his *275shoes were subsequently found in Qtt’s possession and were identified as Glostein’s property.
The majority hold that the following statement in the Court’s charge was reversible error: “Now, I am about to make a comment, members of the jury. And my comment is that I am of the opinion that this defendant is guilty. But please understand, members of the jury, that it’s my duty and it’s my right to make a comment, under the law of Pennsylvania. But it’s also my duty to say to the jury when I make that comment that you don’t have to agree with me, that it’s entirely, completely, finally for you* to say what the verdict shall be: guilty of murder in the first degree, not guilty of murder in the first degree; guilty of murder in the second degree, not guilty of murder in the second degree; not guilty. You may find one of those three verdicts. That is entirely for you.”
The trial Judge stated at least 9 other times in his Opinion — the trial Judge states it was no less than 50 times — that the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence and the verdict was entirely for the jury. For example, the trial Judge further said: “The facts, as you find them, are entirely completely yours. The verdict is entirely, completely, unequivocally yours. You are the judges. You bring in the verdict.”
“You can see how important you are and how honest and intelligent you must be, because the facts are entirely, exclusively, completely for you.”
“I also have a right to make a comment. And I intend to make a comment, provided you understand that whether I comment on the evidence or whether I comment on guilt or innocence, members of the jury, yours is the final say as to what the verdict should be — as to what the evidence is and as to what the final verdict should be. You, in your unanimous opinion, determine the verdict, and nobody else.”
*276“Now, I will make a comment. But remember, members of the jury, it is entirely for you to say, no matter what my comment is.”

“Again I say, to malee sure, members of the jury, that you understand, it is entirely, completely, finally for you”

The law is correctly stated in Commonwealth v. Chambers, 367 Pa. 159, 79 A. 2d 201, where the Court said (page 164) : “. . . it is always the privilege and sometimes the duty of a trial judge to express his own opinion, including his opinion of the weight and effect of the evidence or its points of strength and weakness or even the guilt or innocence of the defendant and the verdict which, in his judgment, the jury should render. . . .” See also the following cases, where even a stronger charge than the present charge was approved: Commonwealth v. Moyer, 357 Pa. 181, 53 A. 2d 736; Commonwealth v. Raymond, 412 Pa. 194, 194 A. 2d 150; Commonwealth v. Chester, 410 Pa. 45, 188 A. 2d 323.
What is the use of this Court saying that it is sometimes the duty of a trial Judge to express his own opinion of the guilt or innocence of the defendant (provided he tells them that he leaves the question of guilt or innocence to them), and then stating that it is reversible error for the trial Judge to say exactly what this Court said he could say? Is it fair to peaceful law-abiding people for the highest Courts in the Land to (unintentionally) enmesh trial Judges in a web of technicalities which thwart or stifle Justice?
I find no error in the Court’s charge which many times left the question of guilt or innocence entirely, completely and finally to the jury.
I would affirm the judgment of sentence.

 Italics throughout, ours.