Court Opinion

ID: 9696353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:45:38.412582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:21.643076
License: Public Domain

*483POMEROY, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the decision of the Court granting appellant a new trial. This separate opinion is appended merely to suggest additional support for the majority’s holding.
The trial court charged in this case that “one claiming self-defense must show that retreat was not possible and would not have saved him from death or serious bodily harm.” It is clear that this charge required the defendant to negate completely the possibility of retreat in order to establish that he was acting in self-defense. As the majority indicates, however, under the Crimes Code there is no duty to retreat unless the actor “knows” that he can avoid the necessity of using deadly force with complete safety by so doing; thus the defendant must be shown to “know” of an avenue of retreat if the defense of self-defense is to be negated for failure to retreat. 18 Pa.C.S. § 505(b) (2) (ii). Section 302 of the Crimes Code states that
“(2) A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:
(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature of that such circumstances exist;”
18 Pa.C.S. § 302 (emphasis added). I believe that this standard of actual awareness must be applied to determine whether the Commonwealth has met its burden of proof in regard to the defendant’s knowledge of his ability to retreat,* and that the court erred in this case in instructing the jury that the defendant must show that “retreat was not possible.”

 Under the Crimes Code, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a killing was not in self-defense once the defense has been raised. Commonwealth v. Cropper, 463 Pa. 529, 345 A.2d 645 (1975).