Court Opinion

ID: 9730437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:12:16.693148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:06.460898
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. In this case the trial court incorrectly charged the jury that the appellant had the burden of proving his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. The majority concludes this was harmless error because appellant was not entitled to an insanity charge. I disagree. Once the insanity of a defendant is put in issue from whatever source, a proper insanity charge should be given. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Demmitt, 456 Pa. 475, 321 A.2d 627 (1974).