Court Opinion

ID: 9706995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:57:55.660129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:20.901049
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
I agree with the law which is set forth in the majority Opinion, but strongly disagree with a number of the deductions and conclusions made therefrom.
Over and over again, this Court has said that it is not a defense even to first degree murder that the murderer was a mental defective or a moron, or had an irresistible impulse or psychiatric instability, et cetera.
In Commonwealth v. Ahearn, 421 Pa. 311, 218 A. 2d 561, we said (page 319) : “In Commonwealth v. Melton, 406 Pa. 343, 178 A. 2d 728, the Court aptly said (pages 349-350): “ ‘There is not the remotest merit to defendant’s contention that because of his deficient mentality, the Court did not have the power to convict him of murder in the first degree.
“ ‘In Commonwealth v. Smith, 405 Pa. 456, we sustained a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree *120with penalty of death, even though defendant was a sexual psychopath. We there said (pages 459-460) : “This Court has sustained a verdict of first degree murder with penalty of death where defendant allegedly had am. irresistible impulse,* was a moron or a mental defective or a sexual pervert or a, psychopathic personality* or had been previously confined in the hospital for the criminal insane for 14 years, or was a schizophrenic psychopath or was an unstable, mentally defective moron, or was feeble-minded: Commonwealth v. Leamer, 386 Pa. 485, 126 A. 2d 409; Commonwealth v. Cole, 384 Pa. 40, 119 A. 2d 253; Commonwealth v. Gossard, 383 Pa. 239, 117 A. 2d 902; Commonwealth v. Elliott, 371 Pa. 70, 89 A. 2d 782; Commonwealth v. Carluccetti, 369 Pa. 190, 85 A. 2d 391; Commonwealth v. Givens, 363 Pa. 141, 69 A. 2d 142; Commonwealth v. Neill, 362 Pa. 507, 67 A. 2d 376; Commonwealth v. Howell, 338 Pa. 577, 13 A. 2d 521; Commonwealth v. Hawk, 328 Pa. 417, 196 A. 5; Commonwealth v. Stabinsky, 313 Pa. 231, 169 A. 439.” ’ ”
The majority Opinion ignores and impliedly overrules all of our many prior cases on this point. It completely ignores the protection of society against criminals, which is so desperately needed in these days when brutal crimes are increasing over six times more rapidly than is our population, and in practical effect turns the determination of criminality over to psychiatrists.
This defendant, who was without the slightest doubt guilty of first degree murder, was convicted in 1953 while represented by two Court-appointed counsel. One of those attorneys was one of the ablest criminal lawyers in the history of Philadelphia. That attorney, according to the record, stated to the trial Court that he and Harris’s other counsel had discussed with de*121fendant the facts of the crime and the significance and effect of a guilty plea to the murder indictment, and testified, “1 am, quite sure he knew what he was doing ” How can this Court now ignore or black out this testimony, or contend that this defendant was so mentally incompetent as to be unable to stand trial or to adequately confer with his counsel?
It is impossible for me to understand how this Court, fifteen years after this brutal murder, could, by a stretch that would outstretch Procrustes, release (in practical effect) this murderer and further jeopardize society.* The majority’s decision is completely devoid of reality and justice, and extends and stretches even the recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, to which (I may add) I am strongly opposed.
Mr. Justice Musmanno joins in this dissenting Opinion.

 Italics in original Opinion.

 I note further that this murder was so awful that the trial Judge aptly said that because of Harris’s “low mental qualities” and the fact that he might in the future, if released, become “a tool of smarter persons,” he should be confined for life without release by the Board of Pardons.