Court Opinion

ID: 9750804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:33:28.131474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:22.270665
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
concurring.
In appellant’s original direct appeal I dissented believing that appellant was entitled to a new trial because the judge charged the jury that the act of pointing a gun at a vital part of another’s body is enough from which to infer a wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing. Commonwealth v. O’Searo, 466 Pa. 224, 241, 352 A.2d 30 (1976). This issue has now been finally litigated under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, 1966, Jan. 25, P.L. (1965) 1580, § 1 et seq., 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq., (Supp.1978-79) and I therefore join in the majority opinion affirming the order of the hearing court.