Court Opinion

ID: 9728325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:05:03.479301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.599094
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Pomeroy:
I agree with the Court that the killing by the appellant Daniels of Dempsey Wilson cannot as a matter of law be regarded as justified under a claim of self-defense. I am unable to agree, however, that the killing of Perry Kellam—appellant’s first victim—can and should be so regarded.
Two reasons compel my dissent with respect to the Kellam homicide:
First: The statement given by appellant to police and introduced by the Commonwealth at trial contains the following concerning Kellam’s [Pumpkin’s] death: “I kicked him and he fell down the steps, Pumpkin started back up the stairs and I met him halfway. I pulled my knife out of my right rear pocket while going down the stairs to meet Pumpkin, I stabbed at Pumpkin with the butcher knife in my right hand, he fell down, he tried to get up and I think I stabbed him agam,” (Emphasis added.) The evidence developed no different version of what happened than this statement of the appellant.
We have recently said that one of the elements which must be established to show that a killing was in self-defense is that “[t]he slayer must have reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm, or some felony, and that there was a necessity to kill in order to save himself therefrom.” Commonwealth v. Johnston, 438 Pa. 485, 489, 263 A. 2d 376 (1970). Accepting the view that appellant was acting in self-defense when he left his apartment, knife *173in hand to confront Kellam, it escapes me how, particularly at the appellate level, it can he said as a matter of law that Daniels entertained a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death and that there was a necessity to kill in order to save himself when his assailant had been once stabbed, had fallen down, and was trying to get up. The judge who was acting as fact-finder did not so interpret the evidence presented to him; I see no basis for this Court to do so.
Second: My greater concern with the Court’s decision, however, is that it assumes, without a word of discussion, that the common hallway of an apartment house is a no-retreat area for purposes of our law of self-defense.
The law of this Commonwealth, as is well known, is that when faced with an assault of deadly force while in his own home, Commonwealth v. Wilkes, 414 Pa. 246, 199 A. 2d 411 (1964), or in his place of business, Commonwealth v. Johnston, supra,1 a man need not retreat but may stand his ground and meet the attack with deadly force of his own. My research reveals that we have never considered the question of whether common hallways or stairways of apartment houses are no-retreat areas, and that only one jurisdiction, New York, has any law at all on the subject. In People v. Childs, 21 A.D. 2d 809, 810, 250 N.Y.S. 2d 926, 928 (1964), it was held that “[t]he apartments on the floor led to a common hallway which, in turn, opened onto the back porch. The latter was not part of the defendant’s home as a matter of law.” That case in turn relied on People v. Tomlins, 213 N.Y. 240, 107 N.E. 496 (1914), where Oardozo, J., made the following observations in answer to a litigant’s argument: “The cases in this court relied *174on by counsel for the people hold nothing to the contrary. People v. Sullivan, 7 N.Y. 396, is referred to as a case where the homicide was in the defendant’s dwelling. The murdered man and the defendant lived in a boarding house. Their rooms were on different floors. The affray started in the defendant’s room. The two men separated, and the defendant’s victim went downstairs. At the foot of the stairs he turned and went back. The defendant, instead of talcing shelter in his own room, remained on the landing of the stairway. The fight was renewed, and the murder followed. It was with reference to that situation that the court said that the defendant was under a duty to avoid the encounter. He had only to enter his own room mid he would have teen safe. The court did not hold that it was his duty to abandon his home and take refuge in the streets.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In a society that has come increasingly to live in apartments abutted by common hallways and staircases, the question implicit in this case assumes particular significance were we to consider it with the care which it warrants. Were we to agree, as I am satisfied we should, that one faced with an assault of deadly force while in an apartment hallway must retreat to his own apartment (if by doing so he could reduce the risk to his own life), then obviously appellant here could not establish self-defense in rushing in an aggressive manner from a no-retreat area (doorway of an apartment) into a retreat area.2
For the reasons indicated, I respectfully dissent.
Mr. Chief Justice Jones joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.

 The writer of this opinion did not agree with the extension of the no-retreat doctrine to a person’s place of business. See Commonwealth v. Johnston, 438 Pa. at 492 (Pomeboy, J., dissenting).

 In People v. Bonano, 59 N. J. 515, 284 A. 2d 349 (1971), it was recognized that a doorway of a residence is an area from which no retreat is required.