From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Radford

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 9, 1968
428 Pa. 279 (Pa. 1968)

Summary

holding medical expert's testimony as to cause of death insufficient because he stated defendant's assault on victim "probably" caused his death

Summary of this case from Com. v. Passmore

Opinion

November 15, 1967.

January 9, 1968.

Criminal law — Practice — Murder — Cause of death — Proof — Sufficiency — Burden on Commonwealth.

In this appeal by the Commonwealth from an order arresting judgment following defendant's conviction of second degree murder, in which it appeared that in the course of a robbery the victim was beaten by the defendant on February 13 and immediately hospitalized and died in the hospital on March 3 as a result of a mesenteric vein thrombosis which caused gangrene peritonitis and finally death and a medical expert testified for the Commonwealth that defendant's assault on the deceased probably caused the death, it was Held that this was insufficient to prove the element of causation beyond a reasonable doubt and that the court below had properly arrested judgment.

Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 10, Jan. T., 1968, from judgment of Court of Oyer and Terminer of Berks County, June T., 1965, No. 259, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. James A. Radford. Judgment affirmed.

Indictment charging defendant with murder. Before BERTOLET, J.

Verdict of guilty of murder in second degree entered, and defendant's motion in arrest of judgment granted, opinion by HESS, P. J., dissenting opinion by BERTOLET, J. Commonwealth appealed.

Ralph J. Althouse, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, with him W. Richard Eshelman, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellant.

Clinton J. Najarian, with him Albert A. Stallone, for appellee.


This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the grant of defendant's motion in arrest of judgment after a jury conviction of second degree murder.

The facts may be summarized as follows: On February 13, 1965, two men entered the home of deceased on the pretext of making a telephone call to get aid for their broken-down car. After gaining access, they immediately commenced searching the premises for certain moneys thought to be hidden in the house. During the course of the search, the deceased was severely beaten by defendant necessitating his immediate hospitalization. The deceased remained in the hospital from February 13 to March 3, 1965 when he died as a result of a mesenteric vein thrombosis which caused gangrene peritonitis and finally death.

The crux of the problem presented on appeal is whether the beating administered by defendant was the "legal cause" of the thrombosis which set off a chain reaction eventually resulting in death.

The Commonwealth, in an effort to prove legal causation, produced one expert medical witness who had performed an autopsy on the body of the deceased. After a careful study and evaluation of the notes of testimony, we are drawn to the conclusion that at best his testimony indicates that defendant's assault on the deceased probably caused the death.

The Commonwealth is charged with the responsibility of proving every essential element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Wucherer, 351 Pa. 305, 311, 41 A.2d 574 (1945). Causation being an essential element to the crime of murder, the failure of the Commonwealth to prove more than probable causation, justified the lower court's grant of defendant's motion in arrest of judgment.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Radford

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 9, 1968
428 Pa. 279 (Pa. 1968)

holding medical expert's testimony as to cause of death insufficient because he stated defendant's assault on victim "probably" caused his death

Summary of this case from Com. v. Passmore

holding proof of causation must be established beyond a reasonable doubt

Summary of this case from Com. v. Lomax

In Radford the medical evidence offered to prove causation was to the effect that the assault on the deceased by the accused probably caused the death.

Summary of this case from Com. v. Williams

In Radford, we affirmed the granting of a motion in arrest of judgment where the physician who performed the autopsy on the victim was able to testify only that "the defendant's assault on the deceased probably caused the death."

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Ilgenfritz

In Radford, the physician's opinion as to causation was held to be insufficient because "at best his testimony indicate[d] that defendant's assault on the deceased probably caused the death."

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Odom

In Com. v. Radford, 428 Pa. 279, 236 A.2d 802 (1968), we clearly indicated that proof of causation must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Embry

In Radford, the Commonwealth's witness was similarly unable to resolve the issue of causation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Embry

In Radford we held that the Commonwealth had proved only that defendant's assault on the decedent probably caused the thrombosis which resulted in peritonitis and finally death.

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Brown
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Radford

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth, Appellant, v. Radford

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 9, 1968

Citations

428 Pa. 279 (Pa. 1968)
236 A.2d 802

Citing Cases

Welch v. State

"If death was due solely and exclusively to natural cause, i. e. heart failure, with the blow in no way…

People v. Flenon

See People v. McFee, 35 Mich. App. 227 (1971). The criminal standard requiring proof beyond a reasonable…