Commonwealth v. Hathaway case brief summary
500 A.2d 443 (1985)
CASE FACTS
Defendant shot his wife one morning after she dropped off the couple's child at day care. As the wife attempted to run from defendant, he pursued her and fired several shots, causing her to fall to the ground. He reloaded the gun and fired several more shots at her head. Defendant was convicted for first degree murder and possession of firearms without a license. Defendant claimed on appeal the trial judge erred conducting a collective voir dire, that testimony from a psychiatrist regarding defendant's ability to control his actions should have been admitted, that the jury should have been charged with diminished capacity and a sympathy verdict of voluntary manslaughter, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed defendant's convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm without a license. The court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion during voir dire, that defendant was not entitled to present an irresistible impulse defense, and that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
500 A.2d 443 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant sought review of a judgment
from the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (Pennsylvania),
which convicted defendant of first degree murder and possession of
firearms without a license.CASE FACTS
Defendant shot his wife one morning after she dropped off the couple's child at day care. As the wife attempted to run from defendant, he pursued her and fired several shots, causing her to fall to the ground. He reloaded the gun and fired several more shots at her head. Defendant was convicted for first degree murder and possession of firearms without a license. Defendant claimed on appeal the trial judge erred conducting a collective voir dire, that testimony from a psychiatrist regarding defendant's ability to control his actions should have been admitted, that the jury should have been charged with diminished capacity and a sympathy verdict of voluntary manslaughter, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.
DISCUSSION
- The court rejected defendant's claims and affirmed the convictions.
- The court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the manner that voir dire was handled, that the psychiatric evidence was not admissible because the irresistible impulse was not a recognized defense, that the diminished capacity charge was not permissible to the specific intent crimes at issue, and that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed defendant's convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm without a license. The court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion during voir dire, that defendant was not entitled to present an irresistible impulse defense, and that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment