Lexplug logoLexplug

Commonwealth v. Drum

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
58 Pa. 9 (1868) (1868)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To establish murder in the first degree, the Commonwealth must prove a wilful, deliberate, and premeditated intent to kill, which can be formed in a very brief period of time, as long as the mind has had sufficient time to consciously form the design to kill. A homicide is only excusable on the grounds of self-defense if the slayer had no other possible or probable means of escaping and faced imminent peril of death or great bodily harm.


Facts:

  • There was a history of prior altercations between the defendant, Drum, and the deceased, David Mohigan.
  • The Commonwealth's evidence suggested that Drum armed himself with a dirk knife with the intent to use it on Mohigan.
  • The defense claimed Drum carried the knife for upcoming hunting excursions, not for a planned confrontation.
  • On the night of the incident, outside a saloon, Mohigan, described as a larger man, initiated a physical altercation by striking Drum with his fists.
  • During the altercation, two other individuals, the Miskellys, intervened on Drum's behalf, momentarily diverting Mohigan's attack.
  • Drum then stabbed Mohigan once in the left side with the knife, inflicting a fatal wound.
  • The defense argued that Drum was cornered by a railing and could not escape, while the Commonwealth argued that he had an opportunity to retreat during the intervention but chose not to.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania indicted Drum for the murder of David Mohigan.
  • The case proceeded to a jury trial in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Westmoreland County, a trial court.
  • Following the presentation of evidence and closing arguments, Justice Agnew delivered this charge to the jury to instruct them on the applicable law before their deliberations.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the formation of a specific intent to kill, even if it occurs in a very short period of time immediately preceding the killing, satisfy the 'deliberate and premeditated' requirement for murder in the first degree?


Opinions:

Jury Instruction - Justice Agnew

Yes. The formation of a specific intent to kill satisfies the 'deliberate and premeditated' requirement for first-degree murder, regardless of the length of time over which it is formed, provided there was sufficient time for the mind to become fully conscious of its own purpose and design. The law distinguishes between degrees of homicide based on the defendant's state of mind. Murder in the first degree requires a 'wilful, deliberate and premeditated' intent to kill. 'Wilful' is the intent to kill; 'deliberate' means the mind is fully conscious of its purpose; and 'premeditated' means there was enough time to frame the design to kill. While no specific duration is required, and thought can be swift, the intent must be the product of conscious thought and not the immediate offspring of rashness or impetuous temper. This can be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body. In contrast, second-degree murder involves malice but no specific intent to kill, while manslaughter is an unlawful killing without malice, typically occurring in a sudden heat of passion from sufficient provocation. For a homicide to be excused as self-defense, the slayer must have had no other probable means of escaping and must have acted out of a necessity arising from imminent peril of life or great bodily harm. The law prioritizes escape over taking a life, establishing a duty to retreat if possible.



Analysis:

This jury instruction in Commonwealth v. Drum is one of the most influential documents in American homicide law. It provides the classic formulation for distinguishing between the degrees of murder and manslaughter, which has been widely adopted by other jurisdictions. Its key contribution is the clarification that 'premeditation' does not require long-term planning but can occur in a very short span of time, establishing the 'no time is too short' doctrine. This decision shifted the legal focus from the duration of the thought to the quality of the thought—whether a conscious design to kill was actually formed. The charge's clear articulation of the duty to retreat before using deadly force also solidified a key tenet of self-defense law in many states.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Commonwealth v. Drum (1868) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Drum