Commonwealth v. Keller
1964 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 249, 35 Pa. D. & C.2d 615 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conduct that openly outrages public decency and is injurious to public morals constitutes a misdemeanor at common law, even if not defined by statute. The indecent disposition of a dead human body falls within this category of common law offenses.
Facts:
- From 1961, Violet Miller Keller, while married to but separated from her husband who was in the military, engaged in an illicit sexual relationship with Roy Schaeffer.
- In April 1962, Keller secretly gave birth to a female child she claimed was stillborn.
- She wrapped the infant's body, placed it in a paper carton, and hid it on a shelf in the basement of her apartment building.
- The first body remained hidden until it was discovered in a state of advanced decomposition in August 1963.
- In March 1963, Keller gave birth to a second child secretly in her bathroom.
- After this child's death, she placed its body in a sanitary napkin box and hid it in her bathroom closet.
- Keller did not inform anyone of either pregnancy, birth, or the disposition of the bodies.
- The second body was discovered by police during a search of her apartment on March 23, 1963.
Procedural Posture:
- Violet Miller Keller was indicted by a grand jury on one count of adultery and two counts of the common law misdemeanor 'indecent disposition of a dead body.'
- Prior to trial, Keller's motion to quash the indictment for misjoinder of counts and for failing to charge a cognizable crime was overruled by the trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury in the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the County of Lebanon.
- At the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence, Keller demurred to the evidence, and the court overruled the demurrer.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Keller on all three charges.
- Following the verdict, Keller filed a motion in arrest of judgment and a motion for a new trial with the trial court, arguing insufficiency of the evidence and error in the admission of her confession.
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 secretly hiding the dead bodies of newborn infants in a basement and a closet, thereby preventing their proper burial and discovery, constitute the common law misdemeanor of 'indecent disposition of a dead body' under Pennsylvania law, even if no statute explicitly criminalizes such conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Gates, P. J.
Yes, secretly hiding the dead bodies of newborn infants constitutes the common law misdemeanor of indecent disposition of a dead body. The court reasoned that Pennsylvania's criminal code explicitly preserves common law offenses that are not specifically addressed by statute. Citing historical precedent like Commonwealth v. McHale, the court affirmed that the common law is flexible and can punish acts that are inherently offensive to public peace, decency, morals, and economy. The court established that a universal standard of decency regarding the treatment of the dead exists across cultures and history, from ancient civilizations to English common law. Disposing of the bodies in a way that prevented decent burial, offended public sensibilities, and potentially obstructed justice (by making the cause of death indeterminable) was an act that openly outraged public decency and was injurious to public morals, thus qualifying as a common law misdemeanor.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the vitality of common law crimes in Pennsylvania, allowing the judiciary to criminalize conduct that violates fundamental societal norms of decency even in the absence of a specific legislative prohibition. It demonstrates the common law's inherent flexibility to address novel or unforeseen acts that outrage the public conscience. The case sets a precedent that conduct universally recognized as immoral and indecent can be prosecuted, bridging gaps in the statutory criminal code. However, it also highlights the ongoing tension between judicial law-making in the criminal sphere and the principle that criminal liability should be based on clear, pre-existing statutes.
