Commonwealth v. McLaughlin
142 A. 213, 293 Pa. 218, 1928 Pa. LEXIS 498 (1928)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for second-degree murder requires a finding of malice, which, in the context of vehicular homicide, demands evidence of a 'wickedness of disposition' or a conscious disregard for a high probability of causing death. Mere negligence, recklessness, or intoxication resulting in a fatal accident is insufficient to establish the implied malice required for murder.
Facts:
- The defendant, a 20-year-old man, was driving his father's car at approximately 10:30 PM on a well-lit street.
- He was traveling downgrade at a speed of 20 to 25 miles per hour.
- Frank Ravitt, his wife, and their infant in a baby coach were walking in the street ahead of the car, in the same direction, because the sidewalk was in poor condition.
- The defendant's car struck the family, killing Frank Ravitt and the infant, and seriously injuring the wife.
- The force of the impact threw the bodies of the man and woman a distance of 25 to 50 feet.
- The defendant claimed the family veered into his path suddenly after he had ample room to pass.
- After the car stopped about 200 feet past the collision point, the defendant ran back and assisted in getting the injured parties into cars to be taken to the hospital.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth prosecuted the defendant in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Luzerne County (trial court).
- A jury found the defendant guilty of murder of the second degree.
- The trial court entered a judgment of sentence against the defendant.
- The district attorney entered a nolle prosequi on a separate indictment for involuntary manslaughter.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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 a driver's conduct in a fatal automobile accident, absent evidence of a specific intent to harm or a conscious and wanton disregard for human life, constitute the malice required for a conviction of second-degree murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Schaffer
No. A driver's conduct in a fatal automobile accident does not constitute the malice required for second-degree murder without evidence of a 'wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, or a mind regardless of social duty.' Second-degree murder is common law murder and requires malice, which is an essential element that distinguishes it from lesser crimes like involuntary manslaughter. While malice can be inferred from wanton and reckless conduct, the court found the facts here did not support such an inference. The defendant's failure to see the people in time to avoid them negated a specific intent to injure, and his actions after the collision—running back to help the victims—negatived the idea of a 'wickedness of disposition or hardness of heart.' The court concluded that even if the defendant was intoxicated, that fact alone would not sustain a murder conviction. The proper charge, if any, would be involuntary manslaughter.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Simpson
Yes. The evidence was sufficient for a jury to infer the malice required for second-degree murder from the driver's wanton and reckless conduct at the time of the collision. The dissent argues that the appellate court should defer to the jury and trial judge, who observed the witnesses' demeanor and were in a far better position to draw inferences from the evidence. The fact that the defendant returned to help after driving 200 feet past the scene does not necessarily negate malice; an equally plausible inference is that he returned out of self-interest after realizing fleeing would be worse. The jury's conclusion that the defendant's conduct showed a 'wicked disregard of the consequences of his acts' was a reasonable one and should be sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Analysis:
This case significantly raises the evidentiary bar for sustaining a second-degree murder conviction in vehicular homicide cases. It solidifies the distinction between murder and manslaughter by clarifying that the element of malice requires more than gross negligence or recklessness; it demands a state of mind akin to a 'depraved heart.' The decision channels most fatal driving cases toward manslaughter charges, making it much more difficult for prosecutors to secure murder convictions unless they can present clear evidence that the driver acted with a conscious disregard for an almost certain risk of death, rather than just a high degree of carelessness.
