Commonwealth v. Stoyko (1984)

Mullaney, supra, at 704 , 95 S.Ct. at 1892 . [2] See Commonwealth v. Upsher, 497 Pa. 621 , 444 A.2d 90 (1982) (defendant must present "some evidence" of self-defense before prosecution is required to prove absence of self-defense); but see Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , 475 A.2d 714 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 361 , 83 L.Ed.2d 297 (1984) (evidence of intoxication places no new burden on prosecution).

See: Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 472, 475 A.2d 714, 723 (1984); Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259, 277 , 372 A.2d 687, 695-696 (1977); Commonwealth v. Garvin, 335 Pa.Super. 560, 564 , 485 A.2d 36, 38 (1984).

Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 462 , 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984); Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 500 Pa. 16, 26 , 454 A.2d 937 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 970 , 103 S.Ct. 2444 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1327 (1983); Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 510 Pa. 537, 540 , 510 A.2d 1217, 1218 (1986).

Counsel should be mindful of her ethical duties, including her duty of candor toward the tribunal, which prohibits an attorney from knowingly making a false statement of material fact.”); Commonwealth v. D’Amato, 526 A.2d 300, 314 (Pa. 1987) (“We will not hesitate, in appropriate cases, to refer matters of improper trial conduct of either the defense attorney or the prosecutor to the disciplinary board where the record suggests that the Code of Professional Responsibility ma…

Whether a defendant has established that his “faculties and sensibilities were so overwhelmed with drugs so that he could not form the specific intent to kill is a question of fact solely within the province of the jury, who is free to believe any, all, or none of the testimony regarding intoxication.” Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 580 Pa. 403 , 861 A.2d 898, 908 (2004), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1041 , 126 S.Ct. 1617 , 164 L.Ed.2d 336 (2006) (citing Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa.…

Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , 475 A.2d 714, 720 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 963 , 105 S.Ct. 361 , 83 L.Ed.2d 297 (1984) (“intoxication evidence, offered in an attempt to negate the intent necessary for a conviction for murder of the first degree, imposes no new burden on the Commonwealth and creates no new presumption for defendant which the Commonwealth must labor to overcome”).

E.g., Commonwealth v. Holcomb, 508 Pa. 425 , 498 A.2d 833 , 837 n. 6 (1985); Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , 475 A.2d 714, 720-21 (1984). 6 The relaxed waiver practice, however, was never the absolute appellant portrays it as being.

See Commonwealth v. Brown, 538 Pa. 410, 437-38, 648 A.2d 1177, 1190-91 (1994) (credibility determinations are within exclusive province of jury as fact-finder); Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 464-65 , 475 A.2d 714, 719-20 (1984) (evidence sufficiently supported first-degree murder conviction despite defense evidence that defendant was intoxicated and that his mind went “blank” at time of murder as jury was entitled to disbelieve defendant’s evidence of intoxication). 5…

We must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth [as verdict winner] and, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom favorable to the Commonwealth, de termine if there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 462 , 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984) (citing Commonwealth v. Hudson, 489 Pa. 620 , 414 A.2d 1381 (1980)).

See Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , 472-73 n. 7, 475 A.2d 714 (1984) (“this Court will scrutinize the record for bogus “ineffectiveness tactics” [on the part of defense counsel] and should not hesitate, if the facts and inferences so warrant, to refer the matter to the disciplinary board.”) We affirm appellant’s conviction of murder of the first degree and we turn our attention to review of his judgment of sentence of death as established by the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.…

Stoyko, supra, 504 Pa. at 472, 475 A.2d at 723 .

“The threshold inquiry in ineffectiveness cases is whether the issue/argument/tactic which counsel has foregone and which forms the basis for the assertion of ineffectiveness, was of arguable merit, for counsel cannot be considered to be ineffective for failure to assert a meritless claim.” Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 475 A.2d 714, 723 (Pa. 1984) (all emphasis in original).

Commonwealth v. Edwards, 521 Pa. 134, 143 , 555 A.2d 818, 823 (1989), quoting Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 462 , 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984).

Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 462 , 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984).

In Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 462 , 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 963 , 105 S.Ct. 361 , 83 L.Ed.2d 297 , we stated: In evaluating this contention [i.e., the defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence], we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom *554 favorable to the Commonwealth, determine if there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find ev…

When reviewing a sufficiency claim, “we [must] view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom favorable to the Commonwealth, determine if there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 462 , 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984).

Except for the defensive wounds, the bites were systematically inflicted in sexual areas of the victim’s body. *143 In reviewing for the sufficiency of the evidence the test is that: “[w]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom favorable to the Commonwealth, determine if there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealt…

See: Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 510 Pa. 603, 626 , 511 A.2d 764, 776 (1986), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 1617 , 94 L.Ed.2d 801 (1987); Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 472 , 475 A.2d 714, 723 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 963 , 105 S.Ct. 361 , 83 L.Ed.2d 297 (1984).

Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 510 Pa. 603, 626 , 511 A.2d 764, 776 (1986), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 1617 , 94 L.Ed.2d 801 (1987); Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 472 , 475 A.2d 714, 723 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 963 , 105 S.Ct. 361 , 83 L.Ed.2d 297 (1984); Commonwealth v. Cope, 359 Pa.Super. 140, 144 , 518 A.2d 819, 820 (1986).

In evaluating this contention, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner and, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom favorable to the Commonwealth, determine if there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 511 Pa. 553, 559 , 515 A.2d 865, 867 (1986); Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 462 , 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984).

Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 462 , 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984).

In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom favorable to the Commonwealth, determine if there is sufficient evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 462 , 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984).

Accord: Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 462 , 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984); Commonwealth v. Tribble, 502 Pa. 619, 621 , 467 A.2d 1130, 1131 (1983); Commonwealth v. Carpenter, 330 Pa.Super. 382, 384 , 479 A.2d 603, 604 (1984); Commonwealth v. Riley, 330 Pa.Super. 201, 207 , 479 A.2d 509, 512 (1984); Commonwealth v. Vazquez, 328 Pa.Super. 86, 89 , 476 A.2d 466, 467-468 (1984).

See: Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 472 , 475 A.2d 714, 723 (1984); Commonwealth v. Tann, 500 Pa. 593, 600 , 459 A.2d 322, 326 (1983).

See: Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 462 , 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984); Commonwealth v. Monaco, 327 Pa.Super. 369, 375 , 475 A.2d 843, 846 (1984); Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa.Super. 420, 424 , 471 A.2d 1228, 1229 (1984).

Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 462 , 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984); Commonwealth v. Hamm, 325 Pa.Super. 401, 407-408 , 473 A.2d 128, 131 (1984).

See: Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , —, 475 A.2d 714, 718 (1984); Commonwealth v. Hamm, 325 Pa.Super. 401, 407-408 , 473 A.2d 128, 131 (1984); Commonwealth v. Taylor, 324 Pa.Super. 420, 424 , 471 A.2d 1228, 1229 (1984).

See Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , 475 A.2d 714 (1984); Commonwealth v. Frey, 504 Pa. 428 , 475 A.2d 700 (1984); Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 500 Pa. 16 , 454 A.2d 937 (1982); Commonwealth v. McKenna, 476 Pa. 428 , 383 A.2d 174 (1978).

See Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 468 , 475 A.2d 714 (1984) (the wounding of another person who was in the car with the murder victim established that the defendant knowingly created the grave risk of death of another person) and Commonwealth v. Griffin, 511 Pa. 553 , 515 A.2d 865 (1986) (defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to others when he shot victim once in the head at close range at a party; no one else was injured).

See id. at 505 n. 5, 467 A.2d at 304 n. 5; accord Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , 472 n. 7, 475 A.2d 714 , 724 n. 7 (1984).

See Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 471 , 475 A.2d 714, 723 (1984); Commonwealth v. Holloway, 524 Pa. 342, 352 , 572 A.2d 687, 692 (1990); Commonwealth v. Pfaff, 233 Pa.Super. 153, 163 , 335 A.2d 751, 756 (1975).

See also Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 476-484 , 475 A.2d 714, 725-730 (1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 963 , 105 S.Ct. 361 , 83 L.Ed.2d 297 (1984) (Nix, C.J., would have remanded for appointment of new counsel to argue objections relating to imposition of death penalty; Hutchinson, J., would have remanded for appointment of new counsel and a hearing on ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the penalty phase of trial).

See Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , 475 A.2d 714, 723-24 (1984), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 361 , 83 L.Ed.2d 297 (1984). .

See Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , 475 A.2d 714, 724 (1984), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 361 , 83 L.Ed.2d 297 (1984).

See Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , 475 A.2d 714, 720-21 (1984) (finding that prejudicially ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing an arbitrary factor under § 9711(h)); Commonwealth v. Chambers, 528 Pa. 558 , 599 A.2d 630, 644 (Pa.1992) (reliance in any manner upon the Bible or any other religious writing in support of the imposition of a penalty of death an arbitrary factor). 6 1.

See Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , 475 A.2d 714, 720 (1984).

See, Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , 475 A.2d 714 (1984) (defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to others when he wounded another person who was in the car with the murder victim); *347 See, also, Commonwealth v. Smith, 518 Pa. 15 , 540 A.2d 246 (1988) (jury entitled to find that appellant created a grave risk of death to the others who were present on the porch and in close proximity to the victim where there was a possibility of their being struck by an e…

See Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455, 475 , 475 A.2d 714, 724 (1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 963 , 105 S.Ct. 361 , 83 L.Ed.2d 297 (1984); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(h)(3)(iii).

See for example, Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 504 Pa. 455 , 475 A.2d 714 (1984), (intent to commit murder of the first degree not precluded by intoxication); Kent, supra, (intent to commit suicide not precluded by intoxication); Murrary on Contracts 2d §11 (intoxication must be substantial to avoid the capacity to contract).

Specifically, appellant asserts prejudicial error in two instances wherein the court’s instructions did not exactly track the language of the Sentencing Code, to-wit: 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711(e) Mitigating circumstances.— Mitigating circumstances shall include the following: sfc s¡s * * * * (4) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime, [actual instruction given to jury: “The youth or advanced age of the defendant at the time of the crime.”] (5) The defendant acted under …

See also Commonwealth v. Stoyko, 475 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. 1984) (stating that “intoxication evidence, offered in an attempt to negate the intent necessary for a conviction for murder of the first degree, imposes no new burden on the Commonwealth and creates no new presumption for defendant which the Commonwealth must labor to overcome”).