Commonwealth v. EMBRY, 272 A.2d 178 (Pa. 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Commonwealth v. EMBRY, 272 A.2d 178 (Pa. 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
123 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Com. v. Taylor, Q. (pasuperct, 2018-10-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Taylor, Q.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2018 · confidence medium
Importantly, Floyd can be read as having overruled Embry.3 Cotton, supra,at 833, n.2. ____________________________________________ 3 Commonwealth v. Embry, 272 A.2d 178, 179 (Pa. 1971) had held that medical testimony on causation of death to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” was insufficient to establish an element of the crime of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. -7- J-A14041-18 In Commonwealth v. Moore, 498 A.2d 970 (Pa. Super. 1985), this Court concluded: Obviously, Embry, supra, is overruled by Floyd, supra, to the extent that it required the relevant medical expert to testify…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cantwell v. Allegheny County
Pa. · 1984 · confidence medium
We note further that even if the Crime Lab had done the requested testing immediately and this case had then been presented to a jury, the jury would have been under no obligation to believe the results of those tests. "[I]t is hornbook law that a jury is never bound by an expert witness. . . .” Commonwealth v. Embry, 441 Pa. 183, 186 , 272 A.2d 178, 179 (1971).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Roberson
Pa. · 1979 · confidence medium
In his causation argument, appellant has relied on Commonwealth v. Embry, 441 Pa. 183, 185 , 272 A.2d 178, 179 (1971).
cited Cited "see" Com. v. Brahm, L.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
cited Cited "see" State v. Hutchinson
N.H. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Embry, 272 A.2d at 179 .
examined Cited "see" Stack v. United States (4×)
D.C. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Embry, 441 Pa. 183 , 272 A.2d 178, 179 (1971) (proof of causation beyond a reasonable doubt required medical testimony that physical and emotional stress resulting from struggle over purse was sole cause of fatal heart attack "with a reasonable degree of medical certainty"); Commonwealth v. Radford, 428 Pa. 279 , 236 A.2d 802, 803-04 (1968) (evidence of probable causation insufficient for government to meet its burden of proof on causation); People v. Brown, 57 Ill.App.3d 528 , 15 Ill.Dec. 113, 116 , 373 N.E.2d 459, 462 (1978) (state's burden is to show beyond a reasonable …
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Green (2×)
Pa. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Embry, 441 Pa. 183 , 272 A.2d 178 (1971); Commonwealth v. Radford, 428 Pa. 279 , 236 A.2d 802 (1968).
examined Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Robinson (4×)
Pa. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Embry, 441 Pa. 183 , 272 A.2d 178 (1971); Commonwealth v. Radford, 428 Pa. 279 , 236 A.2d 802 (1968).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commonwealth v. Newkirk (2×)
Pa. · 1974 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Commonwealth v. Embry, 441 Pa. 183 , 272 A.2d 178 (1971), and Commonwealth v. Radford, 428 Pa. 279 , 236 A.2d 802 (1968); with Commonwealth v. Amato, 449 Pa. 592 , 297 A.2d 462 (1972), and Commonwealth v. Webb, 449 Pa. 490 , 296 A.2d 734 (1972).
Commonwealth
v.
Embry Et Al., Appellants
Appeal, 90.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jan 7, 1971.
272 A.2d 178
John J. Dean, Assistant Public Defender, with him H. David Rothman, Assistant Public Defender, and George H. Ross, Public Defender, for appellants., Carol Mary Los, Assistant District Attorney, with her Robert L. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney, and Robert W. Duggan, District Attorney, for appellee.
Bell, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy.
Cited by 48 opinions  |  Published

Opinion by

Me. Justice Jones,

This is a direct appeal from the imposition of a life sentence following a jury determination that appellants, all of whom were represented by court-appointed counsel, Avere guilty of murder in the first degree.

On the morning of December 20, 1967, around 10:45 a.m., Hattie Littlestone, seventy-one years of age, was set upon and robbed of her purse by three youths. In the ensuing struggle to prevent the purse-snatching, she fell to the ground and the youths fled. Miss Little-stone was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. While a variety of contentions are raised, because of our disposition of this appeal we can confine our discussion to one point: whether sufficient evidence was introduced to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hattie Littlestone’s death was caused by a criminal agency.

[*185] In Com. v. Radford, 428 Pa. 279, 236 A. 2d 802 (1968), we clearly indicated that proof of causation must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Attempting to meet this burden, the Chief Forensic Pathologist for the Coroner’s Office of Allegheny County, Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., who performed the autopsy, testified for the prosecution that the sole cause of death was a myocardial infarction, commonly termed a “heart attack.” Despite the existence of a past history of cardiac-related problems, * Dr. Wecht further opined, “with a reasonable degree of medical certainty,’’ that the myocardial infarction was caused by physical and emotional stress occasioned by the purse snatching and ensuing struggle. No other evidence was presented by the Commonwealth to directly link the purse snatching with Miss Littlestone’s death.

Upon cross-examination by the defense attorneys as well as questioning by the trial judge, Dr. Wecht expressly admitted that while he was positively certain that death occurred due to the infarction, he was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the struggle produced the stress which, in turn, could have caused the myocardial infarction. Instead, he was only able to reconstruct the chain of causation with a “reasonable degree of medical certainty.” That the witness was not confused by this language is evidenced by his later testimony that in a proper case he could find causation beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Radford, the Commonwealth’s witness was similarly unable to resolve the issue of causation beyond a reasonable doubt. To semantically distinguish Rad-ford’s “probable” from this appeal’s “reasonable degree[*186] of medical certainty” would be irrelevant since causation must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Although it is hornbook law that a jury is never bound by an expert witness, when only one witness is presented by the Commonwealth to establish causation and that witness cannot do so beyond a reasonable doubt, a necessary element of the proof of that crime is miss-Mg.

Judgment of sentence reversed.

.. Mr Justice Cohen took no part in the decision of this case.
*

Dr. Wecht testified that the autopsy also revealed the victim had “evidence of long-standing disease of the coronary arteries” and “evidence of old scarring in the heart from previous heart attacks, previous myocardial infarctions.”