Appeal, No. 78, March T., 1950, from judgment and sentence of Court of Oyer and Terminer of Westmoreland County, May T., 1947, No. 299, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Dominick Daverse. Judgment and sentence affirmed.
Paul K. McCormick, with him H. Reginald Belden, for appellant.
C. Ward Eicher, with him John K. Best, Assistant District Attorneys and L. Alex Sculco, District Attorney, for appellee.
Before Drew, C.j., Stern, Stearne, Jones and Bell, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ALLEN M. STEARNE
Dominick Daverse, the appellant, was convicted of the murder of Theresa Daverse, his divorced wife. The
verdict was guilty of murder in the first degree with penalty of death. The killing was deliberate and intentional. Appellant's defense is that the crime was one of impulse and did not arise out of premeditation and malice. Appellant also specifies trial errors.
Appellant and his wife were married in 1934. They had four children. The marriage proved unhappy and was terminated by divorce in 1946. On April 11, 1947, appellant procured a loaded revolver. He followed his former wife in two different buses, from her place of employment. After disembarking from the last bus she attempted to elude appellant. As she fled appellant shot her. While lying in the street appellant again shot the victim several times exclaiming: "I told you I'd get you, you son of a bitch, you." After the shooting appellant walked away, and was seen to place the then empty revolver to his head and pulled the trigger, but being empty the revolver was not discharged. Appellant then fled. In the adjoining city of Uniontown he shaved off his mustache. After traveling through several southern states, eighteen months later appellant was apprehended in Denver, Colorado, where he had been employed under an assumed name. Upon his arrest he gave and signed a statement wherein he confessed his crime, which he attempted to excuse in the following language: "The reason why I shot her was that she gave misstatements about me, to her brother about support and lied all the time and nights she wouldn't be home, and ruined me from right to left. There is a hundred things she did to me."
Appellant contends that the evidence discloses that "... this was a crime of impulse and not of premeditation and malice" and that he "... was not given the benefit of that fair and impartial [trial]". He bases such contention upon five points: (1) "irresistible impulse" (2) the trial judge unduly influenced the jury (3) failure of the trial judge more fully to review the
evidence (4) inadequate instructions to the jury and (5) expression by trial judge of ...