Louis Silverman, Philadelphia, for appellant.
F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Steven H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief Appeals Div., Suzanne Balen Ercole, Asst. Dist. Atty., Mark Sendrow, Asst. Dist. Atty., Asst. Chief, Appeals Div., Abraham J. Gafni, Deputy Dist. Atty. For Law, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Jones, C. J., and Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Roberts, J., concurs in the result.
Appellant, Simon Evans, was tried by a judge and jury and found guilty of murder in the first degree. Post-trial motions were denied and appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal followed.
Appellant's conviction arose out of the murder of Mack Baker on January 7, 1972, in the City of Philadelphia.
Appellant first argues that his oral confession should have been excluded because it was not preceded by
proper Miranda warnings. We do not agree. Appellant was arrested on January 8, 1972, at about 7:00 a. m., by officers of the Philadelphia police. When police initially arrested appellant, they started to give him his Miranda warnings, but they were interrupted by the appellant, who stated: "I know all that." After this interruption, appellant was transported to police headquarters. At this point, the failure of appellant to receive his full Miranda warnings did not prejudice him because he was not questioned by the police officers. After appellant arrived at police headquarters, he was given his full Miranda warnings, and questioned. He initially denied complicity in the homicide. He was thereafter reinterviewed and he gave an oral confession. Under these facts, the record supports the Commonwealth's contention that the oral confession was preceded by full Miranda warnings and voluntarily given. See Commonwealth v. Parks, 453 Pa. 296, 309 A.2d 725 (1973).
Appellant next argues that the court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to prove that appellant purchased heroin with the money he obtained in the robbery-murder of the victim, Mack Baker. The argument is based on the theory that this testimony related to other crimes for which appellant was not on trial and thereby prejudiced his case. This evidence offered by the Commonwealth was relevant and admissible to show appellant's motive and intent in the robbery and murder of the victim. See Commonwealth v. Faison, 437 Pa. 432, 264 A.2d 394 (1970).
Appellant next argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because "irreconcilable" differences existed between himself and his attorney which prejudiced his defense. The record below ...