# In the Interest of M.M.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · February 2, 1995 · 439 Pa. Super. 307

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9518171

## Case

- **Full name:** In the INTEREST OF M.M. Appeal of M.M.
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 2, 1995
- **Citations:** 439 Pa. Super. 307; 653 A.2d 1271; 1995 Pa. Super. LEXIS 132
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Beck
- **Judges:** Rowley, Cavanaugh, Wieand, McEwen, Cirillo, Olszewski, Beck, Kelly, Popovich, Reversal
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9518171

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating court’s order placing juvenile on intensive drug and alcohol probation constitutes final order subject to appeal

## Opinion text

BECK, Judge,
dissenting:
I join in the Opinion authored by my colleague Judge Kelly and write separately to address the concern raised by Judge Cirillo that allowance of this type of questioning results in our approval of defense counsel going on a “fishing expedition.”
The record reveals that the district attorney objected to and the trial judge refused to allow any questions relating to the witness’s consumption of alcohol on the evening in question. Defense counsel’s questions, i.e., “Had you had anything to drink that evening?” and “Had you been to any bars?” went directly to a crucial and elementary issue on cross-examination, that is, the witness’s ability to observe what he claimed to have observed. Since this case was based primarily on the witness’s identification of appellant and, as discussed in the *337 dissenting opinion, that identification contained some inconsistencies, it was appropriate to allow cross-examination on the possible cause for the inconsistencies.
Allowing such questioning does not mean we open the floodgates to a series of irrelevant or collateral issues which do no more than inject prejudice into the proceedings. In addition to the Commonwealth’s ability to rehabilitate a witness, the trial judge has the power to avoid possible prejudice by promptly curtailing questioning that is “going nowhere.” This is especially true in a juvenile proceeding where there is no jury present.
Based on the analysis made in the dissenting opinion, I believe that appellant was entitled to challenge the witness’s ability to observe by asking preliminary questions regarding alcohol intake. Should the answers to those questions provide a basis for further questioning along that line, such should be permitted. Where those answers do nothing to support defense counsel’s position, the questioning should be terminated by the trial court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9518171. Public record. Not legal advice.