observing that a “witness’ motivation for testifying is always of undeniable relevance and a defendant is entitled to have the jury consider any fact that may have influenced the witness’ testimony”
How later courts described this case
- observing that a “witness’ motivation for testifying is always of undeniable relevance and a defendant is entitled to have the jury consider any fact that may have influenced the witness’ testimony”
- “[a] witness’ motivation for testifying is always of undeniable relevance and a defendant is entitled to have the jury consider any fact that may have influenced the witness’ testimony”
- “A robber or other wrongdoer engaged in felonious conduct has no privilege of self-defense . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
M. F. Sapala, J.
(concurring). I concur and join in Judge Markman’s opinion. It is necessary to emphasize that the refusal of the trial court to permit cross-examination of a res gestae witness with regard to a grant of immunity was clear error. Indeed, it is the kind of error that is usually so offensive to the maintenance of a sound judicial system that it should never be considered harmless.
In this case, however, proof of guilt of first-degree felony murder was overwhelming. Furthermore, the defendant’s testimony confirmed that he shot the deceased, and there was no evidence in the record that his testimony was other than voluntary. There is no reason to conclude that the defendant testified only because Cordell testified for the prosecution.
*691 A conviction fairly reached should not be set aside where proof of guilt is overwhelming even when serious judicial error such as seen here occurs.