refusing to permit defense counsel to cross-examine Commonwealth witness about whether he lied in previous trial not abuse of discretion where it was not established that he had in fact lied in previous trial and was never charged with perjury
How later courts described this case
- refusing to permit defense counsel to cross-examine Commonwealth witness about whether he lied in previous trial not abuse of discretion where it was not established that he had in fact lied in previous trial and was never charged with perjury
- holding that “[appellant’s defense was not prejudiced by the fact that, at a prior time, his counsel had represented a Commonwealth witness”
- holding that defendants are not entitled to statements of prosecution witnesses in advance of trial where witnesses were not eyewitnesses
- stating that the use of a single photograph of a suspect when obtaining an identification may be impermissibly suggestive
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion. I write separately only to reiterate my belief that the jury’s sentence can be affirmed despite the consideration of an improper aggravating circumstance by the jury for the reasons expressed in Commonwealth v. Holcomb, 508 Pa. 425 , 456 n. 16, 498 A.2d 833 , 899 n. 16 (1985) (Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court).