“grossly inappropriate” questioning of defendant by defense counsel opened door and subjected defendant to ridicule regarding past drug-related activities
How later courts described this case
- “grossly inappropriate” questioning of defendant by defense counsel opened door and subjected defendant to ridicule regarding past drug-related activities
- A defendant’s past criminal activities may not be used to impeach him so long as he has not taken the stand and thereby not opened the door to cross-examination.
- possession of marijuana is not crimen falsi (per Brosky, J. with one judge concurring and one judge dissenting)
- “grossly inappropriate” questioning of defendant by defense counsel opened door and subjected defendant to *73 ridicule regarding past drug-related activities
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I agree with the majority that counsel should not have asked appellant whether he had been convicted—particularly since this case is a drug case and the prior conviction was for possession of marijuana. I believe, however, that an additional aspect of the manner in which counsel questioned appellant should be mentioned.
After asking appellant to identify himself, counsel asked only three questions: Whether appellant had sold the heroin in question; whether he liad been convicted of a crime before; and when, and of what crime. (N.T. 86a) When the assistant district attorney proceeded to cross examine appellant regarding the circumstances of the crime, counsel objected, arguing that the assistant district attorney could not go “beyond that which I brought out on direct.” (N.T. 88a) The objection was overruled, and the cross-examination proceeded, much to appellant’s disadvantage, for the assistant district attorney was able to elicit from appellant the admissions that he knew Bonnie Johnson, and that she and Denise Duez had indeed come to his door on February 16, 1978.
*290 Counsel’s conception that he could preclude cross-examination of his client is so mistaken, see Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 , 78 S.Ct. 622 , 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958); Commonwealth v. Lopinson, 427 Pa. 284 , 234 A.2d 552 , appeal after remand, 449 Pa. 33 , 296 A.2d 524 cert. denied, 411 U.S. 986 , 93 S.Ct. 2269 , 36 L.Ed.2d 963 (1967); McCormick on Evidence, (Cleary ed. 1972), § 26 pp. 53-55, as to destroy any confidence in the quality of his representation of appellant. It seems to me that counsel’s manner of questioning appellant did nothing but harm appellant’s defense, with no offsetting gain.