# Porter v. Commonwealth

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 3, 1973 · 454 Pa. 461

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758149

## Case

- **Full name:** Porter (Et Al., Appellant) v. Commonwealth
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 3, 1973
- **Citations:** 454 Pa. 461; 309 A.2d 709; 1973 Pa. LEXIS 784
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Eobeets
- **Judges:** Eobeets, Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino
- **Cited by:** 3 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/9758149

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Eobeets :
I dissent. In a prior decision, Porter v. Commonwealth, 419 Pa. 596 , 215 A.2d 646 (1966), this Court determined that the interests of both Porter and Sechan had to be tried in a single proceeding. The majority today holds that reversible error was committed when testimony unquestionably relevant to Porter’s interest (but not directly to Sechan’s) was admitted in that proceeding.
In my judgment, the evidence was properly before the tribunal. As a general rule, “evidence is admissible if it is competent for any purpose . . . Morse Boulger Destructor Co. v. Aroni, 376 Pa. 57, 65 , 101 A.2d 705, 709 (1954). I am therefore in agreement with Judge Eogees of the Commonwealth Court that “[t]his holding overlooks the fact that at the trial the issues were not simply that of the apportionment due the appellant for his right to extract minerals, but also that of the total amount of damages for the property (required by the code to be fixed by the jury) and the portion of those damages properly due the Porters. The testimony as to sales of properties comparable to the Porter property was relevant to both of these issues and therefore clearly admissible in this trial.” Sechan Limestone v. Commonwealth, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 621, 625 , 288 A.2d 553, 554 (1972) (opinion of Judge Eogees in Support of Affirmance, joined by *472 Bowman, P. J. and Wilkinson, J.) (emphasis in the original; footnote omitted). Sechan conld have requested a limiting instruction. Counsel neither asked for such an instruction nor objected to the judge’s charge. Consequently, the present claim of error has not been preserved for appellate review. Bizich v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 391 Pa. 640 , 139 A.2d 663 (1958); Pa. R. C. P. 227 (b); see Robert F. Felte, Inc. v. White, 451 Pa. 137, 145-46 , 302 A.2d 347, 352 (1973).
Moreover, in my view the rebuttal evidence relative to royalty payments was properly excluded by the trial judge. See Werner v. Commonwealth, 432 Pa. 280 , 247 A.2d 444 (1968); Sgarlat Estate v. Commonwealth, 398 Pa. 406 , 158 A.2d 541 , cert. denied, 364 U.S. 817 , 81 S. Ct. 49 (1960); Whitenight v. Commonwealth, 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 144 , 273 A.2d 752 (1971).
The order of the Commonwealth Court should be affirmed, and I dissent from the Court’s refusal to do so.
Mr. Justice Nix joins in this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758149. Public record. Not legal advice.