# Commonwealth v. Richardson

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 11, 1984 · 504 Pa. 358

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762133

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. William RICHARDSON, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 11, 1984
- **Citations:** 504 Pa. 358; 473 A.2d 1361; 1984 Pa. LEXIS 231
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Larsen
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Larsen, Nix
- **Cited by:** 22 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/9762133

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that there are valid reasons not to ask questions concerning racial issues even in a case where the victim is white and the defendant is black

## Opinion text

*365 LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
I believe that the prosecution of a member of one race on charges of the rape of a victim of another race necessarily presents a race sensitive situation. In such situations, the trial court should permit the questioning of prospective jurors to expose any racial inclinations or biases which might cause a juror to disregard his or her obligation to apply the law impartially to the facts of the case.
In the case at bar, however, the question posed to the prospective jurors was sufficient in my view to expose any such racial inclinations or biases. The court asked:
I have just been advised that the victim in this case was a white person. You see that the defendant is black. Would these racial differences present such a problem to you that it could interfere with your honest appraisal of the case and interfere with your ability to be completely fair to both the Commonwealth and the Defendant?
The refusal of the court to allow more extensive questioning as requested by defense counsel was not, under the circumstances of this case, an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in limiting the scope of voir dire examination of prospective jurors.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762133. Public record. Not legal advice.