# Commonwealth v. Small

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 1, 1999 · 559 Pa. 423

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762752

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. John A. SMALL, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 1, 1999
- **Citations:** 559 Pa. 423; 741 A.2d 666; 1999 Pa. LEXIS 3258
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Saylor
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 308 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/9762752

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding defendant’s argument that inconsistencies in testimony should lead to conclusion that evidence was insufficient meritless, because “[a]lthough [defendant] phrases this as a sufficiency argument, the challenge goes to the weight of the evidence”
- stating that, although the appellant phrased his claim as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the challenge actually goes to the weight of the evidence, and as such, the appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must fail
- holding that the Commonwealth’s failure to produce evidence pertaining to unrecorded conversations was meritless because, inter alia, the appellant failed “to show how this evidence, even if produced, would have caused a different outcome”
- holding that where an appellant phrases an issue as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, but the argument that the appellant provides goes to the weight of the evidence, the sufficiency challenge must fail
- rejecting argument that evidence supporting .his murder conviction was insufficient due to inconsistencies between various witnesses' testimony because ''[ although appellant phrases this as a sufficiency argument, the challenge goes to the . weight of the evidence"

## Opinion text

SAYLOR, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with Mr. Justice Zappala that prior decisions of this Court do not preclude the questioning of a witness about extensive drug or alcohol use during the period of time between the events at issue and the trial, where the purpose of such questioning is to demonstrate that such drug or alcohol use has impaired the witness’s ability to remember accurately the events at issue. Before such questioning is permitted, however, the party seeking to challenge a witness on such basis should be required to make an offer of proof that the witness has in fact engaged in chronic substance abuse. As defense counsel made no such offer concerning either of the two witnesses in question, I conclude that this issue does not entitle Appellant to relief.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762752. Public record. Not legal advice.