# Commonwealth v. Wall

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · February 26, 1992 · 413 Pa. Super. 599

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763149

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Jerome WALL, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 26, 1992
- **Citations:** 413 Pa. Super. 599; 606 A.2d 449; 1992 Pa. Super. LEXIS 431
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Olszewski
- **Judges:** Olszewski, Kelly, Brosky
- **Cited by:** 43 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/9763149

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the trial judge has “wide latitude” to “limit reasonably a criminal defendant’s right to cross-examine a witness ‘based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetiti…

## Opinion text

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
dissenting.
I fail to find an abuse of the trial court’s discretion and, therefore, respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal and remand for a new trial. I believe that evidence of the child’s victimization by her mother’s paramour and the *633 ultimate conviction of the assailant is irrelevant to this case and was properly excluded by the trial court.
It is difficult enough for victims of sexual assault to relive the* traumatic events of the assault which is being prosecuted. To force a victim to recount an assault for which a separate perpetrator has already been tried and convicted would discourage serial victims from bringing forth allegations. One of the purposes of the Rape Shield Law may be to protect against “overly zealous defense attorneys,” as the majority points out, but it was also enacted to limit evidence to that which is relevant to the assault being tried.
I believe this case is indistinguishable from Commonwealth v. Poindexter, 372 Pa.Super. 566 , 539 A.2d 1341 (1988), in which this Court rejected appellant/defendant’s attempt to introduce evidence of the victim’s sexual history as relevant to the victim’s motive for bringing charges against her assailant. What the appellant in this case wanted to prove was that the child had a poor relationship with her aunt and that she fabricated the charges because she wanted to be removed from the aunt’s household. There was ample evidence offered at trial from which the jury could have drawn this conclusion if it had found such a conclusion proper; therefore, evidence of the prior assaults and their eventual conviction would have been more prejudicial than probative.
Accordingly, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763149. Public record. Not legal advice.