holding that a witness cannot be confronted with the out-of-court statements of other witnesses on cross-examination
How later courts described this case
- holding that a witness cannot be confronted with the out-of-court statements of other witnesses on cross-examination
- “[t]he credibility of a witness may be impeached ... by showing that on a prior occasion he made a statement, either oral or written, that is inconsistent with his present testimony....”
- detective’s written account of what a third-party witness had told him is the type of unreliable out-of-court declaration the hearsay rule was designed to exclude
- trial court erred in permitting prosecution to impeach defendant with another witness's hearsay statement to police which contradicted defendant's testimony
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the opinion authored by Mr. Justice Kauffman, but feel constrained to write separately due to a statement contained in that opinion regarding declarations, otherwise inadmissible hearsay, which bear “indicia of reliability.” The opinion of Mr. Justice Kauffman notes that the admissibility of such declarations is not the “settled law” of this Commonwealth. However, it is to be emphasized that not only is it not the settled law, it is not the law to any extent applicable in Pennsylvania.