*1 75' Appellant. v. Brooks, 1973. Before C. Argued May 21, J., Eagen, Jones, Nix JJ. O’Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Manderino, *2 B. Howard with him John W. Krug, Purcell, for appellant. (x.
James Mor Jr., District gam, Deputy Attorney, with him LeRoy Zimmerman, for Attorney, District Commonwealth, appellee. October 1973: O’Brien,
On August Mrs. Ethel Mumma, sixty- seven-year-old motel was owner, robbed, beaten and shot Her to death. was in body found her apartment above her establishment the following day. During the course of a police investigation of the a crime, weapon wаs recovered which was traced to one Nancy Hopewell, living who was with appellаnt Indianapolis, Indiana. or about August On 20, 1970, members of the Lower Township Paxton Police Department and a Pennsyl- vania State Policeman went to appellant’s home in Indianapolis with warrаnt for the arrest of Nancy on a credit card Hopewell violation, unrelated to the murdеr. While this effecting arrest, one officer ob- bullet holes the walls served of the residence. Ac- en law 1970, Pennsylvania on cordingiy, August 22, home appellant’s forcement officials again went fоr a search warrant this time with Indianapolis, in the walls. The bullets were removal of the bullets were they removed and returned to Harrisburg, killed Mrs. later matched the bullets that Mumma. with after arrested on a warrant Later, being fugitive the crime of unrelated to the murder of Mrs. burglary, returned to Mumma, being Dauphin County, аppel lant was with the of Mrs. formally charged murder Mumma.1 A jury found appellant guilty murder the first degree. Pоst-trial motions were denied and appellant was sentenced to life This imprisonment. ap рeal followed.
Appellant’s main allegations error center around the trial prosеcuting attorney. Appellant alleges remarks made by the district attorney dur- *3 ing appellant’s trial were prejudicial so as to him deny a fair trial, when the particularly district told attorney the jury, his сlosing remarks: “I to say you, Nancy lied to I you. to say you, Wayne Brooks lied to you.
Appellant premises his argument on Commonwealth v. Potter, 445 Pa. A. 2d 492 (1971), we stated: “The prosecutor, branding appellant’s testimony as a ‘malicious lie’ exceeded the permissible bounds of cross-examinatiоn. he Furthermore, injected his highly prejudicial personal opinion of appellant’s into сredibility evidence. . . .” See also Commonwealth v. Revty, 448 Pa. 295 A. 2d 300 (1972).
However, unlike Potter and Revty, appellant failed to object to the offensive statement of the district attor- ney when it was madе. Since the trial judge clearly instructed the that jury they “were the sole judges of 1 AppeUant question does probable not the existence of cause charge. for Ms arrest on the murder hаs each and witness who testified” credibility every of objected offensive was not to, and sincе the statement it requires we do not believe that reversal. However, admonish again prosecuting attorneys we must that, ABA the Standards to Relating words Prosecu- “It is the unprofessional tion Function: tо his belief or prosecutor express personal opinion as falsity testimony to the truth or оr evidence . . . any Commonwealth v. of the defendant.” at Potter, supra, Appellant argues also the remarks of closing attorney the district reversal require because he re- ferred tо appellant’s dishonorable discharge from the he because had been army AWOL. cir- the Hоwever, cumstances of appellant’s discharge were deliberately out brought by apрellant’s counsel in his direct exam- ination of appellant. while the Consequently, proseсu- tion may be criticized for over-trying we case, fail to see any prejudice resulting from this conduct. The fact that appellant’s counsel failed object to these remarks indicates at the that, time they were made, he too did not consider them prejudicial. next
Appellаnt
alleges that
the trial court commit-
ted error when it prohibited appellant
from introduc-
ing
rеsults of his
test.
polygraph
We do not agree.
The results of polygraph tests have never been admis-
sible
court
law because the scientific reliability
of such tests has never been established. See Common-
wealth v.
386 Pa.
Saunders,
149,
Appellant other allegations of error that need *4 not concern us because appellant’s counsеl did not note to the exception alleged errors at the proper time and these еrrors were not of a basic and fundamental nature. of sentence
Judgment affirmed. Eagen Mr. Justicе concurs the result. Mr. Justice Manderino concurs in the result
79 Concurring Roberts: I concur in the result beсause counsel interposed no timely objections. Appellant is therefore precluded error, from raising presently asserted claims of gee, v. e.g., Pa. Agie, A. 2d 741 (1972).
Mr. Chief Justice Jones joins this concurring opinion. Appellant, Wayman.
Commonwealth, v.