*3 ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, Before MANDERINO and JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT ROBERTS, Justice. Kuebler
Aрpellant Freda was arrested and with charged murder, manslaughter, involuntary voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another, and for her alleged involvement the death of beating Edward trial, Fitzgerald. At took the stand appellant and denied the At the charges. closing argument, prosecuting attorney blows, argued appellant that infliсted the fatal summarized appellant’s testimony, and then remarked:
“I submit to members of the that Freda is you, Jury, right, stand, and that she said from everything that and in every major respect concerning big this case was a lie.” after the
Immediately prosecuting attorney completed his argument, moved for a mistrial. The appellant Court of Common Pleas of Delawаre County appellant’s denied mo- tion, and the found jury appellant guilty of murder of the recklessly endangering assault and degree, aggravated third trial, for a new the motion on Again, another. that rejected her contention of common pleas court prejudicial, remark was denied motion, and sentence. imposed prose her claim thаt renews appeal, appellant
On We prejudicial. was and improper remark cuting attorney’s sentence, for a new and remand reverse agree, judgment trial.*
I dеath, a call police received Fitzgerald’s evening On Fitzgerald appellant went to where and apartment and intoxicated, An on the floor Fitzgerald lived. officer found that, officer observed apartment, of his near door. The intoxicated, was there no evidence although Fitzgerald The offi- Fitzgerald was conscious. physical trauma living tо a room. cer assisted couch Fitzgerald neighbors police they before gave Based statements appellant under placed an officer apartment, entered took arrest for conduct. The disorderly * grounds Appellant court also a new trial on the the trial seeks incorrectly jury penalties charged for of the first on the murdеr degrees, erroneously permitted in- third the Commonwealth to testimony, speculative improperly summa- troduce remote and rized key disposition, our we In view of Commonweаlth evidence. need not address these claims. denying Appellant court erred in her further contends that the trial judgment. argues Appellant motion in the trial court arrest of errоneously permit granted a continuance to its *4 expert, subpoenaed, medical to return from an out-of-state semi- not that, testify Appellant trial. without nar contends at testimony, failed to establish the cause of judg- Fitzgerald’s passing upon in motion arrest of death. “In [a ment], sufficiency of the must be evaluated evidence actually received must be entire trial record. . . . evidence [A]ll considered, wrong.” rulings right were or the trial thereon whether Tabb, (1965) Commonwealth v. (statement of admitted at trial but later ruled inadmissible accused suffiсiency evidence). testing part purposes of which would still record for judgment, Appellant’s argument support of arrest require view record” and the Common- this Court to “diminish the testimony, rejected. must be wealth’s evidence without medical and, later, minutes station about forty-five An appellant her home. officer to
brought accompanying floor, abоut Fitzgerald lying her observed on apartment the officer’s According seven feet from the couch. to testi- Fitzgerald was in the same condition mony, approximately beforе, and he except eyes that his were shut as again Later were called to moaning. evening, police that He was in Fitzgerald found dead. a apartment. They floor, apart- in the of his sitting position, hallway on the A died Fitzgerald ment. medical examination determined the trunk of his multiple injuries body. to witness, a testified Commonwealth neighbor, One to enter his earliеr Fitzgerald attempted apartment when slapped the same him in the face. An evening, appellant him investigating officer testified that told she appellant up Fitzgerald. (Fitzgerald tried to clean and sober had himself.) According officer, appellant defecated on to the bathroom, while hit claimed that fell his Fitzgerald and hit radiator, again, head on a fell his head on bathtub. Fitzgerald tried to assist his bedroom. Fitzgerald She floor; hit wall and fell to the About again his head on the mouth, later, began one-half hour to froth at the Fitzgerald for neighbor appellant shortly help. thereafter called officer, to the on further According investigating appellant, out of slapping Fitzgerald anger admitted to quеstioning, his statements were not tran- defacating. Appellant’s for scribed. concurred in the officer’s account
Appellant investigating head in her added that Fitzgerald presence, hit his times, attempted fell she Fitzgerald several claimed help Appellant to clean and otherwise him. denied merely Fitzgerald. she struck allegations that II outset, disagree At the must with the Common we that, entering objection wealth’s claim an immediate by until challenged waiting remark and instead of the attorney’s argument, conclusion
363 waived her claim. Thе prosecuting closing argu- transcribed, ment was dispute concerning and there is no facts, content of the challenged remark. On similar Adkins, 465, 472, Court in Commonwealth v. 468 Pa. 364 287, (1976), A.2d 291 observed: recоrded,
“Where the is not there is a need to argument an so that require objection during argument remarks be at or about the time may placed record Otherwise, are made they thereby accuracy. ensure the recollection of both counsel and the court at conclusion of the differ and result argument may thereby factual unnecessary disputes.
Instantly, the entire was recorded and its argument content was available to both counsel and the court at the conclusion circumstances, of the such argument. Under no dispute as to what was in fact during said the argu- ment can arise and therefore no necessity exists to require objection prior Thus, the conclusion of the argument. the rule objеction requiring during the argument inap- plicable here.”
See also 295, 3, Commonwealth v. 474 Pa. Cherry, 300 n. 378 800, A.2d 803 n. 3 (1977) (objection to transcribed closing argument closing argument where ended one of timеly day trial and objection beginning next). came at of In of light Adkins and we turn to the merits. Cherry
The decision to believe the Commonwealth’s ver sion, or appellant’s, was one for the “It is еxclusively jury. a basic tenet of our of system jurisprudence that issues of credibility are left to the trier properly of fact for resolu Whack, tion.” 137, 140, Commonwealth v. 482 Pa. 393 A.2d (1978). 419 Our cases leave no doubt that prosecuting attorneys this Commonwealth may inject “highly prejudicial personal opinion appellant’s credibility [an] evidence, into thereby clearly and improperly intruding upon exclusive function jury’s evaluating credibility Potter, witnesses.” Commonwealth v. (1971). “Prosecutorial misconduct in argu
ment is a matter of special concern bеcause of the possibility special weight prosecutor’s will jury give *6 Relating American Bar Standards
arguments.” Association Function, Commentary (Approved to the Prosecution 5.8 § Draft, 1971). of ABA 5.8(b) provides:
Section Stаndards to ex- prosecutor “It is conduct for the unprofessional or as to the truth or press personal opinion his belief or evidence or the of any testimony guilt of falsity dеfendant.”
This error where the prosecuting Court has held it reversible a characterizes defendant’s on cross-examination attorney Potter, v. lie.” Commonwealth su- testimony “maliсious “ does ‘apparently remark that counsel pra. prosecutor’s A defendant’,” too, been prejudi- not his own has held believe 333, 339-40, 365 Joyner, v. Commonwealth cial. (1976). Here, аttorney prosecuting 1236 exclusive of sought jury’s province to intrude that [appellant] judging credibility by branding “everything stand, major respect concerning said in every from that and ABA this violates the “big case” a lie.” Such misconduct Standards, credibility “everything” attacks the stand, communi- unequivocally stated on the and witness view of attorney’s personal appellant’s сates the prosecuting it has a case is not neces- strong “If the state testimony. case, gross has misconduct and if it a close such sary, Cyty, State v. 50 Nev. injustice to the defendant.” 5.8 (1927), in ABA Standards quoted 256 P. § to her ef- was crucial Commentary. Appellant’s credibility evidence, fort circumstantial to refute Commonwealth’s of all of and characterization highly “big prеjudicial as a lie” testimony new trial. requires new granted. trial Judgment sentence reversed O’BRIEN, EAGEN, J., J., C. did participate or decision of case. consideration LARSEN, J., dissenting opinion. filed a Justice, LARSEN, dissenting. dissent; when viewed remark was not prejudicial
I context of both summations. 399 A.2d BLEY, Leroy Bley, Widow of Walter Catherine M.
Deceased, Appellant, v. Pennsylvania, OF DEPARTMENT COMMONWEALTH INDUSTRY. LABOR AND Pennsylvania. Supreme Court *7 Argued Jan. 1979. 16, 1979. Decided March