*1 Pennsylvania, Appellee, COMMONWEALTH LANE, Appellant. Bernard Supreme Pennsylvania. Court Dec. 1992.
Submitted Decided Feb. 1993. *2 Gelman, appellant. for Philadelphia, E.
Norris Marshall, Atty., Dist. Catherine Eisenberg, Deputy Ronald Brancheau, Div., Philadelphia, Chief, Karen A. Appeals appellee. ZAPPALA, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, NIX, C.J.,
Before and CAPPY, and JJ. PAPADAKOS THE JUDGMENT OPINION ANNOUNCING OF THE COURT FLAHERTY, Justice. scope of a defendant’s question
This case raises the
to
prosecution
respect
witness with
to cross-examine
charges
order to establish
witness’s
testify adversely
to
possible evil motive for
trial,
prohibited appellant
the court
appellant’s
At
defendant.
of
pending charges
about his
the witness
questioning
as
were not crimen
attempted
they
kidnapping
rape,
and
falsi
felony
offenses,
them
as “serious
reference to
permitting
was harmless
Court held that this
charges.”
error,
murder, of instrument robbery, possession and February on 1983. Philadelphia Wesley Mahoney killing witnesses, Thomas, testi- George who One himself, murder, was confessed to the had appellant fíed on trial, faced with appellant’s at the time of theft, attempted rape. and kidnapping, charges robbery, of cross-examination, to inter- counsel, attempted Appellant’s motivation to charges explore rogate in order to against appellant testify falsely to for the witness he was separate prosecution in the gain reference to the The trial court facing. reference to the prohibited robbery but allowing defense counsel attempted rape, kidnapping and serious “other felonies of a latter as refer to the limitation was that for the nature.” The reason and thus are not crimen offenses falsi if were convict- mendacity; the witness carry implication offenses, could not be used the convictions of these ed credibility. impeach intermingled concepts improperly
The trial court *3 by prior crimen impeach convictions and impeachment falsi in charges criminal outstanding stemming ment for bias does on the latter basis jurisdiction. Impeachment the same evidencing offense as one the nature of the depend not on attending the severity penalties the dishonesty, but on offense, creating potentially any type conviction of possible in order to prosecution to aid in the due to a motive a bias prosecution. pending in the witness’s obtain concessions be Thus, distinguishing recognized, the Court Superior as was the crimen and the other tween falsi was the Court must decide whether erroneous. We to be harmless. holding in the error correct Evans, 214, v. A.2d 626 511 Pa. 512 In (1986), we held that in may be biased favor of a witness prosecution
whenever criminal or outstanding because of the him disposition against criminal any because of non-final bias, fairness, in that jurisdiction, possible the same within Even if the jury. prosecutor known to the must be made or on ¡present on the case promises, has made no either matters, may hope the witness for criminal pending other
279 if witness from the the prosecutor the way helpful that to a is presently testifies exists, it. should know about the possibility And if that I Section 9 right guaranteed by Art. hold that the we confront witnesses Pennsylvania Constitution to a criminal entails that a in a criminal case defendant self- challenge a witness’s be to defendant must or actual favored by questioning interest bar, or the case at by prosecuting authority the treatment the involving prosecuting non-final matter same any other authority. 224-26, at recent decisions
Id. at 512 A.2d 631-62. Two confirmed to right the of a criminal defendant this court have a civil action regarding witness cross-examine episode criminal related parties between same trial, civil which because the defendant testimony which affects the might action create bias proceeding. credibility of the witness Butler, 7, 268, 14, 271 Commonwealth v. 529 Pa. 601 A.2d (1991), we stated: has a criminal defendant
It is well established that any purpose witness ... for the adverse cross-examine credibility may of a credibility. impeaching which to show that by evidence tends impeached be trial, Com- in the an interest outcome witness had Sullivan, v. Pa. or monwealth 402 A.2d untruthful, Common- testimony may be the witness’s (1964); Updegrove, wealth which colors his testi- may possess a bias *4 Collins, 58, v. Pa. A.2d 882 Commonwealth 519 545 mony, Hamm, 487, v. A.2d Commonwealth (1988); 474 Pa. 378 (1977). 1219 Birch, 565-66, 977, 563,
In Commonwealth v. 532 616 A.2d Pa. embroiled a involving 978 also witness defendant, we stated: “It civil action with the criminal related that, where the determination particularly important is dependent upon innocence is the credibili- guilt defendant’s witness, ty adequate of a be afford- opportunity through ed to demonstrate cross-examination that the witness is biased.” agree
We
with the
Court that the error of the
trial court
this case was harmless. T'he scope of cross-
examination is within the discretion of the trial
judge.
lengthy
prior
camera discussions
testimony
in question,
the trial
concluded that reference to
theft,
outstanding charges
robbery,
“other
of a
felonies
give
jury adequate
serious nature” would
information on
credibility
which to assess the bias and
of the witness. On
cross-examination, the witness volunteered that he had been
charged
kidnapping,
though
with
defense counsel had not
mentioned that offense.
was informed that the
facing
witness was
open
robbery,
kidnapping,
and other serious
felony-charges.
specific
addition of the
offense of
would have had
merely the effect of
much
than
smearing
clarifying
more
the witness’s
bias in aid of the
by examining
This conclusion is borne out
the closing argu-
In challenging
ment of the defense.
credibility
witness,
counsel made
one reference to
“open robbery
his
case,” suggesting-briefly
provided
that it
a motive to lie in this
“get
charges.
case to
out of’ those
It
clearly made
difference to the defense that the court had restricted cross-
attempted rape
examination
omit reference to the
charge,
emphasize
felony
counsel did not
the other
re-
ferred to on cross-examination —theft and kidnapping —nor
nature,”
did he refer to “other felonies of a serious
but limited
to an
argument
“open robbery case.”
A trial court has broad discretion to determine the
of cross-examination in this as in
scope
other situations.
(1984);
Commonwealth v.
Beasley,
Sisco,
(1979).
Pa.
Accordingly, affirmed. Court. Order J., the consideration
MONTEMURO, participate did not of this case. or decision joined by which is
LARSEN, J., concurring opinion files a PAPADAKOS, J. J.,
ZAPPALA, in the result. concurs C.J., dissenting NIX, opinion. files LARSEN, Justice, concurring. however, I majority; by reached
I with the result agree court. by committed the trial any error was do not agree a judicial applicable harmless error doctrine therefor. not the rationale ruling, PAPADAKOS, J., concurring joins opinion. this NIX, Justice, dissenting. Chief it error when trial court committed an I that the agree a from questioning counsel limited the defense murder. holding that the
However, majority’s disagree I with ma- rationale behind our following was harmless. error Evans, jority opinion to this case: applies equally in favor of may be biased [WJhenever *6 the because of criminal outstanding any because of non-final disposition criminal bias, jurisdiction, fairness, same within the made jury. must be known to the Id. at 224, 512 A.2d at 681. Once the trial ruled that inquire defense counsel could not into and kidnapping the grave were much attempted charges, which more than robbery was preju- and defendant diced in defense. his majority
The notes that defense in his closing counsel not argument emphasize pending did criminal charges witness at against the the time testimony. majority fails to note that defense had prohibited counsel been inquiring into the attempted rape charges. Should ignored defense counsel have order to order analysis survive a harmless error at the level? appellate We way have no of determining whether the would have believed witness had it known of rape, had counsel been to present package defense able the entire jury. judge erroneously infringed upon defendant’s constitutional confront witness, infringement; adverse and that prejudicial was the defendant.
Therefore, I Court, would order reverse the judgment vacate the grant sentence and the defendant a new trial.