Com. v. Blair

Decision Date27 January 1975
Citation331 A.2d 213,460 Pa. 31
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Gary B. BLAIR, Appellant.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

William P. Boland, Asst. Dist. Atty., Mark Sendrow, Asst. Dist. Atty., Asst. Chief, Appeals Div., Abraham J. Gafni, Deputy Dist. Atty. for Law, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty., Steven H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., C. Temin, Philadelphia, for apellee.

Before EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

Appellant, Gary Blair, was arrested on July 26, 1972, and Charged with the murder of one Willie Lee Edwarrds. Blair's first trial commenced on April 23, 1973, and ended in a mistrial when the jury informed the trial court that it was unable to reach a verdict.

Appellant was retried before a jury in August, 1973. The jury convicted him of first degree murder and appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. Post-trial motions were filed 1 and denied. This appeal ensued. 2 We affirm.

At appellant's second trial, one of the prosecution's key witnesses, appellant's girl friend, failed to appear. Consequently, the court permitted the witness's testimony at appellant's first trial to be read to the jury. Appellant asserts this was error.

Under the Act of May 23, 1887, P.L. 158, § 3, 19 P.S. § 582 (1964),

'(w)henever any person has been examined as a witness, either for the commonwealth or for the defense, in any criminal proceeding conducted in or before a court of record, and the defendant has been present and has had an opportunity to examine or cross-examine, if such witness . . . cannot be found . . . notes of his examination shall be competent evidence upon a subsequent trial of the same criminal issue . . ..'

Appellant alleges that the Commonwealth's effort to obtain the witness's presence was inadequate and that the prosecution failed to establish that the witness 'cannot be found.' Therefore he asserts that it was error to read the record to the jury.

A witness 'cannot be found,' within the meaning of section 3 of the Act of May 23, 1887, only if a good-faith effort to locate the witness and compel his attendance at trial has failed. See Commonwealth v. Faison, 452 Pa. 137, 141, 305 A.2d 44, 46 (1973); Commonwealth v. Beach, 445 Pa. 257, 284 A.2d 792 (1972). Cf. Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 92 S.Ct. 2308, 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972); Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 88 S.Ct. 1318, 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968).

The record reveals that the following efforts were made to obtain the testimony of the witness. On August 7, 1973, during the selection of the jury for appellant's trial, the district saw the witness in the courtroom and told her that she would receive a subpoena to appear at appellant's trial. At that time, she informed the district attorney that she would not appear.

On the same day, a detective attempted to serve the subpoena at the address the witness had given the officer investigating the murder. However, he discovered that the building at that address was abandoned. Later that day, the detective attempted to telephone the witness's mother but the call went unanswered.

The following day, the detective called at the home of the witness's mother. No one was home. The detective testified that he thought he slipped the subpoena under the door at that time.

The detective then checked with postal authorities to ascertain whether the witness had a forwarding address. He was informed that the postal service had received no information about a change of address.

Later that day, the detective contacted the witness's mother by telephone. He told her about the trial and instructed her to have her daughter call him. The next morning, the detective again telephoned the witness's mother but was informed that the mother had not seen her daughter.

On August 13, during appellant's trial, a bench warrant was issued for the witness and the detective, upon the court's instruction, attempted to serve it at the address the witness had given in her previous testimony. Once again, the witness could not be found and service could not be made.

Later that day, the court instructed the detective to maintain an all-night vigil at the witness's home. That night, the detective talked to at least two persons who claimed to have recently seen the witness but who were unable to tell the detective of her present whereabouts. The detective also spoke with the witness's mother, who stated that her daughter had left the mother's home two weeks earlier. The mother said she had no knowledge where her daughter could be found. The officer searched the mother's home and did not find the witness, although he did find evidence that the witness had lived there. He then called at the home of the witness's stepbrother, but no one was home. Finally, he returned to the mother's home, searched it again and again failed to find the witness.

After hearing the testimony of the officer's efforts to locate the witness, the court concluded that the witness was 'not available to testify personally and the Commonwealth (had) exerted every possible effort to try and serve her.' This conclusion is amply supported by the record.

Although the district attorney would have been better advised not to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
431 cases
  • Com. v. Holmes
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 24 Junio 1982
    ...are within Rule 1123(a). 1 The difficulty with this conclusion is that in a line of decisions starting with Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975), the Supreme Court has engaged in reasoning that seems inconsistent with In Blair the Supreme Court said: Appellant's written po......
  • Commonwealth v. Stanley
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 12 Abril 1979
    ...... Appeals Div., Philadelphia, for appellant. . . Steven. H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div.,. Philadelphia, for Com., appellee. [401 A.2d 1170] . . Before. WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE,. PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ. ...We may not. consider these arguments because appellant failed to include. them in his post-verdict motions. Commonwealth v. Blair, 460. Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975). . . . [ 8 ] Appellant argues that this necessity. should not have arisen because the charge of a felon. ......
  • Commonwealth v. Holmes
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 10 Junio 1983
    ...Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975), the Supreme Court has engaged in reasoning that seems inconsistent with Davis. In Blair Supreme Court said: Appellant's written post-trial motions were boiler plate challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Although counsel appare......
  • Com. v. Musi
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 20 Agosto 1979
    ...Although appellant failed to raise the issue in her post-verdict motions, in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(a), See Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975) the question was apparently alluded to in the appellant's brief (which is not a part of the record) and referred to in t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT