Com. v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 04 April 1973 |
| Citation | 224 Pa.Super. 177,302 A.2d 840 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Kenneth HUNT et al. (two cases). Appeal of Kenneth HUNT. Appeal of Leroy MIAH. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Fitzpatrick & Smith, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., Joseph M. Smith, Philadelphia, for appellants.
Vram Nedurian, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Media, for appellee.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, JOCOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, CERCONE and PACKEL, JJ.
The six Judges who heard this appeal being equally divided, the judgment of sentence affirmed.
The question in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying appellants access to certain pre-trial statements and records in the possession of the Commonwealth.
Appellants were charged with conspiracy to commit a burglary and burglary of a liquor store in Chester. Appellants were brought to trial before the Honorable Louis A. Bloom and a jury on October 18, 1971, after two previous trials had resulted in hung juries. On October 22, 1971, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both indictments. From the denial of post-trial motions and imposition of sentence, this appeal followed.
At trial, Robert and Alphonso Johnson, alleged cofelons in the burglary, testified concerning certain plans made for the burglary involving the appellants herein. It was disclosed during cross-examination of the Johnson brothers that lengthy statements had been given to the Delaware County investigating officers after their arrest, and that although only one statement had been signed, both were transcribed by a court reporter and reduced to writing. Furthermore, defense counsel was informed that Alphonso Johnson, while in prison, had written a letter to his attorney, implicating appellants in the crime. The documents were in the possession of the Commonwealth during the course of the trial. Despite defense counsel's requests to order the production of these full statements, the Court sustained Commonwealth's objections thereto. The lower court did not read or review the statements itself, but permitted the Commonwealth to show counsel what it considered to be the relevant portions of those statements.
The request by defense counsel to examine the Full statements of Commonwealth witnesses, seriously implicating appellants in the crime, was a valid one for the purpose of testing the credibility of said witnesses. This issue is governed by a host of cases in the Commonwealth which hold that defense counsel is entitled to access to prior statements by Commonwealth witnesses made to investigating officers. See, Commonwealth v. Morris, 444 Pa. 364, 281 A.2d 851 (1971); Commonwealth v. Kontos, 442 Pa. 343, 276 A.2d 830 (1970). As our Supreme Court said in Morris, supra at pp. 366--367 of 444 Pa., at p. 851 of 281 A.2d,
Appellee argues that the cases do not require a prosecuting attorney to disclose statements relating to ongoing investigations or unrelated, irrelevant facts to the instant matter. This is true. This, however, does not relieve the Commonwealth of producing the entire document for the Court's examination to make its own determination of the relevancy of all portions of the statement. As Judge Spaulding stated in Commonwealth v. Swierczewski, supra at p. 135 of 215 Pa.Super., at p. 339 of 257 A.2d,
Sylvester Lundy, the store manager of the liquor store, testified as part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial