Com. v. Jainlett

• Citation: 217 Pa.Super. 406,271 A.2d 886
• Parties: COM. of Pennsylvania v. Irving JAINLETT, Appellant. COM. of Pennsylvania v. James MARCHMAN, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 13 November 1970
• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Page 886

271 A.2d 886

217 Pa.Super. 406

COM. of Pennsylvania v. Irving JAINLETT, Appellant.

COM. of Pennsylvania v. James MARCHMAN, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 13, 1970.

Application for Allocatur Denied Feb. 24, 1971.

Appeal Nos. 1041, 1042, 1159, 1160, October Term, 1970, from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, Criminal Section of Philadelphia County at Nos. 2865, 2866, October Term, 1969; Samuel H. Rosenberg, Judge.

John W. Packel, Chief, Appeals Div., Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Milton Stein, Asst.Dist.Atty., James D. Crawford, Deputy Dist.Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., Arlen Specter, Dist.Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING and CERCONE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

HOFFMAN, J., files a concurring opinion in which SPAULDING and CERCONE, JJ., join.

HOFFMAN, Judge (concurring):

Appellants were tried before a jury on indictments charging aggravated robbery, assault and battery with intent to murder and burglary. During the trial appellant Jainlett took the stand in his own defense and presented the alibi that during the period when the crime in question took place he had been at his sister's house. For the purpose of rebuttal the Commonwealth presented a detective who had interrogated this appellant soon after he was arrested. The detective testified with the aid of his rough notes and "52" summary report that appellant had told him that he was at his girlfriend's house during the relevant period.

During cross-examination of the detective, defense counsel attempted to point out inconsistencies and deletions between the rough notes and the submitted report. To dispel any inference of inconsistency, on redirect examination the prosecutor asked the detective to explain the relationship between the rough notes and the "49". The detective explained that the report at issue was a "52" and that the "49" was the report of the original investigation prior to arrest. On re-cross examination defense counsel established that the "49" was available and asked to see it. This request was objected to and the objection sustained. An exception was taken.

Appellants were convicted of burglary and aggravated assault and battery. From judgment of sentence this appeal followed.

The question here is whether defense counsel has a right to see a readily available police report, for the purposes of cross-examination of an officer, where that report was prepared by the officer and is thought to contain prior statements of the officer on the subject about which he has just testified. Commonwealth v. Smith, 417 Pa. 321, 208 A.2d 219 (1965) and Commonwealth v. Kubacki, 208 Pa.Super. 523, 224 A.2d 80 (1966), clearly established the law in Pennsylvania that defense counsel are entitled to access to prior statements made by Commonwealth witnesses to investigative officers. This principle was reaffirmed in Commonwealth v. Swierczewski, 215 Pa.Super. 130, 257 A.2d 336 (1969). In that case the lower court denied a defense request to see a report made by the supervising officer because the report might contain confidential information immaterial to the case at bar yet vital to untried prosecutions. This Court rejected that argument because "defense access is subject to the control of the trial court, which must review the requested documents and may...