Com. v. Morris
| Decision Date | 12 October 1971 |
| Citation | 281 A.2d 851,444 Pa. 364 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Michael Wayne MORRIS, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Maurice L. Epstein, Dist. Atty., (Submitted), Towanda, for appellee.
Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY and BARBIERI, JJ.
Appellant was found guilty by a jury of forcible rape. Following disposition of post-trial motions, he was sentenced to a term of five to fifteen years. That judgment of sentence was unanimously affirmed per curiam by the Superior Court. Com. v. Morris, 217 Pa.Super. 762, 268 A.2d 185 (1970). We granted allocatur to consider one narrow issue: whether the trial court erred by not allowing appellant to examine at trial, for purposes of cross-examination, certain verbatim notes relative to the crime made by a State Trooper while in conference with the victim.
One day after the commission of the crime, the victim was interviewed by a state trooper. Defense counsel's request to inspect these notes, made at the beginning of cross-examination of the victim, was denied by the trial judge for the reason that there was no 'statement,' only notes by the trooper. Although the victim neither signed nor read the trooper's notes, she did testify, '(h)e took down every word I said.' Perhaps due to this ruling, the trooper was not cross-examined about his report.
If we conclude that this report constitutes a statement by the victim, Com. v. Kontos, 442 Pa. 343, 276 A.2d 830 (1971), mandates a reversal. Notwithstanding Pa. R.Crim.P. 310, 19 P.S.Appendix, we unequivocally held in Kontos that relevant, pre-trial statements of witnesses in the possession of the Commonwealth must be made available to the accused, upon request, during the trial. The pivotal question, in our view, is whether the verbatim notes made by the trooper should have been made available for defense inspection during the trial. As in Kontos, we have no occasion to consider the related question whether such notes should be discoverable prior to trial since no request was made.
Relying on our decision in Com. v. Smith, 417 Pa. 321, 208 A.2d 219 (1965), the Superior Court in Com. v. Kubacki, 208 Pa.Super. 523, 224 A.2d 80 (1966), concluded that a transcript of a tape-recorded interview between a witness and police investigators should have been made available for defense inspection. Further, the Superior Court ruled in Com. v. Swierczewski, 215 Pa.Super. 130, 257 A.2d 336 (1969), that it was error to deny inspection of a police report prepared in the course of duty by an investigating police officer from statements made by other police officers. See, also, Com. v. Jainlett, 217 Pa.Super. 406, 407--410, 271 A.2d 886, 887--888 (1970) (concurring opinion).
The Commonwealth cites United States ex rel. Felton v. Rundle, 410 F.2d 1300 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 993, 90 S.Ct. 1129...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Bolden
...v. Kontos, 442 Pa. 343, 276 A.2d 830 (1971); see Commonwealth v. Johnson, 457 Pa. 554, 327 A.2d 632 (1974); Commonwealth v. Morris, 444 Pa. 364, 281 A.2d 851 (1971).34 The written motion was signed by appellant, Livingston and Doherty.35 The court denied the application 'as untimely, as sup......
-
Com. v. French
...v. Grayson, 466 Pa. 427, 353 A.2d 428 (1976); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 457 Pa. 554, 327 A.2d 632 (1974) (dictum); Commonwealth v. Morris, 444 Pa. 364, 281 A.2d 851 (1971); Commonwealth v. Kontos, supra. Examination of these statements provides the defense "a fair opportunity to cross-examin......
-
Com. v. Cain
...has not been expanded beyond the verbatim notes of a victim's statements made by an investigating officer. Commonwealth v. Morris, 444 Pa. 364, 281 A.2d 851 (1971). The distinction between a report that is a verbatim, signed, or adopted recordation of a witness' statement and an imprecise s......
-
Commonwealth v. Bolden
...v. Kontos, 442 Pa. 343, 276 A.2d 830 (1971); see Commonwealth v. Johnson, 457 Pa. 554, 327 A.2d 632 (1974); Commonwealth v. Morris, 444 Pa. 364, 281 A.2d 851 (1971). [34] The written motion was signed by appellant, Livingston and Doherty. [35] The court denied the application 'as untimely, ......