Commonwealth v. Johnson
Decision Date | 07 January 1971 |
Citation | 441 Pa. 237,272 A.2d 467 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Lee Port JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Don M. Larrabee, II, Williamsport, for appellant.
Allen E. Ertel, Dist. Atty., William S. Kieser, 2nd Asst. Dist Atty., Williamsport, for appellee.
Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, and POMEROY, JJ.
Appellant was found guilty by a jury of burglary and larceny and subsequent to denial of his new trial motions he was sentenced to five years' probation. An appeal to the Superior Court resulted in an affirmance of the judgment of sentence by an equally divided court with Judge Spaulding filing a dissenting opinion in which Judges Montgomery and Hoffman joined. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 216 Pa.Super. 245 263 A.2d 773 (1970). We granted allocatur.
The question at issue relates to references being made to a lie detector test. At trial, one Robert Miles, who had pleaded guilty to the crimes charged and was awaiting sentence at the time of appellant's trial, testified as a witness for the Commonwealth. He testified that he and appellant had committed the burglary together. Three of Miles' fellow prisoners testified for the defense to the effect that when Miles had first discussed the case with them, he had said that he committed the burglary alone. They further testified that about a week later, after Miles had spent considerable time with the police, his story changed to include the appellant. They further testified that Miles talked about 'getting back' at appellant and that Miles appeared to be receiving special treatment from the police.
In rebuttal the Commonwealth, in attempting to rehabilitate Miles, was permitted to refer to a lie detector test. The testimony was as follows:
'Q. Now sir, you heard several witnesses who were also prisoners in Clinton County Prison when you were there testify yesterday that while you were there, you stated you committed these burglaries by yourself?
'A. Yes sir, I made them.
'Q. Did you ever make those statements?
'A. Yes, I made the statements up until I was taken to the Lock Haven Police Department. * * *
'Q. Now somewhere along the line you changed your story, is that correct?
'A. Yes, sir.
'Q. You had indicated as you said before that Johnson was with you?
'A. Yes, sir.
'Q. Where were you when you first changed your story?
'A. I was at the Mayor's Office in Lock Haven sitting with the police in the municipal building in Lock Haven.
'Q. And what was the occasion for your being there in his office? 'A. I was given a lie detector test.
'
We are in agreement with the position of the dissenting judgment in the Superior Court that (Page 247, 263 A.2d page 774.)
The Superior Court dissenters further aptly stated that:
In DeVito v. Civil Service Commission, 404 Pa. 354, 360, 172 A.2d 161, 164 (1961), we said:
* * *'
It is true that in DeVito, as well as the other Pennsylvania cases involving this matter, the question concerned either the accuracy of lie detector evidence or the willingness or refusal of an accused to submit to such a test. In all such instances we have held consistently that the evidence is inadmissible. The reasons which dictated those conclusions also dictate the inadmissibility of the reference to the fact of the taking of a lie detector test in the instant case. [*]
The Commonwealth argues that the attack upon Miles' credibility embodied in the introduction of evidence that police favors encouraged Miles to implicate Johnson created a serious situation for the Commonwealth. We have no doubt that the testimony of Miles' jailmates created a serious situation for the Commonwealth. In its brief the Commonwealth says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial