Commonwealth v. Emmett

Citations

• 74 Pa. Super. 86
• 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 99

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Accomplice—Evidence.</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for arson, the court is not bound to instruct tbe jury to acquit the defendant, where tbe Oommonwealtb relies on the testimony of an accomplice alone, but it is proper for tbe jury to be advised that it is not safe to convict tbe defendant upon tbe uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Tbe corroboration should be to tbe person of tbe accused and not simply to tbe fact of tbe crime.</p> <p>Criminal law — Evidence—Cross-examination.</p> <p>On tbe trial of an indictment for arson, where tbe Commonwealth relies largely upon the evidence of a particular witness, who was also an accomplice, Such a witness may be asked on cross-examination, for tbe purpose of showing motive and impeaching bis credibility, whether or not he bated tbe defendant, and whether or not be bad ever made any threats concerning him.</p> <p>A wide latitude is allowed in the cross-examination of an accomplice and the most searching question is permitted in order to test his veracity.</p> <p>Expert testimony — Cause of conflagration — Admissibility.</p> <p>Testimony of expert witnesses, called for the purpose of discrediting a witness for the Commonwealth as to the manner in which a fire was started, is admissible in answer to a hypothetical question, supported by the evidence introduced at the trial. The objection that such a question was leading is without merit.</p> <p>Expert testimony that gasoline was not explosive, under the conditions shown by the Commonwealth’s evidence, was both relevant and important, and the defendants were entitled to the testimony of the expert, for the purpose of weakening, to that extent, the force of the evidence for the prosecution.</p> <p>Criminal law — Separate trials — Discretion of court.</p> <p>An application for a separate trial of two defendants is addressed to the discretion of the court, and is not subject to review except upon proof of gross abuse of discretion.</p>