Commonwealth v. Erico

Citations

• 271 Pa. 508
• 115 A. 834
• 1922 Pa. LEXIS 746

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Witness—Opinion—Mental state — Conclusion from all matters observed — Discretion of court — Criminal law — Cross-examination — Reexamination.</p> <p>1. Where an accurate description of all of the facts which are necessary to the formation of an opinion as to a mental state is difficult and complicated so as to make a narrative of the separate and distinct occurrences upon which the impression is based practically impossible, it is proper that the conclusion formed from all of the matter observed be given to the Jury; and the necessity of the receipt of such testimony is largely within the discretion of the trial court.</p> <p>2. On the trial of an indictment for the murder of a detective, where a police officer testifies to the work performed by the deceased which brought him in contact and made him acquainted with the foreign population of the city, the witness may express his belief that the deceased was familiar with all of a particular race residing in the city.</p> <p>3. Where evidence for the Commonwealth in a murder trial is offered in chief and its admission refused, such evidence may be elicited on reexamination, where the cross-examination for defendant has made the subsequent explanation competent.</p> <p>Evidence — Witness—Testimony at former trial — Credibility.</p> <p>4. The testimony of a witness given at a former trial is admissible at a later trial to show that there was in effect no variance in the story related by him at the later trial, where it appears that the witness had been asked as to isolated answers given on the prior occasion, which, standing by themselves, would indicate a change in his testimony, thus seriously affecting his credibility.</p>