Commonwealth v. Johnson

Citations

• 265 Pa. 491
• 109 A. 218
• 1920 Pa. LEXIS 465

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Murder — Witness — Expert — Coroner who is a physician — Evidence—Interpreter—Explanation of absence of witness.</p> <p>1. Where on the trial of an indictment for murder, the coroner, who is also a physician, is called by the Commonwealth, and without any preliminary examination as an expert, and without objection by defendant, testifies that the wound which caused the death was inflicted some hours before death, and gives technical reasons of a physician or surgeon for his statement, and he is subjected to a searching cross-examination as to all the technical matters pertaining to the injury and its probable effect, but is not cross-examined as to his qualifications as an expert, the defendant, after a verdict of guilty, will not be heard to complain of the admission of the coroner’s testimony for the reason that he had not qualified as an expert.</p> <p>2. While the competency of the witness should first appear before he is permitted to express an opinion, and the general practice is to interrogate him on this subject before his testimony is received, yet when the opposing party knows that a witness is about to give testimony which should come from an expert and especially objects on that ground, he should exercise his right to cross-examine as to the qualifications of the witness. If he does not do so, he should not be heard to complain.</p> <p>3. In the examination of witnesses who speak through an interpreter, it is sometimes difficult to control all the answers given to questions; when an improper answer is given, it is sufficient if the court promptly strikes such evidence from the record. The court will not reverse the judgment and order a new trial, because the answer is heard by the jury, unless it might prejudice the accused.</p> <p>4. Where on a murder trial bad faith is insinuated against the Commonwealth because a particular person was not in court as a witness, evidence in explanation of his absence is admissible.</p> <p>5. Where on