Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Reeves

Citations

  • 267 Pa. 361
  • 110 A. 158
  • 1920 Pa. LEXIS 864

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Cross-examination—Hostile witness — Surprise—Leading questions — Not bound by testimony — Discretion of court — ■ Abuse — Appeal—Criminal law — Murder—Testimony of witness before coroner.</p> <p>1. The rule that a party calling a witness is not permitted to ask 'leading questions, and is bound by his testimony, is liberally construed in modern practice. It apparently proceeds upon the theory that a rigid adherence in practice in ordinary cases would be mala fides to the tribunal, and the weight of authority is in favor of the rule that where a party is surprised in the testimony of a witness unexpectedly turning hostile, counsel may exercise the right of cross-examination of the witness, or impeach his testimony by other witnesses. Such exceptions have been recognized in Pennsylvania, and are permitted, to prevent a failure of justice. Whether such practice will be permitted, is within the sound discretion of the court, and its action will not be reversed by the appellate court unless there is an abuse of that discretion.</p> <p>2. Where, in a murder case, a witness for the Commonwealth, is shown to have given testimony before the coroner, directly opposed to that which he gave at the trial, the trial court does not abuse its discretion in permitting his cross-examination by the Commonwealth, when the latter is taken by surprise, especially where the witness testified that the evidence given before the coroner was correct and thereby made it substantive evidence.</p> <p>Criminal law — Murder—First degree — Second degree — Charge of court — Harmless errors.</p> <p>3. Where the evidence, in a trial for murder, is sufficient to support a verdict of murder in the first degree, and the defendant is convicted of murder in the second degree, the trial judge cannot be convicted of error in submitting the evidence as to murder in the first degree to the jury, and in pointing out to them the distinctions in the several degrees of murder.</p> <p>Practice, Supreme

Judges: Brown, Kephart, Simpson, Stewart, Walling

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.