Commonwealth v. Smith
Citations
- 270 Pa. 583
- 113 A. 844
- 1921 Pa. LEXIS 445
Syllabus
<p>Criminal law—Murder—Preliminary statement by district attorney—Confessions — Written statement — Letter to wife — Evidence—Cross-examination—Improper remark by district attorney— Withdrawal of juror—Attorney-at-law as witness.</p> <p>1. A conviction of murder will not be set aside because, in outlining his case in good faith, the district attorney accidentally refers to some matter as to which the trial judge later excludes evidence.</p> <p>2. In a murder trial a written statement made by the prisoner at the time of his arrest is properly admitted in evidence where it is shown to have been made voluntarily, without coercion or promise.</p> <p>3. In such case, it is not error to permit the police official who talked with the prisoner when the statement was made, to testify that later, when he sought further information from the prisoner, the latter said he refused to talk on advice of counsel.</p> <p>4. Nor is it improper to permit the district attorney to ask the prisoner on cross-examination who his counsel then was.</p> <p>5. A letter written by the prisoner when in jail, to his wife, confined in the same jail, but not delivered to her, is admissible as against the prisoner.</p> <p>6. When a letter, written by a party to a suit, is in evidence, it is not reversible error to permit him to be asked on cross-examination what he meant by certain doubtful expressions therein.</p> <p>1. Where a prisoner testifies that the district attorney promised him immunity if he would “tell the truth,” and the district attorney immediately says to him “Don’t you know that is a miserable frame-up in your mind ?” the remark is improper, but is not ground for withdrawing a juror; especially if the district attorney goes on the stand and denies the charge made against him.</p> <p>8. In this case it would be unjust to apply the unwritten rule that precludes a lawyer from being a witness for his client.</p> <p>9. A remark of the district attorney that the prisoner “didn’t have the hea
Judges: Frazer, Moschzisker, Sadler, Schaffer, Simpson, Walling
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Commonwealth v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1970-07-02· cited 114×
- Commonwealth v. WillisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-12-30· cited 67×
- Commonwealth v. WilkesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1964-04-21· cited 59×
- Commonwealth v. CisnerosSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1955-04-18· cited 35×
- Commonwealth v. PuntarioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1922-01-03· cited 25×
- Commonwealth v. WigginsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1974-11-14· cited 18×
- McKie v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1927-11-19· cited 18×
- Commonwealth v. DubinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-10-25· cited 10×
- Commonwealth v. BloughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-12-17· cited 6×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
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.