Commonwealth v. Hardrick
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1ConcurrenceHoffman, Judge
I agree with the result reached by the majority but disagree with parts of the majority opinion.
*107I agree with the court’s opinion on the issue of the transcription of appellant’s first trial.
Appellant’s second contention is that when a witness testifies on direct examination after being shown a police report on the stand which refreshes his recollection, opposing counsel is entitled to a copy of the report to cross-examine the witness. Hypothetically speaking, appellant is absolutely correct. See Commonwealth v. Allen, 220 Pa.Super. 403, 404-05, 289 A.2d 476, 477-78 (1972). However, my review…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LockhartSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Commonwealth v. SimmonsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. SamuelsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Commonwealth v. OlsenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. BaileySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.