Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Colacino

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 8, 1926No. Appeal 91PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

The second assignment of error was withdraw on the argument of this appeal. This leaves only the first, to wit, that the court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to ask the prosecuting witness on cross-examination whether he had not instituted a civil action in trespass against the defendant.

Technically, the question should have been permitted; for it is always competent for a party, against whom a witness is called and gives evidence, to propound such questions, on cross-examination, as may tend to show his interest, bias or feeling in the case: Ott v. Houghton, 30…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. FarrellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
  2. Porter v. SeilerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854
  3. Commonwealth v. NorrisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. Summers v. Bergner Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
  5. Ott v. HoughtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. People v. CrosserAppellate Court of Illinois · 1983
  2. Bobereski, Adm. v. Ins. Co. of Pa.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
  3. Reeves v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1983
  4. Estate of Edward D. GartnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  5. Commonwealth v. FelgoiseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API