Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Hill

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 17, 1989No. 28 M.D. Appeal Docket 1988PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

We allowed appeal in this matter to determine the propriety of permitting a defendant to cross-examine a prosecution witness as to his prior guilty plea for which sentence has yet to be imposed. The purpose of such questioning is to attempt to establish a possible prosecution bias in the witness due to the pendancy of sentence and the implied control the Commonwealth might exercise over that sentence if the witness’ testimony is not favorable to the prosecutor’s theory of the case. Both lower courts denied Appellant the use of such cross-examination, but for the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. EvansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Commonwealth v. SlaughterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Commonwealth v. PalarinoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  4. Commonwealth v. FINKELSTEINSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  5. Commonwealth v. PeetrosSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. Reid, A., ApltSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Commonwealth v. O'SheaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Commonwealth v. Reid, A., ApltSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Commonwealth v. FoxSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  5. Commonwealth v. SattazahnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

16 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