Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Lively
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided May 18, 1992No. 204 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1990PublishedCited by 147 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZAPPALA, Justice.
We granted allocatur to consider limitations on the rule we set forth in Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 123, 507 A.2d 66 (1986), permitting the admission, as substantive evidence, of prior inconsistent statements by a non-party witness. 1 We now hold that such a statement shall be used as substantive evidence only when it was given under oath at a formal legal proceeding; or the statement is reduced to a writing signed and adopted by the declarant; or the statement is recorded verbatim contemporaneously with the making of the statement.
From all the evidence admitted at…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Oregon v. KennedySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. DinitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Commonwealth v. BradySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Commonwealth v. SimonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. KunishSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by147 opinions
- Commonwealth v. HanibleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Commonwealth v. CollinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
- Commonwealth v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Commonwealth v. HowardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
142 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.