Commonwealth v. White

Full title: Commonwealth v. White, Appellant

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 3, 1974

323 A.2d 238 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974)

323 A.2d 238

Opinion

December 11, 1973.

April 3, 1974.

Criminal law — Witnesses — Questioning of reputation witness — Question concerning community knowledge of defendant's prior crime.

A reputation witness may be asked about whether he has ever heard persons in the neighborhood attribute particular offenses to the defendant.

Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, and SPAETH, JJ. (SPAULDING, J., absent).

Appeals, Nos. 685, 706/709, Oct. T., 1973, from order and judgment of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, Jan. T., 1971, Nos. 817, 818, 819, and 821, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Paul White. Order and judgment affirmed.

Petition for post-conviction relief. Before DOTY, A.J.

Order entered dismissing petition and granting leave to file an appeal, nunc pro tunc, from judgment of sentence. Defendant appealed.

Brian E. Appel, and Segal, Appel Natali, for appellant.

James T. Ranney and David Richman, Assistant District Attorneys, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Submitted December 11, 1973.

OPINION PER CURIAM, April 3, 1974:

The appellant was sentenced to one to eight years for burglary and the evidence was overwhelming. The case was tried non-jury before Judge KINLEY.

The only contention deserving some discussion is that the Commonwealth committed prejudicial error in questioning the appellant's reputation witness, who testified as to appellant's reputation for being a law-abiding citizen. The prosecutor asked the reputation witness whether she knew if the people in the community knew about prior crimes the appellant had committed. There was an objection by defense counsel, which was overruled.

It is well established that a reputation witness may be asked about whether he has ever heard persons in the neighborhood attribute particular offenses to a defendant. Commonwealth v. Amos, 445 Pa. 297, 284 A.2d 748 (1971); Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 413 Pa. 606, 198 A.2d 497 (1964). Under the circumstances of this case the line of cross-examination herein was not prejudicial because it was non-jury, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the questions, as worded, so closely parallel the acceptable scope of cross-examination of reputation witnesses.

Order and judgment of the court below are affirmed.