 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Ogrod12/30/2003
. . . [the witness] denied any knowledge that Draper's father was involved in his investigation, it was within the province of the jury to decide whether [the witness'] testimony was tainted.
Id. at 80 (citations omitted). See also, Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 555 A.2d 846 (Pa. 1989) cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 (1990) (evidence as to whether witness had advocated killing of police officers was admissible to show that the witness was biased against the officers). In this case, the questioning by the Commonwealth actually succeeded in getting Mr. Blust to admit that he did not like at least two individual police officers. N.T. 9/8/93 at 148, 154. There was potential bias and the Commonwealth acted properly by asking questions to show that bias. Additionally, the probative value of the testimony regarding bias clearly outweighed any prejudice to Appellant who was not the witness and who was not discredited by the prior contact Mr. Blust had with police. This was also not the guilt or penalty phase of the trial. The testimony on cross-examination came in during the suppression hearing, out of the presence of the jury. Consequently, the trial court properly allowed the Commonwealth to inquire into the prior experience of Mr. Blust with police to show that he did not like police and that his bias may have caused him to fabricate his testimony regarding police misconduct. Because we find the underlying claim not meritorious, we reject Appellant's claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness to the extent that he failed to object to the cross-examination of Mr. Blust.
Police Activity Sheets
Appellant next claims that his defense was hampered by the failure of the Commonwealth to turn over police activity sheets because they contained evidence that police had another suspect for the crime. Brief of Appellant at 23. Appellant cites to Pa.R.Crim.P. 305B(1)(a), which requires the Commonwealth to disclose any evidence that is material to either guilt or punishment, and Rule 305B(1)(f), which requires disclosure of, among other things, tangible objects. Appellant claims that the refusal of the Commonwealth to supply the actual activity sheets rises to the level of reversible error.
The Commonwealth counters the argument of Appellant by pointing out that it did provide him with summaries of the activity sheets. Brief of the Commonwealth at 30. Additionally, the Commonwealth refutes the contention of Appellant that his attorney did not have the activity sheets by pointing out that counsel introduced a police activity sheet and an activity run log at the first trial. Id. The Commonwealth also observes that Appellant has failed to "state which activity sheets he did or did not receive, how the police summaries that he did receive allegedly differed from the activity sheets that he supposedly did not receive, or discuss how he was prejudiced." Id. at 31.
The standard for review of a decision of a trial court to deny a discovery request is one of abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Rucci, 670 A.2d 1129, 1140 (Pa. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1121 (1997). Appellant cannot show an abuse of discretion if he fails to show how he was prejudiced by the decision. Commonwealth v. Brown, 342 A.2d 84, 89 (Pa. 1975). If the summaries included the same information as the original activity sheets, the purported lack of disclosure could not have prejudiced him. Additionally, the Commonwealth properly points out that Appellant had some police activity records in that he introduced them into evidence. N.T. 10/25/93 at 330 and 10/27/93 at 694-695.
Appellant argues that he would have sought to show that the activity sheets would have showed that police, at one time, suspected that Mr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|