Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 535 Pa. 77, 82, 634 A.2d 192, 195 (1993). When defense counsel attempted to cross-examine Ms. Robinson regarding her being “on the run” with her fugitive husband, the trial court ruled the evidence inadmissible as Ms. Robinson was never convicted of a crime. Commonwealth v. Fuller, 336 Pa.Super. 507, 509, 485 A.2d 1197, 1198 (1984) (a witness’s credibility may not be impeached by prior acts of misconduct which have not led to convictions). Consequently, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting appellants’ cross examination. Nolen, supra. Appellants next argue that the trial court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury pursuant to Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 378 Pa. 412, 106 A.2d 820 (1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 875, 75 S.Ct. 112, 99 L.Ed. 688 (1954) (<HOLDING>). Here, as part of its charge, the trial judge 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution (B) holding that witness had an independent basis to support incourt identification where the description made prior to any pretrial identification was substantially an accurate description of the defendant (C) holding that prior identification is not hearsay when the declarant is available at trial for crossexamination and that it makes no difference whether the witness admits or denies or fails to recall making the prior identification (D) holding that trial court erred when it admitted outofcourt identification of defendant when the witness who made the identification was never asked about defendants identity at trial (E) holding that admission of a witness prior identification statement where the witness could not remember the basis for the identification did not violate the confrontation clause or fedrevid 802
Output (English): holding that trial court erred when it admitted outofcourt identification of defendant when the witness who made the identification was never asked about defendants identity at trial