Title: Com. v. Greenwood

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

488 Pa. 618 (1980) 413 A.2d 655 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. James Richard GREENWOOD, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 11, 1980. Decided April 25, 1980. *619 George B. Stegenga, Washington, for appellant. Paul M. Petro, Asst. Dist. Atty., Washington, for appellee. Before EAGEN, C.J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY and KAUFFMAN, JJ. EAGEN, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence (three years imprisonment) imposed on James Richard Greenwood following his conviction by a jury of involuntary manslaughter.[1] For the reasons that follow, we reverse and award a new trial. The factual background of the killing which gave rise to the prosecution may be briefly stated thusly: *620 After gaining no response to repeated dialings of the phone number and knocks on the door of appellant Greenwood's farmhouse-residence, two young men entered the house through an unlocked basement door with the intent of stealing drugs. Shortly thereafter, Greenwood confronted the intruders armed with a loaded, .22 caliber rifle. As the intruders fled from the premises, Greenwood followed and pursued them for a distance of over 200 feet firing several shots. As one of the young men ran through a field located more than 400 feet from the Greenwood house, he was hit and fatally injured by a shot fired by Greenwood. Greenwood testified on his own behalf at the trial, saying he fired the rifle to frighten the intruders only and not with any intent of hitting either of them. During cross-examination, the District Attorney was permitted to make the following inquiries over objection: Cross-examination of the same nature ensued of witnesses who testified to Greenwood's reputation.[2] *622 The cross-examination was irrelevant to the issue on trial[3] and tended to divert the minds of the jury and prevent an objective resolution of the question for decision. In plain language, it created an aroma not conducive to a fair trial. Moreover, it was blatantly violative of the Act of April 23, 1909, P.L. 140, 28 P.S. § 313 which provides: See Commonwealth v. Mimms, 477 Pa. 553, 385 A.2d 334 (1978). Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered. [1] The judgment of sentence was affirmed by the Superior Court. Judge Spaeth filed a dissenting opinion. We granted Greenwood's petition for special allowance to appeal. We note that, following argument of post-verdict motions in the trial court, the President Judge of that court filed a minority opinion urging a new trial. [2] For example, Greenwood's father-in-law was questioned in part as follows over objection: "Q. Do you know that your son-in-law is listed in the telephone directory as Reverend James Greenwood? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. Have you gone to any of his church meetings? A. No, I haven't." Another witness was subject to the following cross-examination over objection: "Q. Where does your wife live? A. She lives in Carnegie, Pa. Q. Are you separated? A. I've been separated for four years, yes. Q. Do you go to church with Reverend Greenwood? A. No. I don't go to church with anybody. Q. Do you go to church? A. No, I don't believe in church." Another witness was cross-examined in part as follows over objection: "Q. Do you go to the same church as Reverend Greenwood? A. No, sir. Q. What church do you go to? A. None. Q. Do you and your husband share Mr. Greenwood's disbelief in the Ten Commandments?" (emphasis added) (This question also assumed a fact not in evidence.) [3] Pointing out that during Greenwood's direct examination he detailed many alleged academic achievements, the district attorney urges this opened the door to the type of cross-examination he pursued. We are not so persuaded. For example, whether Greenwood or his witnesses believed in the Ten Commandments was totally irrelevant and served no useful purpose.