Case Name: Commonwealth v. McGuiness, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1964-09-17
Citations: 204 Pa. Super. 75
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 186
Parties: Commonwealth v. McGuiness, Appellant.
Judges: Before Ervin, Wright, Wqodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Bhodes, P. J., absent).
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 204
Pages: 75–78

Head Matter:
Commonwealth v. McGuiness, Appellant.
September 17, 1964:
Argued June 8, 1964.
Before Ervin, Wright, Wqodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Bhodes, P. J., absent).
Stanley Frank, with him Frank and Margolis, for appellant.
Burton Satzberg, Assistant District Attorney, with him Thomas M. Reed, Assistant District Attorney, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., First Assistant District Attorney, and James 0. Orumlish, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Ervin, J.,
The appellant, John McGuiness, was tried before the court below without a jury on a bill charging as sault and battery, indecent assault, aggravated assault and battery, assault and battery witb intent to ravish, and rape. Tbe court adjudged the defendant guilty as charged and after tbe refusal of motion for a new trial, sentence was imposed. Tbe defendant appealed.
A reading of tbe entire record makes it clear that there was sufficient evidence to support tbe conviction of rape.
Counsel complains that tbe trial judge did not permit him to cross-examine tbe prosecutrix in detail. Tbe court below allowed a wide scope to counsel in bis examination of tbe prosecutrix. Defense counsel asked a series of repetitious questions and tbe court very patiently permitted him to do so. There were nine pages of direct examination of tbe prosecutrix and thirty-three pages of cross-examination. This in itself is a complete answer to this complaint.
Counsel for appellant also complains of tbe failure of tbe court to permit cross-examination of tbe prosecutrix to show that tbe husband beat tbe prosecutrix and bad left her and that she had only made this rape charge in order to make her husband jealous and get him back. Tbe defendant was permitted to tell of conversations witb the prosecutrix wherein she is alleged to have told bow her husband mistreated her and tbe children and bow be beat her up, and be was also allowed to tell of another conversation wherein tbe prosecutrix is alleged to have said that her husband bad left her or was leaving her. Tbe defense, therefore, was permitted to bring out all of the facts necessary upon which to base an argument that tbe rape charge was made in order to make tbe husband jealous and to get him back. No possible barm could have come to the defendant because of the limitation imposed in tbe cross-examination of tbe prosecutrix.
Counsel for appellant also argues that be was prejudiced by tbe court's questioning of tbe prosecutrix. This contention is not well founded. All that the court did in this case was to give some assistance to the prosecutrix in helping her to describe what was meant by the word "rape." Leading questions may be used when modesty and delicacy preclude full answers to general questions and this is especially true in rape prosecutions.
Judgment of sentence is affirmed and the defendant is directed to appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called, and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence, or any part of it which had not been performed at the time the appeal was made a supersedeas.