Opinion ID: 2373688
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Court Refused to Allow Proper Examination of a Police Witness

Text: Appellant claims that he attempted to cross-examine Officer Donald Irons as to descriptive information which he was told at the scene of the crime by witnesses, which was highly relevant to the identity of the perpetrators and to the issue of identification. (Brief, pp. 48-49). He now alleges that the court sustained a Commonwealth objection to this cross-examination. The record shows that he asked no questions of Officer Irons at this point, but rather that his co-defendants did. (T.T., September 24, 1984, p. 1.79). He cannot complain about sustained objections to cross-examination questions by the co-defendants. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 474 Pa. 410, 378 A.2d 859 (1977) (defendant may not assert personal rights of another). The supposed identification information raised by co-defendant Mitchell, pertained to information about the height of the tallest person. These questions did not pertain to Appellant because he was the shortest of the defendants. The court did not preclude such questioning, but ruled that such cross-examination was beyond the scope of direct examination, and invited co-defendant Mitchell to call Officer Irons as his own witness, which he did on October 2, during the defense case, at which point the evidence defendant claims was excluded was examined in detail (T.T., October 2, 1984, pp. 6.75-.88). Appellant then asked only one question on cross-examination, eliciting a description consistent with his own height.