Opinion ID: 1474553
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Testimony by Surprise Witness

Text: Immediately prior to trial, the appellant requested that the Commonwealth's witnesses be sequestered. At that juncture, the Commonwealth revealed that they planned to call Pam's mother, Carol McMullan. [32] The appellant objected on the basis that Carol McMullan had not been listed as a witness in the information or in the Commonwealth's Answer to Defendant's Request for a Bill of Particulars. The appellant had requested the identification of all witnesses in a Bill of Particulars, and the Commonwealth responded by listing certain witnesses and indicating Commonwealth may or may not call additional witnesses. N.T. July 16 and 17, 1980, at 5-7. The trial court allowed Carol McMullan to testify. Her testimony primarily covered the dates on which Pam was left at the Circle S Ranch with the appellant, and the family's familiarity with the appellant. Carol McMullan also related that she discovered what had taken place through an investigating officer, and then Pam had confessed it to her. Id. at 32. Even if a witness is called whose name is not in the complaint or bill of particulars, sufficient prejudice must be found to entitle a defendant to reversal. Commonwealth v. Layman, 290 Pa.Super. 244, 434 A.2d 735 (1981). The testimony of the surprise witness here did not convey any crucial or corroborative information about the crimes against Pam. The sole purpose of Carol McMullan's testimony was to supply background information as to the family's connection with the Circle S Ranch, and the period during which Pam stayed with the appellant. Significantly, Carol McMullan did not testify as to any actual criminal episodes which may have been narrated to her by her daughter or the investigating officer. [33] Nor did she furnish any circumstantial evidence that the crimes against Pam had been committed. In addition, the appellant fully exercised his opportunity to cross-examine Carol McMullan. Thus, the essence of Carol McMullan's surprise testimony was not sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal of his conviction.