Opinion ID: 1462658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: What witnesses can and must be called by the District Attorney?

Text: Appellant contends that the Commonwealth is limited to calling as witnesses at the trial of the cause, only those persons whose names are endorsed on the bill of indictment. This contention of the appellant is devoid of merit. From the time of Blackstone, under the common law as well as under the pertinent penal statutes of Pennsylvania and the decisions interpreting them, the Commonwealth is not limited in its production of evidence to those witnesses whose names are listed on the bill of indictment: Commonwealth v. Emmel, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 441, 168 A. 2d 609; 14 Am. Jur. § 208. Furthermore it is not necessary for the Commonwealth under all circumstances to call at the trial all such witnesses: Commonwealth v. Horn, 395 Pa. 585, 589, 150 A. 2d 872, and cases cited therein; Commonwealth v. Palermo, 368 Pa. 28, 81 A. 2d 540; Commonwealth v. Deitrick, 221 Pa. 7, 70 A. 275; Commonwealth v. Giacobbe, 341 Pa. 187, 19 A. 2d 71; Commonwealth v. Zec, 262 Pa. 251, 105 A. 279; Commonwealth v. Keller, 191 Pa. 122, 43 A. 198; Act of March 31, 1860, Sections 27 and 35, P.L. 427, 19 P.S. §§ 262, 782. In the Emmel case, supra, the Superior Court held that the right of a defendant to know who his accusers are, requires only that the names of those who testify before the Grand Jury be endorsed on the indictment: Commonwealth v. Brownmiller, 137 Pa. Superior Ct. 261, 9 A. 2d 155, which is the sole authority relied upon by appellant, does not support his contention.