Opinion ID: 1462658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the District Attorney's questions constitute reversible error?

Text: Appellant complains of the following cross-examination by the District Attorney. The District Attorney asked,  referring to appellant's testimony that he had sponged on various women for food and board  Is it usually your fortune to run into these kind ladies? Appellant's counsel objected and the objection was sustained. Nevertheless, in spite of his attorney's objection and the ruling of the Court, appellant answered the question, albeit evasively. Even if this was not a proper or relevant question, the error was harmless. Furthermore, no request was made to have the answer stricken or to withdraw a juror. A party may not remain silent and take chances on a verdict and afterwards complain of matters which, if erroneous, the Court would have corrected: Commonwealth v. Razmus, 210 Pa. 609. Commonwealth v. Pava, 268 Pa. 520, 525, 112 A. 103. Accord: Commonwealth v. Mendola, 294 Pa. 353, 144 A. 292; Commonwealth v. Letherman, 320 Pa. 261, 269, 181 A. 759.