Opinion ID: 2009054
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: refusal to permit transcript of extradition hearing to be read into record

Text: The appellant next argues that the court below erred in denying his motion to read the transcript from the Canadian extradition hearing into the record. [17] We hold that the lower court committed no error in refusing the motion. The appellant chose to exercise his right not to take the stand, thereby making himself unavailable for cross-examination. Commonwealth v. Sandutch, 498 Pa. 536, 449 A.2d 566 (1982). To allow the transcript to be read to the jury would have denied the Commonwealth an opportunity to cross-examine the appellant, notwithstanding the adversarial nature of the Canadian extradition proceeding. The issue presented to the Canadian authorities was whether sufficient evidence had been adduced as would justify the appellant's arrest and commitment for trial under Canadian law. [18] In contrast, at trial the Commonwealth had the burden of proving the appellant's guilt of theft by deception beyond a reasonable doubt under Pennsylvania law. For prior testimony to be admissible, the issue must remain the same in both proceedings. This requirement ensures that an opposing party had an adequate motive for testing the credibility of that testimony. Commonwealth v. Velasquez, 449 Pa. 599, 296 A.2d 768 (1972). The interests of the Canadian authorities, in a hearing to determine whether to extradite a Canadian resident, were substantially different from the interests of the Commonwealth. Admission of the testimony would have denied the Commonwealth its opportunity to cross-examine the appellant. It is a fundamental principle of evidence that trial testimony is always subject to impeachment by the opposing party. . . . Commonwealth v. Sandutch 498 Pa. at 541, 449 A.2d at 568 (Roberts, J., concurring). The appellant wished to introduce his extradition testimony to bolster his alibi defense, but to shield that testimony from cross-examination by the Commonwealth. The court below correctly denied the motion. [19]