Court Opinion

ID: 9702641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:20:02.375012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:40.134659
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mb. Justice Roberts :
3 concur in the result solely for the reason that appellant has waived his right to now challenge the allegedly improper cross-examination of him by the assistant district attorney. This waiver is premised upon his failure to raise this issue in his motion for a new trial.
It is well settled that this Court will not consider for the first time on appeal assignments of error not raised in the trial court. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Garrett, 423 Pa. 8, 10 n.1, 222 A. 2d 902, 904 n.1 (1966). The majority has nevertheless chosen to reach the merits of this issue, and I must express my disagreement with their conclusion.
*42After first asking appellant the date of his marriage, the assistant district attorney inquired as follows : “Q. Isn’t it true Mr. Conner, that you were convicted of taking your wife to a house of prostitution under the Mann Act? The Court: Well, now, that’s objectionable. I’ll handle that part of it. . . .” Despite this prompt and stern admonition by the trial judge, the assistant district attorney persisted in his quest of exposing appellant’s prior criminal activity, asking him: “Q. Mr. Conner, isn’t it true that you tried to burn your wife’s house down at one time?”
The heinous crimes thus imputed to appellant were very likely to inflame the passions of the jury. I therefore cannot subscribe to the majority’s view that these prosecutorial references were not improper and prejudicial.