Court Opinion

ID: 9754374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:57:39.414492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:52.868405
License: Public Domain

BECK, Judge,
concurring.
I join in the majority’s decision to apply the devisavit vel non exception to the Dead Man’s Act and affirm the judgment in favor of appellee Katherine Pagnotti. I write separately to emphasize my belief that the Dead Man’s Act has outlived its usefulness as a rule of evidence and should be repealed.
The stated purpose of the Act in this Commonwealth is: to prevent the injustice that would result from permitting a surviving party to a transaction to testify favorably to himself and adversely to the interest of a decedent, when the decedent’s representative would be hampered in attempting to refute the testimony or be in no position to refute it, by reason of the decedent’s death.
In re Estate of Hall, 517 Pa. 115, 535 A.2d 47, 53 (1987).
Although to “prevent injustice” surely is our goal, I believe the Act does more to hinder the truth-seeking process, and thereby cause injustice, than prevent it. As McCormick aptly has noted:
[T]he expedient of refusing to listen to the survivor is, in the words of Bentham, a “blind and brainless” technique. In *46seeking to avoid injustice to one side, the statute-makers ignored the equal possibility of creating injustice to the other. The temptation to the survivor to fabricate a claim or defense is obvious enough, so obvious indeed that any jury will realize that his story must be cautiously heard. A searching cross-examination will usually, in case of fraud, reveal discrepancies inherent in the “tangled web” of deception.
McCormick on Evidence § 65 (4th Ed.1992).
The drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence wisely have understood the distinction between the competency of a witness and his or her credibility. The Rules therefore contain no “Dead Man’s” provision. Rule 601 directs that “every person is competent to be a witness,” and this general mandate is balanced by Rule 607: “The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.” The Federal Rules of Evidence reflect a preference for an effective cross-examination over a rule of outright incompetency. I believe these Rules provide the better model.