Court Opinion

ID: 9696065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:34:51.729246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:18.131749
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice McBride:
I agree that the language of Judge Hirt in Kerr v. Clements, 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 378, 25 A. 2d 737, in referring to the Act of May 23, 1887, P.L. 158, 19 P.S. §683, as amended, is applicable to this case. Judge Hirt said: “What is prohibited by the act is testimony in any form by the wife or husband against the other. Extra-judicial admissions are a sort of testimony; hence the prohibition of the act applies to them with the same force as though made by a spouse from the stand.”
Thus it is seen that the alternatives are that the declaration of the wife was against her husband or it was not. If it was not, it was not admissible in this case since in that event it would be admissible only against herself and she was not on trial with him. If it was, then it falls within the ban of the rule as stated. Believing it to be error to have admitted it, I cannot escape the conclusion that it harmed the defendant. It is therefore unnecessary to consider, under the circumstances of this case, (a) whether the wife can be and (under the evidence aliunde the decía*56ration itself) was a co-conspirator with her husband and (b) whether the declaration was in furtherance of a conspiracy between her and her husband as distinguished from a conspiracy between her and the others. Hence, I dissent.