Court Opinion

ID: 9583933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:43:11.24238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:58.343141
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, J.,
concurring.
I am in full agreement with the opinion of the court. I write in concurrence only to point out that the dissent, in contending Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), controls here, has disregarded a fundamental rule of appellate procedure by construing narrowly against the Commonwealth the evidence that the defendant voluntarily submitted to an “interview.”
Elementary is the proposition that in a criminal appeal we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. The dissenters, however, argue that defendant’s “interview” with the police “may have been confined to the routine dialogue incidental to the ‘booking’ process.” Such an argument examines the evidence in the light most favorable, not to the Commonwealth, but to the defendant; this is wrong.
“Interview” is defined as a “formal meeting for consultation.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1184 (1971). “Consultation” means a “conference . . . between two or more persons ... to consider a special matter,” for example, “holding frequent consultations with [a] lawyer to discuss the case.” Id. at 490.
The record is clear that after defendant was “booked” he voluntarily submitted to an “interview” with Detective Harding. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, this evidence does not connote a mere informal chat between the two; rather, it means that defendant made significant statements pertinent to the crime during a formal conversation with the officer about the case. Thus, it is manifest from the record, analyzed from a proper appellate perspective, that unlike the defendant in Doyle, this defendant elected to discuss fully the crime with the police. Consequently, the trial court correctly ruled that the prose*640cutor’s cross-examination about defendant’s failure to mention his alibi during that discussion was proper.