Court Opinion

ID: 9758872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:53:45.91234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:57.262106
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen :
The summation of the assistant district attorney in this case violated the rules of propriety and was an immature attempt to convict the accused by appealing to the passions and prejudices of the jury. Moreover, it constituted the giving of testimony by an unsworn witness. See Commonwealth v. Clark, 322 Pa. 321, 185 A. 2d 764 (1936). In my view, a new trial is, therefore, required.
*221Regardless of the nature of the crime charged, the accused is entitled to a fair and impartial trial. The summation of the assistant district attorney instantly deprived the accused of this right.
It is true that defense counsel failed to interpose a timely objection,1 but as this Court said in Commonwealth v. Stowers, 363 Pa. 435, 437, 70 A. 2d 226-227 (1950) : “[I]n a homicide case, where a defendant’s life or liberty is at stake, and where defendant may have been deprived of a fair and impartial trial, or suffered manifest injustice, and appellate court will review the case notwithstanding the failure of defendant’s counsel to take proper exceptions.” [Emphasis original.] See also Commonwealth v. Silvis, 445 Pa. 235, 284 A. 2d 740 (1971), and Commonwealth v. Lynott, 133 Pa. Superior Ct. 565, 3 A. 2d 207 (1938).
I respectfully dissent.

 The error was raised in the motion for a new trial.