Court Opinion

ID: 9641696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:38:10.880085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:39.183217
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts and Mr. Justice Nix:
We dissent believing that the Commonwealth should not have been permitted on cross-examination to elicit *622evidence of unrelated prior convictions. We do not believe, as the majority suggests, that the record supports its assumption that reference to appellant’s 1963 plea of guilty was introduced in order to establish his good character.
Appellant’s testimony was specifically directed to a single event.1 Nevertheless, the cross-examination was plainly beyond the scope of direct examination. Appellant’s rights under the Act of March 15, 1911, P.L. 20, § 1,19 P.S. § 711 (1964) were violated. The trial court should have sustained counsel’s timely objection to this improper cross-examination. For this reason we believe appellant is entitled to the award of a new trial.

 On direct examination by defense counsel, the following transpired : “Q. Sam, back in 1963, were you found guilty of larceny and receiving stolen goods and given two years probation? A. I wasn’t found guilty. I pleaded guilty. Q. And did you get probation? A. Yes, I did.”