Court Opinion

ID: 9732253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:13:07.050394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:25.449840
License: Public Domain

McDERMOTT, Justice,
dissenting.
In this ease we are faced with a dilemma. The question is shall we open a door to what may be a flood of appeals from in limine evidentiary rulings, or must we permit what are clearly erroneous rulings to prevail because we would not be flooded by such appeals. In Bosurgi1 and Dugger2 *531we have heretofore allowed appeals from suppression orders where the Commonwealth’s case has been handicapped. In the same vein I would resolve the question here by allowing an appeal3 because when the Commonwealth is obliged to proceed to trial under erroneous evidential rulings, given in limine, then the consequences may be incurable.4
Turning to the facts of this case, the Commonwealth offered to prove that two persons were stabbed on the same occasion, and that sequence of the stabbings dispute not only a proffer of self defense, but would show an intent to kill either or both victims. Certainly, the stabbing of two people at the same time bears directly upon the history of the occasion, and who was stabbed first can bear upon the intent of the stabber. I believe the learned trial judge below made too sharp a distinction in holding that each stabbing was a discrete offense unrelated and unrelatable to each other. This is particularly so in that the Commonwealth offered an expert witness to contradict or establish, as necessary, that the blood found on the knife was conclusive in determining the sequence of the stabbings. Further, I believe the trial judge erred in passing upon the credibility of proffered evidence in determining its relevancy and admissibility. It is for the trier of fact at trial, and not in an in limine proceeding, that credibility is determined.
I would affirm the Superior Court.

. Commonwealth v. Bosurgi, 411 Pa. 56, 190 A.2d 304 (1963).

. Commonwealth v. Dugger, 506 Pa. 537, 486 A.2d 382 (1985).

. I do not accept the argument that to allow such an appeal will open the floodgates to innumerable pre-trial appeals. We can stem the tide of appeals by the Commonwealth by strict enforcement of disciplinary rules against frivolity and delay.

. By contrast, a defendant convicted under an erroneous ruling always has the opportunity to cure the defect on appeal.