Court Opinion

ID: 9747320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:10:33.156118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:22.812644
License: Public Domain

HUTCHINSON, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result. I cannot agree with the implication in the majority opinion that cross-examination concerning past incidents which tend to show that a complainant was motivated by ill will in bringing the prosecution is always beyond the broad discretion the trial court has in determining when to permit or cut off cross-examination on collateral matters. See In Re Townsend’s Estate, 430 Pa. 318, 241 A.2d 534 (1968); Downey v. Weston, 451 Pa. 259, 301 A.2d 635 (1973) (impeachment). The sole issue in this case was whether the appellant stole from the complainant. The facts and circumstances surrounding prior fights and disagreements were properly excluded as collateral. Nevertheless, I concur in the result because the complainant’s prior conviction for aggravated assault on this appellant is so highly relevant and so easily proven or disproven that the trial judge abused his discretion in not permitting appellant to refer to it on cross-examination. Evidence of the *529prior conviction could have been successfully segregated from the other collateral matters thus allowing the admission of the prior conviction without letting the collateral matters bury the issue of whether appellant was guilty of the crimes charged here.