Court Opinion

ID: 9746859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:41:30.699233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:17.656580
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I agree with the majority that counsel should not have asked appellant whether he had been convicted—particularly since this case is a drug case and the prior conviction was for possession of marijuana. I believe, however, that an additional aspect of the manner in which counsel questioned appellant should be mentioned.
After asking appellant to identify himself, counsel asked only three questions: Whether appellant had sold the heroin in question; whether he liad been convicted of a crime before; and when, and of what crime. (N.T. 86a) When the assistant district attorney proceeded to cross examine appellant regarding the circumstances of the crime, counsel objected, arguing that the assistant district attorney could not go “beyond that which I brought out on direct.” (N.T. 88a) The objection was overruled, and the cross-examination proceeded, much to appellant’s disadvantage, for the assistant district attorney was able to elicit from appellant the admissions that he knew Bonnie Johnson, and that she and Denise Duez had indeed come to his door on February 16, 1978.
*290Counsel’s conception that he could preclude cross-examination of his client is so mistaken, see Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148, 78 S.Ct. 622, 2 L.Ed.2d 589 (1958); Commonwealth v. Lopinson, 427 Pa. 284, 234 A.2d 552, appeal after remand, 449 Pa. 33, 296 A.2d 524 cert. denied, 411 U.S. 986, 93 S.Ct. 2269, 36 L.Ed.2d 963 (1967); McCormick on Evidence, (Cleary ed. 1972), § 26 pp. 53-55, as to destroy any confidence in the quality of his representation of appellant. It seems to me that counsel’s manner of questioning appellant did nothing but harm appellant’s defense, with no offsetting gain.