Court Opinion

ID: 9727814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:50:42.125823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:43.234173
License: Public Domain

HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
Superior Court was plainly correct in one of its two alternate grounds for granting a new trial. The admission as substantive evidence of the detective’s testimony that the witness had made an out of court declaration that appellee’s photograph showed the killer was reversible error on the facts of this case. Moreover, Superior Court’s holding on the use of the out of court identification for impeachment purposes, as Mr. Justice Zappala notes in his opinion announcing the judgment of the Court, is required by our decision in Commonwealth v. Ballard, 501 Pa. 230, 460 A.2d 1091 (1983). The remaining discussion of the discovery rule is, to my mind, unnecessary. I therefore disas*409sociate myself from that portion of the opinion and concur in the result.