Court Opinion

ID: 9748304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:59:20.051587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:34.201743
License: Public Domain

BROSKY, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. The testimony which would have been given by the witness was too indefinite to have been sufficiently helpful to the defense. As such, its absence cannot form the basis for a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The issue before us has been the subject of a number of appellate court opinions in this Commonwealth. First, “It is clear that trial counsel’s failure to present a possible witness is not per se ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel need not call every person mentioned by a defendant.” Commonwealth v. Charleston, 251 Pa.Super. 311 at 316, 380 A.2d 795 at 797 (1977).
The generally stated standard to be applied is given in another case of this court. “Without some positive indica*280tion or demonstration that their testimony would be helpful to the defense, we cannot equate the failure to call the other occupants as witnesses with a conclusion of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Harper, 233 Pa.Super. 294 at 300, 334 A.2d 761 at 763. (1975) (emphasis supplied).
This was interpreted in one opinion as requiring “that appellant ... demonstrate the necessity of the ... testimony ...” Commonwealth v. Helvy, 278 Pa.Super. 458 at 462, 420 A.2d 631 at 633 (1980).
The Supreme Court of this Commonwealth has decided a case remarkably similar to the one sub judice. Commonwealth v. Hagood, 491 Pa. 181, 420 A.2d 401 (1980). In Hagood there was also an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel due to a failure to call a potential witness. However, that witness was not definite in his recollection as to the exact date in question. “Such uncertainty on the crucial facts necessary to establish the claim of ineffectiveness precludes favorable consideration ... Certainly there is no basis for the grant of a new trial.” Commonwealth v. Hagood, supra, 491 Pa. at 186, 420 A.2d at 404.
This is, I believe, exactly the situation before us. The proposed witness did not remember whether the day in question was one on which she had classes.1 Nor was she able to give any specific testimony about the relevant date. All she could contribute was very general statements about appellant’s presence over the period of a whole week. This thin tissue cannot support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel mandating a new trial. It does not give “a positive indication ... that (the) testimony would be helpful.” Nor does it “demonstrate the necessity of the ... testimony.”
I would affirm judgment of sentence.

. It was not, as the majority opinion points out, a day on which she had classes.