Commonwealth v. Hales

119 A.2d 520, 384 Pa. 153, 1956 Pa. LEXIS 538

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 13, 1956
• Docket: Appeal, 189
• Status: Published

Opinions

Opinion by

Me. Justice Bell,

The Commonwealth in this case charged the defendant, unmarried Yiola Hales, 18 years of age, with having killed and murdered her 6-weeks-old baby by immersing it in a basin of water. She was convicted of first degree murder with recommendation of life imprisonment. She seeks a new trial because of trial errors.

While on the witness stand, the assistant district attorney questioned defendant as to the whereabouts of her aunt, a person who was in no way connected with the crime. When the objection raised by defense counsel was overruled, she replied: “In prison.” The district attorney then asked: “What is she in there for?” After defendant’s objection was overruled, she answered: “Murder.” The district attorney then brought out that defendant had seen her aunt every day since she was in prison. When the district attorney asked “What is she in there for,” defendant objected. “Your honor, I am objecting on the record. This line of questioning . . .is irrelevant to start with, it is prejudicial, inflammatory, trying to imply something that isn’t even in the case.”

We agree with defendant that this evidence was not only irrelevant, but highly prejudicial and loas not and could not be eicred by the Judge’s later statement in his charge that the jury should dismiss the testimony from their minds since it has nothing to do with defendant’s guilt or innocence. This was reversible error for which a new trial must be granted.

When the defendant Hales was arrested, she signed a written confession at the request of the police authorities. In cross examining the chief of county detectives who had obtained this statement, defendant asked whether he, the detective, had gotten the defendant to initial the sheets on which she had made corrections in her statement. The Judge then said: “The Court: Just a minute, I would like to interrupt. Are you intimating that the chief county detective and the county detectives deliberately planted mistakes in these kind of statements in order to trick the defendant, is that what you are intimating? Mr. Lord: Well, their testimony, your honor is not exactly in accordance with what we understand. The Court: What you understand, but you are saying now by your cross examination that they deliberately plant mistakes in these statements so they call the defendant’s attention to it and have it corrected, is that right? Mr. Lord: No, sir. The Court: What are you trying to do? I would like to know. Mr. Lord: We are asking him how this mistake got into this transcript? The Court: Yes, but your question was a strong intimation that he deliberately or somebody else for him planted this mistake in this, or these series of mistakes in this statement; did you mean that? Mr. Lord : I did not mean that intimation, your honor. The Court: All right, as long as it is straight. The answer of the witness was to the effect that he understood what you meant. We are not going to permit that in this court room by innuendo, that these police officers and these county detectives deliberately try to trick any defendant in that manner.”

The last statement of the Court was improper.

Judgment and sentence reversed and new trial granted.