Narrative Opinion Summary
The petition for allowance of appeal has been granted as of March 19, 1997. The court will review three key issues on appeal: 1. The admissibility of Dr. Bindie’s written report regarding the timing of the fatal injury as a prior inconsistent statement under Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 123, 507 A2d 66 (1986) and its subsequent interpretations. 2. The use of a non-party witness's prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence when the proponent does not cross-examine the witness about that statement in court. 3. The potential for an expert witness’s written report, containing a prior inconsistent statement, to be considered as substantive evidence when the proponent does not question the expert in court regarding that statement.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admissibility of Prior Inconsistent Statementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examines whether Dr. Bindie’s written report regarding the timing of the fatal injury can be admitted as a prior inconsistent statement under the precedent set in Commonwealth v. Brady and its interpretations.
Reasoning: The admissibility of Dr. Bindie’s written report regarding the timing of the fatal injury as a prior inconsistent statement under Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 123, 507 A2d 66 (1986) and its subsequent interpretations.
Expert Witness Reports as Substantive Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addresses whether an expert witness’s written report that includes a prior inconsistent statement can be deemed substantive evidence if the proponent does not interrogate the expert regarding the statement during the trial.
Reasoning: The potential for an expert witness’s written report, containing a prior inconsistent statement, to be considered as substantive evidence when the proponent does not question the expert in court regarding that statement.
Use of Non-Party Witness's Prior Inconsistent Statementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court will consider the circumstances under which a non-party witness’s prior inconsistent statement may be used as substantive evidence, specifically when the statement is not addressed through cross-examination by the proponent in court.
Reasoning: The use of a non-party witness's prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence when the proponent does not cross-examine the witness about that statement in court.