Commonwealth v. Kimbell
563 Pa. 256, 2000 Pa. LEXIS 2583, 759 A.2d 1273 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under common law in Pennsylvania, the element of 'surprise' is not an absolute requirement to permit a party to cross-examine its own witness with prior inconsistent statements; courts should allow such impeachment when principles of truth and justice so require, even if the party calling the witness was not genuinely surprised by the testimony.
Facts:
- On June 15, 1994, the bodies of Bonnie Dryfuse, her two daughters (Jacqueline and Heather), and her niece (Stephanie Herko) were discovered in the Dryfuse mobile home.
- Tom Dryfuse, Bonnie's husband and father of Jacqueline and Heather, told police he returned home after 3:00 p.m. on the day of the murders.
- Tom Dryfuse testified that Heather was the only child he touched after finding the bodies, but forensic evidence showed Jacqueline's blood on his hand.
- Mary Herko, Stephanie's mother, had previously given a statement to the Pennsylvania State Police indicating that Bonnie Dryfuse told her 'Jake [Tom Dryfuse] had just pulled in' around 2:20 p.m. on the day of the homicides during a phone call.
- When defense counsel called Mary Herko as a witness at trial, she testified that Bonnie Dryfuse merely said, 'I got to go, somebody just pulled up in the driveway,' before hanging up, omitting the identification of 'Jake.'
- Kimbell resided near the Dryfuse mobile home, was seen in close proximity to it before the bodies were found, and other witnesses testified he admitted involvement in the crimes.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Kimbell, Jr. was convicted on four charges of first-degree murder in the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas.
- The jury imposed death sentences for the murders of Jacqueline, Heather, and Stephanie, and a life sentence for the murder of Bonnie Dryfuse.
- Kimbell filed a post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal or, alternatively, for a new trial in the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas.
- The Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas denied Kimbell's post-sentence motion.
- Kimbell appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania pursuant to Section 9711(h) of the Judicial Code for automatic review following the imposition of the death penalty.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to allow defense counsel to cross-examine its own witness, Mary Herko, regarding her prior inconsistent statement to police when her trial testimony omitted a critical detail that would have implicated another person, even if the defense was arguably not 'surprised' by the omission?
Opinions:
Majority - Zappala, Justice
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by denying defense counsel the opportunity to cross-examine Mary Herko regarding her prior statement because the overriding principles of truth and justice required it, effectively dispensing with the strict 'surprise' element for impeaching one's own witness. The court noted that while the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence (Pa. R.E. 607(a)) abolish the common law rule against impeaching one's own witness, they were not yet in effect at the time of Kimbell's trial. Therefore, the court reviewed the common law principles that had evolved to relax the strict 'voucher rule,' which traditionally prevented a party from impeaching a witness they called. Citing cases like Commonwealth v. Brady, the court emphasized that the element of 'surprise' is not an absolute requirement and that courts should permit parties to 'show the truth without strict regard to technicalities.' The court found a significant difference between Herko's trial testimony (unidentified person) and her prior statement (identifying 'Jake' Dryfuse), concluding that the trial court erred in finding the testimony neither contradictory nor harmful to Kimbell. The inability to cross-examine Herko deprived Kimbell of the opportunity to establish Tom Dryfuse's presence at the scene contrary to his alibi and to offer an explanation for the blood evidence.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and reinforces the evolution of Pennsylvania common law regarding the impeachment of one's own witness, effectively de-emphasizing or eliminating the 'surprise' requirement in favor of broader principles of truth and justice. It demonstrates a judicial willingness to prioritize the presentation of all relevant evidence to the jury, even when it involves a party impeaching a witness they called. The ruling ensures that defendants have a robust opportunity to present exculpatory evidence or cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative, preventing technicalities from hindering a fair trial. While the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence later codified a similar principle, this case provides crucial common law precedent for understanding the historical shift and the underlying rationale.
