Appeal from order of Superior Court, No. 316, April T., 1968, affirming judgment of Court of Oyer and Terminer of Somerset County, Sept. T., 1967, No. 1, in case of Commonwealth v. Fred Ellis Barron.
Caram J. Abood, for appellant.
Alexander Ogle, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, submitted a brief.
Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Eagen.
The appellant, Fred Ellis Barron, was convicted by a jury in Somerset County of robbery and other related crimes. Post-trial motions were dismissed, and a prison sentence was imposed. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the judgment without opinion. We granted allocatur and now reverse.
At trial, Barron testified personally and denied commission of the crimes charged. During cross-examination, the trial court permitted the district attorney, over objection, to question Barron concerning prior criminal convictions "to impeach his credibility." This was prejudicial error and in direct violation of the Act of March 15, 1911, P. L. 20, 19 P.S. § 711.
The Act of 1911 specifically states:
"Hereafter any person charged with any crime, and called as a witness in his own behalf, shall not be asked, and, if asked, shall not be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed, or been charged with, or been convicted of any offense other than the one wherewith he shall then be charged, or tending to show that he has been of bad character or reputation; unless, --
"One. He shall have at such trial, personally or by his advocate, asked questions of the witness for the prosecution with a view to establish his own good reputation or character, or has given evidence tending to prove his own good character or reputation; or,
"Two. He shall have testified at such trial against a co-defendant, charged with the same offense."
The record discloses no circumstances giving rise to the exceptions mentioned in the statute which would render the challenged cross-examination permissible. The ...