No. 3 Philadelphia, 1981, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Criminal Division, Nos. 53 and 54 of 1979.
Carol K. McGinley, Public Defender, Allentown, for appellant.
William H. Platt, District Attorney, Allentown, for Commonwealth, appellee.
McEwen, Montemuro and Shertz, JJ. Shertz, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
[ 300 Pa. Super. Page 306]
We here review an appeal from a judgment of sentence to life imprisonment for first degree murder and to a consecutive
[ 300 Pa. Super. Page 307]
term of ten to twenty years for robbery, both of which were imposed after appellant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder during the commission of an armed robbery.*fn1 We affirm.
The uncontroverted facts reveal the victim was an attendant at a service station in the village of Cementon, Whitehall Township, Lehigh County, on December 13, 1978, when he was murdered by two gunshots fired at close range during the perpetration of a robbery in which the sum of $139.46 was removed from the victim.
A principal Commonwealth witness was a woman acquaintance of the defendant. She testified that three days before the occurrence the defendant mentioned the robbery of the pertinent gas station because of his need for money. She further testified that on the very evening of the robbery he displayed a gun to her, he told her he intended to rob the gas station and, approximately one hour later, while still holding a gun, he told her he had just robbed the gas station.
Appellant presents seven questions for our consideration, including a contention that the trial judge erred by not permitting the introduction of evidence relating to the admission of this principal witness, two days after her trial testimony, to the psychiatric ward of Allentown Hospital.*fn2 The trial judge refused to allow in evidence any medical records concerning that admission and refused to allow testimony of a psychiatrist concerning his impressions of her mental state. The defendant could not indicate, however, in his offer of proof, that the proposed evidence was relevant to her ability to observe, remember or recount the matters upon which she had testified. The psychiatrist would not have been able to state there was a relationship between her
[ 300 Pa. Super. Page 308]
condition and her testimony; nor did the proffered hospital records provide reference to a relationship ...