Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5917 (2026)

Notes of evidence at former trial.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5917. Notes of evidence at former trial.

Whenever any person has been examined as a witness, either for the Commonwealth or for the defense, in any criminal proceeding conducted in or before a court of record, and the defendant has been present and has had an opportunity to examine or cross-examine, if such witness afterwards dies, or is out of the jurisdiction so that he cannot be effectively served with a subpoena, or if he cannot be found, or if he becomes incompetent to testify for any legally sufficient reason properly proven, notes of his examination shall be competent evidence upon a subsequent trial of the same criminal issue. For the purpose of contradicting a witness the testimony given by him in another or in a former proceeding may be orally proved.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 738 A.2d 406 (Pa. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 738 A.2d 406 (Pa. 1999). · cites it 6× “As the basis for this claim, Chmiel asserts that the Commonwealth's use of Attorney Kennedy's testimony violated 42 Pa.C.S. § 5917, the codification in the criminal context of the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule.”

Commonwealth v. Clinger, 833 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003). · cites it 4× “All of *797 the Commonwealth's key witnesses, which included the victim, police and rescue personnel, and the co-defendant's fiancée, remained accessible to the Commonwealth.”

Commonwealth v. McGrogan, 568 A.2d 924 (Pa. 1990). · cites it 4× “[5] We also note that the admission of Steele's preliminary hearing testimony violated state evidentiary law governing the admissibility of former testimony, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5917, for the same reasons. That section provides, in pertinent part: Whenever any person has been examined…”

Commonwealth v. McCrae, 832 A.2d 1026 (Pa. 2003). · cites it 2× “See also 42 Pa.C.S. § 5917 ("Whenever any person has been examined as a witness, either for the Commonwealth or for the defense, in any criminal proceeding conducted in or before a court of record, and the defendant has been present and has had an opportunity to examine or…”

Commonwealth v. Terry, 521 A.2d 398 (Pa. 1987). · cites it 2× “The prison system was not on trial. Specific evidence about his behavior and treatment in prison was allowed.”

Commonwealth v. Elliott, 700 A.2d 1243 (Pa. 1997). · cites it 2× “2d 313 (1995). [16] Prior testimony of an unavailable witness may be introduced at trial where the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the prior hearing.”

Commonwealth v. Jones, 683 A.2d 1181 (Pa. 1996). “In support of this argument, Appellant cites 42 Pa.C.S. § 5917 which governs the admission of testimony presented at a former trial by a now unavailable witness.”

Commonwealth v. Hannibal, 753 A.2d 1265 (Pa. 2000). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 5917. Hannibal objects, however, that the testimony about which he is complaining was from the May 4, 1993 hearing, to which Hannibal was not a party, for it was the preliminary hearing for Greggory.”

Commonwealth v. Connors, 458 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983). · cites it 4× “This statute provides: Whenever any person has been examined as a witness, either for the Commonwealth or for the defense, in any criminal proceeding conducted in or before a court of record, and the defendant has been present and has had an opportunity to examine or…”

Commonwealth v. Thompson, 648 A.2d 315 (Pa. 1994). “42 Pa.C.S. § 5917 provides: Whenever any person has been examined as a witness, either for the Commonwealth or for the defense, in any criminal proceeding conducted in or before a court of record, and the defendant has been present and has had an opportunity to examine or…”

Commonwealth v. Munchinski, 585 A.2d 471 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990). “42 Pa.C.S. § 5917; Commonwealth v. Taylor, 299 Pa.”

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 662 A.2d 610 (Pa. 1995). “Wettstein’s memory loss was not caused by his inability to remember the pertinent events, but by his reluctance to testify.”

Show all 26 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.