## Facts

- Four victims—Bonnie Dryfuse and three children (Jacqueline, Heather, and Stephanie Herko)—were found stabbed to death in the Dryfuse mobile home in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania.
- The Commonwealth’s case was largely circumstantial and included evidence placing Thomas H. Kimbell, Jr. near the home before the bodies were discovered.
- Kimbell’s defense theory was third-party guilt: that Tom “Jake” Dryfuse, Bonnie’s husband, may have committed the murders.
- The defense called Mary Herko (mother of victim Stephanie Herko) to support that theory.
- Herko had previously told police that, during a phone call on the day of the murders, Bonnie said someone was pulling into the driveway and identified the person as Tom Dryfuse, which would place him at the scene earlier than his account.
- At trial, Herko testified only that Bonnie said someone was pulling into the driveway, without identifying Tom.
- Defense counsel attempted to question Herko about her prior inconsistent statement identifying Tom; the prosecution objected that the defense was improperly impeaching its own witness.
- The trial court sustained the objection and barred the defense from pursuing that line of questioning.
- A jury convicted Kimbell of four counts of first-degree murder, imposing death sentences for the three child victims and life imprisonment for Bonnie Dryfuse’s murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by prohibiting the defense from cross-examining its own witness, Mary Herko, about a prior inconsistent statement identifying Tom Dryfuse as the person arriving at the home.
2. Whether the exclusion of that impeachment evidence was harmless or required reversal and a new trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held the trial court erred by refusing to allow the defense to cross-examine Herko regarding her prior inconsistent statement.
- The Court concluded the error was not harmless because the excluded impeachment was material to the defense’s third-party-guilt theory.
- The Court vacated the judgments of sentence and remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A party may be permitted to cross-examine and impeach its own witness with a prior inconsistent statement when the witness’s trial testimony diverges in a way that is adverse to the calling party.
- Trial courts must allow materially relevant impeachment that bears directly on a defendant’s ability to present a defense, including evidence supporting a third-party-guilt theory.
- Exclusion of significant impeachment evidence warrants reversal when there is a reasonable possibility the ruling contributed to the verdict; such error is not harmless.

## Conclusion

Because the trial court improperly barred defense questioning about a key prior inconsistent statement placing another suspect at the scene, and the restriction could have affected the jury’s verdict, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the convictions and sentences and ordered a new trial.


Commonwealth v. Kimbell, 759 A.2d 1273 (Pa. 2000)