# Commonwealth v. Perrin

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 16, 1979 · 484 Pa. 188

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644403

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert L. PERRIN, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 16, 1979
- **Citations:** 484 Pa. 188; 398 A.2d 1007; 1979 Pa. LEXIS 521
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Manderino
- **Judges:** Eagen, Roberts, Nix, Manderino, Larsen, O'Brien
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644403

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the fact the victim was strangled to death with her legs spread apart and her clothing torn from her body, combined with spermatozoa found inside her vagina, constituted sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that she had been raped

## Opinion text

*198 MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting:
The majority finds no error in permitting the prosecution to admit appellant’s prior larceny convictions and states that there are clearly “legitimate considerations favoring admission.” (at p. 1011) I disagree.
The introduction of the highly prejudicial evidence of prior convictions merely to impeach an accused’s testimony is error. Even though careful instructions are given by a trial judge that such evidence may only be considered for impeachment purposes, even the most conscientious fact finder will be prejudiced, albeit unconsciously, by the knowledge of this prior conviction. The admission of such evidence permits, perhaps encourages, the factfinder to find an accused guilty based upon a “bad person theory” — that is, appellant committed crime A, therefore it is more likely he committed crime B.
It is fundamental to our system of criminal justice that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is utter folly to permit admission of evidence of prior convictions for impeachment purposes because the'weakness of the prosecution’s case requires such impeachment. The prosecution should be required to prove guilt without the introduction of this highly prejudicial information, and I therefore dissent. <•.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644403. Public record. Not legal advice.