informing jury that prior crime was felony was permissible, but not exact nature or details of crime
How later courts described this case
- informing jury that prior crime was felony was permissible, but not exact nature or details of crime
- court held it was proper on an indictment for escape to permit the Commonwealth to present evidence that appellant was being held for a felony at the time of the escape
- in trial on charge of escape, the jury has a right to know the reason for the defendant’s incarceration
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I disagree with the majority’s statement that the Commonwealth could “properly show that appellant was being held on a felony charge.” Majority opinion at p. 319. What the Commonwealth could properly show was that appellant was in “detention . . . under charge or conviction of crime.” The Crimes Code, Act of December 6, 1972, P.L.1482, No. 334, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5121(e). A “crime” may be either a felony or a misdemeanor, or even, according to the opinion of a majority of this court, a summary offense, In Interest of Golden, 243 Pa.Super. 267 , 365 A.2d 157 (1976) (Jacobs, J., dissenting, Spaeth, J., joining him). It is unnecessary to show that the crime was a felony. Thus, the question we must decide is whether, by gratuitously proving that the crime was a felony, the Commonwealth so prejudiced appellant that the motion for mistrial should have been granted. Considering the trial judge’s charge, I think not.
HOFFMAN, J., joins in this opinion.