holding that a statement that the witness had previously given to police, which had been reduced to writing and signed by the witness, but which was repudiated by the witness at trial, was admissible as substantive evidence because the requirements of Lively were satisfied
How later courts described this case
- holding that a statement that the witness had previously given to police, which had been reduced to writing and signed by the witness, but which was repudiated by the witness at trial, was admissible as substantive evidence because the requirements of Lively were satisfied
- holding that witness’s prior police statement, which was reduced to writing and signed by the witness – but which the witness repudiated at trial – was admissible as substantive evidence because the requirements of Lively, supra were satisfied
- holding that where a defendant put his own character at issue, rap lyrics were admissible to rebut that assertion and were not outweighed by their prejudicial effect; even where the rap was hot specifically related to the facts of the case
- finding questions distinct from Turner because did not “specifically mention” whether defendant had spoken to police, word “dawn” hinted not “to speech at all, but rather, deals with [the defendant’s] cognitive process,” question was “ambiguous” as to pre- versus post-arrest period, and trial court gave “thorough” cautionary instruction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CAPPY, Justice,
concurring.
Although I am in agreement with the conclusions reached in the majority opinion, I am compelled to write separately to address the majority’s creation of a new exception to the general rule prohibiting evidence of the defendant’s prior *40 criminal activity. 1 On this particular issue I part company with the rationale of the majority.
At issue here was the testimony of Tameka Brown, the girlfriend of the defendant. The evidence at trial revealed that after the murder the defendant had fled to Ms. Brown’s house. In an attempt to impeach Ms. Brown the prosecution asked if she was aware that the defendant was in trouble at that time. The following exchange occurred:
Q: You knew he was in trouble that night?
A: That is correct.
Q: Involving this case?
A: No. This—
Mr. Tinari (defense counsel): Objection.
At a side bar conference it was revealed that Tameka would have answered that she knew the defendant was in trouble for another case. That information was never heard by the jury. Although the defendant argues that this testimony could give rise to an inference of prior criminality on his part, that inference is not apparent on the record.
On the basis of what was actually heard by the jury in this case I see no reason for the majority to create a new exception to the general rule prohibiting reference to prior bad acts of a defendant. The majority latches on to the fact that the *41 attempt of the prosecutor to show this witness had a bias is a legitimate reason to allow the introduction of other crimes evidence. That may be true. However, this Court may not take the liberty of creating new legal principles in a vacuum. In Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 , 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), it was firmly established that the power to adjudicate applies only to controversies properly before the Court. See, Silvestri v. Slatowski, 423 Pa. 498 , 224 A.2d 212 (1966) (The Court will not anticipate questions which are beyond the record). I cannot agree with such judicial activism.
Thus, my concern with the majority’s disposition of this issue. The issue, as presented, is easily dismissed on the basis that this jury never heard any testimony from which they could infer prior bad acts by this defendant. Accordingly, on this issue I depart from the rationale of the majority and concur in result only.
FLAHERTY, J., joins this concurring opinion.
. Commonwealth v. Seiders, 531 Pa. 592 , 614 A.2d 689 (1992) sets forth the general rule that evidence of a defendant’s other crimes is not admissible unless there is a legitimate evidentiary purpose for such evidence. Seiders also sets forth the recognized exceptions to the general rule:
1) motive; 2) intent; 3) absence of mistake or accident; 4) a common scheme, plan or design embracing commission of two or more related crimes so related to each other that proof of one naturally tends to prove the others; or 5) to establish identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial where there is such a logical connection between the crimes that proof of one will naturally tend to show that the accused is the person who committed the other; 6) to impeach the credibility of a defendant who testifies in his trial; 7) situations where a defendant’s prior criminal history had been used by him to threaten or intimidate the victim; 8) situations where the distinct crimes were part of a chain or sequence of events which formed the history of the case and were part of its natural development.