# Commonwealth v. Cabeza

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 29, 1983 · 503 Pa. 228

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9709636

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Davico L. CABEZA, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 29, 1983
- **Citations:** 503 Pa. 228; 469 A.2d 146; 1983 Pa. LEXIS 819
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McDERMOTT
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Hutchinson, Larsen, McDERMOTT, Nix, Roberts, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 159 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/9709636

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding “that where an appellate decision overrules prior law and announces a new principle, unless the decision specifically declares the ruling to be prospective only, the new rule is to be applied retroactively to cases where the issue in question is properly preserved at a…
- explaining that, in both civil and criminal matters, in order for a new rule of law to apply retroactively to a case pending on direct appeal, the issue had to be preserved at "all stages of adjudication up to and including any direct appeal”
- stating “where an appellate decision overrules prior law and announces a new principle, unless the decision specifically declares the ruling to be prospective only, the new rule is to be applied retroactively to cases where the issue in question is properly preserved at all st…
- noting general rule that only a party whose case remains pending on direct appeal is entitled to benefit of newly announced rule of law

## Opinion text

McDERMOTT, Justice,
dissenting.
Character evidence is substantive evidence. It is both relevant and important. It should be presented by and from a source knowledgeable as to its truth. While it is certainly true that an arrest in and of itself proves nothing, it is also true that a series of arrests, (not uncommon in this day) may be pause to consider the full knowledge the witness has of another’s reputation. One arrested for a laundry list of offenses in the community in which he lives may indeed be innocent of all, yet the knowledge of such arrests should at least be considered in establishing the accuracy of the prof erred reputation evidence. One who *236 comes to laud the estimious reputation of another should at least be aware of all that makes a name.
Because I believe that, this Court erred in Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 188 , 436 A.2d 607 (1981), I must dissent from the retroactive application of that decision.
I join with Mr. Justice Nix in his analysis of retroactivity.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9709636. Public record. Not legal advice.