# Commonwealth v. Shawley

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · August 18, 1989 · 522 Pa. 475

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710995

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Steven A. SHAWLEY, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 18, 1989
- **Citations:** 522 Pa. 475; 563 A.2d 1175; 1989 Pa. LEXIS 335
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Papadakos
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Reversal
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9710995

## Opinion text

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
I join the Opinion in Support of Affirmance authored by Mr. Justice Larsen but write separately to respond to certain unwarranted assumptions made by Mr. Justice Flaherty in his Opinion in Support of Reversal. I would not attribute to the average citizen the knowledge that jurists and lawyers may have and assume “that Camp Hill is a state correctional institution, and it is obvious that one who just ‘got out’ of that institution has a criminal record” (slip opinion, p. 1).
*485 I would suggest that the word “camp” is generally associated with a governmental installation or army or marine post, e.g., Camp David, Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, etc., and one who just “got out” of Camp Hill had just been discharged from the armed services. Of course, veterans of our armed forces, and there are millions of them, would immediately associate “Camp Hill” as a defense installation and not a correctional institution. I would suggest that a vast majority of the rest of our populace never heard of “Camp Hill.”
I would also take issue with the allegation that “it is also evident that police files do not normally contain information regarding a person’s (characteristics) unless the person has a criminal record” (slip opinion, p. 1). One might assume from this broad brush approach that veterans, government employees, teachers, government contractors, and other security agency employees, whose fingerprints and other physical characteristics are maintained in FBI files, or other police agency files, have a criminal record.
McDERMOTT, J., joins this concurring opinion.
OPINION IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL
NIX, Chief Justice.
I respectfully dissent. No amount of linguistic or legalistic belaboring can belie the fact that the jury was apprised of appellant’s prior criminal activity thereby entitling him to a new trial. Commonwealth v. Washington, 488 Pa. 133, 411 A.2d 490 (1979); Commonwealth v. Nichols, 485 Pa. 1 , 400 A.2d 1281 (1979).
ZAPPALA, J., joins in this Opinion In Support of Reversal.
OPINION IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL
FLAHERTY, Justice.
I believe the jury was made aware of appellant’s record of criminal activity through testimony that appellant “just got out of Camp Hill,” and through testimony that police *486 files contained “records ... indicating scars, tattoos and so forth concerning [appellant]”. That Camp Hill is a state correctional institution is generally known, and it is obvious that one who just “got out” of that institution has a criminal record. It is also evident that police files do not normally contain information regarding a person’s scars and tattoos unless the person has a criminal record.
In Commonwealth v. Brown, 511 Pa. 155 , 512 A.2d 596 (1986), a decision presently relied upon in affirming the rulings of the courts below that the instant testimony did not reveal that appellant engaged in prior criminal conduct, this Court, in a narrowly divided decision, held that introduction at trial of a defendant’s “mug shot” in a photographic array did not reveal that defendant had a criminal record. I filed a dissenting opinion in Brown , and, in the present case similarly believe that it is naive to assume that jurors will not deduce, based upon the evidence presented, that appellant has a criminal record. The longstanding rule that an accused must not be prejudiced by inferences of prior criminal activity is severely undermined by decisions of this type. Appellant should, therefore, be granted a new trial.
ZAPPALA, J., joins this Opinion In Support of Reversal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710995. Public record. Not legal advice.