# Commonwealth v. Claypool

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 26, 1985 · 508 Pa. 198

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757269

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Daryl Nason CLAYPOOL, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 26, 1985
- **Citations:** 508 Pa. 198; 495 A.2d 176; 1985 Pa. LEXIS 328
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nix
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 114 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/9757269

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that evidence of prior criminal acts that the defendant makes relevant to prove the crimes with which he is charged is admissible; however, “such evidence must be accompanied by a cautionary instruction which fully and carefully explains to the jury the limited purp…
- stating special circumstance exists to admit evidence of defendant’s pri- or violent acts, where defendant made statement about prior acts to threaten and intimidate another, and force or threat of force is element of crime for which defendant is being prosecuted
- holding that "such evidence must be accompanied by a cautionary instruction which fully and carefully explains to the jury the limited purpose for which that evidence has been admitted"
- concluding that the trial court’s giving of a detailed cautionary instruction was sufficient to overcome prejudicial effect of the introduction of prior bad acts evidence
- finding that giving of cautionary instructions was sufficient to overcome prejudicial effect of introduction of prior bad acts evidence

## Opinion text

*207 NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that appellee’s statements relating to a prior criminal act were properly admitted under the facts of this case. I take issue with the suggestion that this ruling is a novel one and that we are here creating a new exception.
The purpose for excluding evidence of prior unrelated crimes is first that it is irrelevant and second that the effect of such testimony creates an unfair prejudice against the defendant in the minds of the jury. Where, as here, it is unquestionably relevant to a disputed element of the crime charged its admissibility cannot be questioned. The evidence is not being offered to show a predisposition to commit a criminal act on the part of the accused, but rather to describe the threat employed to overcome the will of the victim. Nor is it being offered to establish that appellee had in fact committed a prior criminal act. The recognition of a “verbal act” is not new to our law, nor is its admissibility questionable where its relevancy is clear.
ZAPPALA, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757269. Public record. Not legal advice.