# Commonwealth v. Claypool

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757270

## 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 McDERMOTT
- **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/9757270

## 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

McDERMOTT, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority in holding that a threat, fortified with an example from the actor’s criminal past, as proof of a present intention to gain a criminal purpose, is as admissible as a gun, knife, bomb or any other threat. If he chooses to use his criminal past as a token of his sincerity, he is no more prejudiced than was his victim.
A “threat” can be as palpable as a steel blade, the muzzle of a gun, or a ticking bomb. If the tool one uses to accomplish a criminal purpose prejudices him, so much the worse for him.
FLAHERTY and PAPADAKOS, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757270. Public record. Not legal advice.