holding court properly denied defendant’s motion for mistrial based on testimony by detective that police showed eyewitness photographs of individuals who had prior contact with police, and eyewitness identified appellant, who had “Police Photo Number 775”; detective’s reference to individuals’ prior contact with police did not reasonably imply prior criminal conduct where prior contact with police could have occurred under variety of circumstances which were not criminal in nature including involvement with police as witness to or victim of crime; detective’s mention of appellant’s photo number was mere passing reference that did not imply prior criminal conduct by appellant
How later courts described this case
- holding court properly denied defendant’s motion for mistrial based on testimony by detective that police showed eyewitness photographs of individuals who had prior contact with police, and eyewitness identified appellant, who had “Police Photo Number 775”; detective’s reference to individuals’ prior contact with police did not reasonably imply prior criminal conduct where prior contact with police could have occurred under variety of circumstances which were not criminal in nature including involvement with police as witness to or victim of crime; detective’s mention of appellant’s photo number was mere passing reference that did not imply prior criminal conduct by appellant
- detective's testimony that appellant's photograph was in a database of persons "who have had contact with the police" and passing reference to appellant's police photo number merely raised an inference of prior police contact, not prior criminal activity
- analyzing Allen and reviewing its application in different contexts
- reference by witness to defendant’s police number not grounds for mistrial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION
Justice SAYLOR.
I agree that the detective’s comments were impermissible based on the law as set forth in Mr. Justice Nigro’s dissent. I am able to concur in the majority’s disposition, however, since, *79 in my view, a curative instruction would have sufficiently ameliorated the prejudice caused to Appellant by the improper remarks in this instance. See Commonwealth v. Richardson, 496 Pa. 521, 526 , 437 A.2d 1162, 1165 (1981) (“[T]he possible prejudicial effect of a witness’s reference to prior criminal conduct of the defendant may, under certain circumstances, be removed by an immediate cautionary instruction to the jury.”); see also Commonwealth v. Morris, 513 Pa. 169, 178 , 519 A.2d 374, 378 (1986) (concluding that a curative instruction alleviated the harm resulting from an impermissible reference to prior criminal activity); Commonwealth v. Williams, 470 Pa. 172, 178-79 , 368 A.2d 249, 252 (1977) (same); Commonwealth v. Maute, 336 Pa.Super. 394, 403-04 , 485 A.2d 1138, 1143 (1984) (determining that a defendant was not entitled to a mistrial based upon a comment regarding his prior criminal activity, because the prejudice could have been remedied by a curative instruction which the defendant refused). Here, however, as the majority notes, Appellant refused such an instruction.