Case ID: pa_638/html/0629-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

158 A.3d 64
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Edmond JACKSON, Respondent
    No. 595 EAL 2015
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    May 2, 2016
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of May, 2016, upon review of the Commonwealth’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal, we find as follows: The Superior Court reversed the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) court denying Respondent collateral relief, and remanded, finding the PCRA court should have granted Respondent an evidentiary hearing on his after-discovered evidence claim based on criminal charges filed against a trial witness. However, to be entitled to relief based upon an after-discovered evidence claim, a petitioner must, inter alia, establish that the proposed after-discovered evidence is “producible and admissible.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 518 Pa. 15, 540 A.2d 246, 263 (1988). Here, Respondent’s after-discovered evidence is inadmissible because the evidence consists only of criminal charges against a witness, not convictions. See Commonwealth v. Taylor, 475 Pa. 564, 381 A.2d 418, 419 (1977) (“[t]he veracity of a witness may not be impeached by evidence of prior arrests which have not led to convictions”). The Superior Court thus erred in reversing the PCRA court order on this basis, and in remanding for an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, the order of the Superior Court is REVERSED, and the PCRA court’s order denying collateral relief on the basis of after-discovered evidence is REINSTATED.

Chief Justice Saylor dissents.