Title: Com. v. Scott

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

496 Pa. 188 (1981) 436 A.2d 607 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, v. Harold L. SCOTT, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 15, 1981. Decided November 5, 1981. *189 Paul D. Boas, Berlin, Boas, Isaacson & Logan, Pittsburgh, for appellant. Robert E. Colville, Dist. Atty., Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy Dist. Atty., Kemal A. Mericli, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for appellee. Before O'BRIEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, KAUFFMAN and WILKINSON, JJ. O'BRIEN, Chief Justice. Appellant Harold L. Scott was originally convicted of murder of the first degree and a violation of the Uniform Firearms Act. Post-verdict motions were denied and appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a concurrent prison term of two and one-half to five years for the firearms violation. On direct appeal, this Court reversed and granted appellant a new trial because the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence concerning prior racial incidents in the neighborhood. Commonwealth v. Scott, 480 Pa. 50, 389 A.2d 79 (1978). On retrial, which is the subject matter of this appeal, appellant was convicted of murder of the third degree and a violation of the Uniform Firearms Act. Post-verdict motions again were denied and appellant was sentenced to a prison term of ten to twenty years with a consecutive prison term of one and one-half to five years for the firearms violation. This appeal followed. The facts are set out in detail in our opinion following appellant's direct appeal from the original trial. For our purposes here it is sufficient to note that appellant, a black man, shot a white victim following a racial incident. The Commonwealth's witnesses, friends of the victim, testified that appellant had not been provoked. Appellant has claimed that he acted in self-defense. Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for violating the Uniform Firearms Act. Appellant was convicted of violating 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106, which provides: Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, 18 Pa.C. S.A. § 6106. Appellant claims that since the Commonwealth offered no proof of concealment, the evidence was insufficient to sustain this conviction. *191 In Commonwealth v. Butler, 189 Pa.Super. 399, 403, 150 A.2d 172, 173 (1959), the Court stated: Two Commonwealth witnesses testified that they saw appellant pull from his waistband something that looked like a gun. Appellant, on the other hand, testified that he approached the group with his gun in his hand, making no attempt to conceal the weapon. Resolving questions of credibility is a function of the trier of fact and apparently the jury chose to believe the Commonwealth witnesses and disbelieve appellant. Further, the testimony of the two Commonwealth witnesses referred to above is sufficient to sustain the jury's conclusion that appellant had, in fact, concealed the weapon. Accord: Commonwealth v. Horshaw, 237 Pa.Super. 76, 346 A.2d 340 (1975). Appellant's argument is thus without merit. Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in ruling that proposed defense witnesses, who intended to testify that appellant had a good reputation for honesty and peacefulness, could be cross-examined about appellant's two prior arrests, neither of which had led to a conviction. The facts are as follows. Near the end of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief appellant's attorney informed both the court and the prosecutor, outside of the jury's presence, that as part of appellant's defense he intended to call various witnesses who would testify that appellant had a reputation for being honest and peaceful in the community. Appellant's attorney then asked the trial court to rule preliminarily that the prosecution be prohibited from asking the proposed witnesses on cross-examination if they had heard people in the community mention that appellant had, on two prior occasions, been arrested and charged with assaulting his wife and illegally possessing a firearm. Although neither of the arrests resulted in a conviction, the court denied appellant's request. Because of *192 the court's ruling, appellant's trial counsel announced he would not call the proposed witnesses. This Court has stated: *193 Commonwealth v. Little, 449 Pa. 28, 30-31, 295 A.2d 287, 289 (1972). Appellant specifically asks, however, that we overrule prior case law to the extent that it allowed cross-examination of character witnesses concerning arrests which did not result in convictions. The entire area of the law concerning character witnesses is generally recognized as somewhat of a paradox. As Professor McCormick has stated: McCormick on Evidence, § 191, at 455-56 (2d Ed., 1972) (footnotes omitted). Character witnesses, like any other witnesses, can be subjected to cross-examination and it is the scope of the cross-examination that has been a troublesome area for courts, commentators and the profession. A vast majority of jurisdictions allow inquiry into past arrests, even if not resulting in convictions, for the reason set forth in Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S. Ct. 213, 93 L. Ed. 168 (1948). Id. at 482-83, 69 S. Ct. at 221-22. In these jurisdictions, the inquiry is generally limited to questions in the form, "Have you heard that the defendant was arrested?" Commonwealth v. Amos, 445 Pa. 297, 284 A.2d 748 (1971). Further, where such questioning is permitted, a cautionary instruction must be given informing the jury of the very limited purpose of such evidence, i.e., to refute the evidence of good character and not as substantive evidence of guilt. The Commonwealth thus argues that such questioning must be allowed to subject the defendant's proof of reputation for good character "to tests of credibility designed to prevent him from profiting by a mere parade of partisans." Michelson v. United States, supra, at 479, 69 S. Ct. at 220. A minority of the jurisdictions at the opposite end of the spectrum forbid any questioning concerning specific incidents of misconduct. Mr. Justice Rutledge, in his dissent in Michelson, represented this minority view. Id. at 496, 69 S. Ct. at 228 (Dissenting Opinion). At least three states forbid any questioning concerning specific incidents *195 of misconduct. State v. Williams, 111 Ariz. 511, 533 P.2d 1146 (1975); State v. Robinson, 226 N.C. 95, 36 S.E.2d 655 (1946); People v. Page, 365 Ill. 524, 6 N.E.2d 845 (1937). As the Arizona Supreme Court has held, cross-examination of character witnesses should be limited Viliborghi v. State, 45 Ariz. 275, 286, 43 P.2d 210, 215 (1935). The prosecution, of course, can always call, on rebuttal, its own witnesses who could testify concerning the defendant's bad reputation for the traits raised by defendant's character witnesses. Instantly, appellant argues, and quite convincingly in our view, that his proposed evidence concerning his reputation for being honest and peaceful was essential to his defense.[1] As appellant states in his brief: (Appellant's brief at 13-14). Appellant, however, chose not to introduce the evidence because of the trial court's ruling refusing to limit the Commonwealth's cross-examination. We agree that appellant did not receive a fair trial and therefore is entitled to a new trial. Even a proponent of the rule allowing cross-examination concerning arrests which have not resulted in convictions has stated: Michelson v. United States, supra at 486, 69 S. Ct. at 223. We believe, however, that when that one misshapen stone is so prejudicial to an accused that the prejudicial effect greatly outweighs the limited probative value, that stone must be removed. McCormick on Evidence, § 191, at 451 (2d Ed. 1972). Under this rule which we abrogate, the cross-examination must have pertained to arrests which relate to the character trait vouched for on direct. McCormick on Evidence, § 191, n. 14 (2d Ed. 1972). Thus, the Commonwealth would have been permitted to ask appellant's character witnesses if they had heard that appellant had been arrested for assaulting his wife and on a weapons charge. Despite any cautionary *197 instruction the court may have given the jury, the undue prejudice to appellant is obvious. On one hand, the jury would have heard that appellant had a reputation for being peaceful while on the other hand, the jury would also have heard that appellant had been arrested on two charges. Had appellant been convicted of the charges, it would be easier to say that he must suffer the consequences of placing his character at issue. But instantly, the arrests which would have been alluded to never resulted in convictions.[2] Since an arrest is equally consistent with either guilt or innocence, the cases allowing such cross-examination are overruled. Judgment of sentence is reversed and case remanded for a new trial. [1] A defendant is entitled to a charge that character evidence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and thus justify an acquittal of the charges. Commonwealth v. Cleary, 148 Pa. 26, 23 A. 1110 (1892); Commonwealth v. Shapiro, 223 Pa.Super. 15, 297 A.2d 161 (1972). [2] In Commonwealth v. Summers, 269 Pa.Super. 437, 410 A.2d 336 (1979), the Superior Court held that a defendant could show that the charges had been dismissed. We believe the Commonwealth would then have to be allowed to offer evidence as to why the charges had been dismissed. Rather than allowing inquiry into areas which are far afield from the question of a defendant's guilt or innocence on the charge for which he is standing trial, we believe a better solution is simply to forbid such cross-examination.