Title: Commonwealth v. Fulton (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-144-2001] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee, v. CURTIS FULTON. Appellant. : : : : : : : : : : : No. 8 EAP 2001 Appeal from the order of the Superior Court, entered July 10, 2000, at No. 790 EDA 1999, affirming the order of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, entered February 11, 1999, at No. 9112-2781-2804. SUBMITTED: August 31, 2001 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE LAMB DECIDED: August 19, 2003 I join the majority in affirming the order of the Superior Court because the overwhelming evidence in this case makes the error of failing to call character witnesses harmless. In other respects, I join the reasoning of the dissent and write separately to emphasize the long-established rule that a criminal defendant may always present character evidence which is not “mere make-weight . . . but it is positive evidence, and may of itself, by the creation of a reasonable doubt, produce an acquittal.” Commonwealth v. Cleary, 19 A. 1017, 1018 (Pa. 1890). In Cleary, the error cited was a charge to the jury which limited the use of character evidence to those cases in which there was already reasonable doubt. This Court held in Cleary that: Evidence of good character is always admissible for the defendant in a criminal case. It is to be weighed and considered in connection with all the other evidence in the cause. It may of itself, in some instances, create the reasonable doubt which would entitle the accused to an acquittal. The rule itself is not merely merciful. It is both reasonable and just. There may be [J-144-2001] - 2 cases in which, owing to the peculiar circumstances in which a man is placed, evidence of good character may be all he can offer in answer to a charge of crime. Of what avail is a good character, which a man may have been a life-time in acquiring, if it is to benefit him nothing in his hour of peril? . . . The evidence of good character is to be considered with the other evidence in the case; and if it, all combined, creates a reasonable doubt, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. Cleary, 9 A. at 1018-19. Under Cleary, character evidence is always relevant in a criminal case. That evidence, therefore, would be admissible under Pa.R.E. 402: “All relevant evidence is admissible.” Relevant evidence is that which “in some degree advances the inquiry, and thus has probative value, and is prima facie admissible.” Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155, 159 (Pa. 1978) (citing 1 Wigmore, Evidence, § 9-10 at 289-95 (3rd Ed. 1940)). The rule announced in Cleary is of ancient origin, first enunciated in Pennsylvania in Kimmel v. Kimmel, 3 Serg. & Rawle 336 (Pa. 1817), which also set the limits by which character evidence is introduced, that is through reputation, not opinion. Kimmel, 3 Serg. & Rawle at 338 (“General report is general reputation. General reputation is general character.”) (Duncan, J.). See also Heine v. Commonwealth, 91 Pa. 145, 147 (Pa. 1879) (holding “evidence of good character is not a mere makeweight, thrown in to assist in the production of a result that would happen at all events, but is positive evidence, and may of itself, by the creation of a reasonable doubt, produce an acquittal.”); Hanney v. Commonwealth, 9 A. 339, 340-41 (Pa. 1887) (“fortunately for the upright man . . ., we have got beyond all doubt upon this subject, and have firmly established the doctrine that evidence of good character is to be regarded as a substantive fact, like any other tending to establish the defendant's innocence . . . .“); Commonwealth v. Tenbroeck, 108 A. 635, 637 (Pa. 1919) (“A man of good standing is less likely to commit crime, and evidence of good reputation may of [J-144-2001] - 3 itself work an acquittal, by creating a reasonable doubt of guilt . . . .”); Commonwealth v. Stoner, 108 A. 624, 625 (Pa. 1919) ("Good character . . . may, in itself, in spite of evidence to the contrary, raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury and so produce an acquittal."); Commonwealth v. Giovanetti, 19 A.2d 119, 126 (Pa. 1941) (same holding); Commonwealth v. Scott, 436 A.2d 607, 611 n.1 (Pa. 1981) ("[a] defendant is entitled to a charge that character evidence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and justify an acquittal of the charges."). These cases culminated in Commonwealth v. Weiss, 606 A.2d 439 (Pa. 1992), in which this Court held that the failure to call available character witnesses constituted ineffective assistance of counsel because: In a case such as this, where there are only two direct witnesses involved, credibility of the witnesses is of paramount importance, and character evidence is critical to the jury's determination of credibility. Evidence of good character is substantive, not mere makeweight evidence, and may, in and of itself, create a reasonable doubt of guilt and, thus, require a verdict of not guilty. Weiss, 606 A.2d at 442 (citing Commonwealth v. Neely, 561 A.2d 1, 3 (Pa. 1989)). This Court in Weiss reversed a child sexual assault conviction and remanded for a new trial. Weiss is only distinguishable from the case at hand because in Weiss “there was no overwhelming evidence of guilt.” Weiss, 606 A.2d at 443. Therefore, under Weiss, as stated in Cleary, character evidence is always relevant and admissible. Character evidence includes reputation for truthfulness. Kimmel, 3 Serg. & Rawle at 337. When prosecution witnesses dispute the testimony of the defendant, his reputation for truthfulness is in play. Weiss, 606 A.2d at 443. Therefore, Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to call character witnesses. In this case, however, the error is harmless because of the overwhelming evidence against Appellant. Accordingly, I concur in the result.