Opinion ID: 2086402
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence Regarding Freeman's Acquittal

Text: Appellant first makes a convoluted argument that the trial court's excluding evidence of Freeman's acquittal deprived Appellant of due process. According to Appellant, the fact that he knew of Freeman's acquittal at the time he made his statement to police is relevant and admissible to prove his motive for confessing and/or the motive of the police to fabricate a statement. Thus, Appellant concludes, the trial court should have allowed him to tell the jury about his knowledge of Freeman's acquittal. This argument has no merit. In Commonwealth v. Meredith, 493 Pa. 1, 425 A.2d 334 (1981), a plurality of this Court reaffirmed the long-standing rule that, a person accused of a crime may not introduce evidence of the acquittal of another person charged in connection with the same episode to create an impression before the jury that the defendant is equally innocent. Meredith, 425 A.2d at 337. The Court in Meredith recognized only one narrow exception to this general rulethe defendant may introduce evidence of another person's acquittal where that person testifies for the defense and the acquittal is introduced for the limited purpose of removing the cloud of criminal charges over [the defense] witness, created by Commonwealth evidence.... Meredith, 425 A.2d at 338. Here, however, none of the elements of the Meredith exception are present because Appellant did not call Freeman as a witness. Consequently, there was no cloud of criminal charges over Freeman and no need to rehabilitate Freeman's credibility by reference to his acquittal. Cf. Commonwealth v. Rink, 393 Pa.Super. 554, 574 A.2d 1078 (1990), alloc. denied, 526 Pa. 654, 586 A.2d 922 (1991) ( Meredith did not apply where defendant did not call acquitted accomplices as witnesses). Instead, Appellant would have used evidence of Freeman's acquittal to bolster his own credibility, which Meredith does not allow. Thus, Appellant's first claim lacks arguable merit and warrants no relief.