Opinion ID: 2336320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unlawful flight to avoid prosecution warrant

Text: Appellant also contends that testimony by Walsh that Appellant had been charged with the collateral federal crime of unlawful flight to avoid prosecution was irrelevant and highly inflammatory. The Commonwealth argues this testimony is allowed by Commonwealth v. Howard which states that all facts and circumstances showing the evasion or resistance of arrest, even though they disclose the commission of another crime, are competent upon a trial of the defendant for the first offense. [18] Appellant does not disagree with this case, rather he argues that testimony that he was charged with a crime with respect to flight is different from the facts and circumstances permitted by this case. The criminal charge against Appellant is not a fact and circumstance surrounding his fleeing the country. The fact that Appellant had fled the country was revealed at trial by Appellant himself. It was revealed that Appellant had been captured through coordination of United States and Canadian authorities and this evidence was properly admitted. However, evidence that a warrant was issued adds nothing to the proof and is unfairly prejudicial to Appellant. Upon retrial, the Commonwealth may prove that Appellant fled the United States and was captured with the cooperation of Canadian authorities. Evidence that an arrest warrant was issued should be excluded.