Court Opinion

ID: 9748274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:58:40.889059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:33.897731
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
While I would agree that Commonwealth v. Allen, 448 Pa. 177, 292 A.2d 373 (1972), is the applicable precedent in this case, I must disagree with the majority’s finding that under the Allen test, the jury in the instant case could not reasonably infer that the Appellee had engaged in prior criminal activity.
It would be somewhat ludicrous to conclude that from the repeated references to packets of photographs (containing 50 photos each), that a witness was viewing a family album or some other innocuous material. The only reasonable inference that could be drawn from these facts is that the witness was viewing a photo array assembled by police investigators from “mug shots” on file in police headquarters, and from this it is axiomatic to assume that the person whose photos were being shown had at some time been involved in criminal activity.
I would therefore affirm the findings of the Superior Court.
ROBERTS, C.J., joins in this dissenting opinion.