Court Opinion

ID: 9762131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:11:34.524046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:30.474268
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Judge,
dissenting:
The majority today has emasculated Commonwealth v. Roots, 482 Pa. 33, 393 A.2d 364 (1978) and Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554, 307 A.2d 255 (1973) since the prosecution, in this writer’s view, has not shown “that the need for this evidenced appellant’s prior conviction,] overcame] its inherent potential for prejudice.” Commonwealth v. Roots, Id. 482 Pa. at 41, 393 A.2d at 368.
*12After considering the “balancing equation” which should be weighed in determining whether to admit the prior conviction, this writer finds that at least three of the five factors weigh in the appellant’s favor.
However, the key considerations which lead me to conclude that the prior conviction should not be admitted are that the prosecution’s case was sufficiently strong and that the prosecution had alternate means of attacking the appellant’s credibility.
First of all, the prosecution had direct evidence (i.e., an eyewitness) and circumstantial evidence (i.e., fingerprints) to establish appellant’s involvement in the robbery. The fact that the store manager could not identify the appellant positively from an array of eight photographs, but subsequently did identify the appellant at the preliminary hearing and at trial, only affects the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Floyd, 494 Pa. 537, 544, 431 A.2d 984, 988 (1981).
Second, appellant here was the only witness who, if believed, could have provided his alibi defense. On the one hand, the majority concedes that “appellant had no other means of adequately presenting the alibi defense other than by taking the stand himself”, opinion at 9; however, nonetheless, the majority later improperly refers to the two witnesses who were unable to state the date that they were with appellant as “alibi witnesses.” Id. However, even if the jury had believed the testimony of the two witnesses, an alibi defense would not have been established.
Our Supreme Court has described an alibi as “a defense that places the defendant at the relevant time in a different place than the scene involved and so removed therefrom to render it impossible for him to be the guilty party.” Commonwealth v. Whiting, 409 Pa. 492, 498, 187 A.2d 563, 566 (1963). (Emphasis added). Accord Commonwealth v. Wade, 501 Pa. 331, 334, 461 A.2d 613, 614 (1983). Accordingly, because the two witnesses were unable to specify *13“the relevant time” frame during which they were in appellant’s company, no alibi defense would have been established without appellant’s testimony. Id.
We note also that the appellant’s prior record for robbery was the “same crime for which appellant was being tried.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 273 Pa.Super. 389, 392, 417 A.2d 704, 705 (1980). As such, appellant’s conviction arguably “contained an inherent suggestion that appellant had a propensity to rob.” Id.
Third, the majority erroneously concludes that “the Commonwealth did not have an alternative means of directly impeaching the credibility of appellant, or of cross examining him upon the presentation of his alibi defense.” At 10. However, the majority overlooks two significant aspects of the prosecution’s case: (1) that appellant denied ever being in the store after he was advised of the fingerprint evidence by the detectives, and (2) that appellant previously had told these same detectives that he had been in the store five to ten months before the robbery. At 5 ftn. 3. If believed, this testimony would have impeached appellant’s credibility. More importantly, the store manager as an eyewitness to the crime also contradicted the appellant’s version of the facts.
In view of the above, “it was important that appellant have an opportunity to testify.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 273 Pa.Super. at 393, 417 A.2d at 706. In fact, the only evidence in the appellant’s favor was his denial of involvement in the crime. In view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the prosecution had no need to resort to evidence of the prior conviction.
The majority correctly cites Commonwealth v. Roots, supra, in the appropriate form; however, a review of the substance of the decision reveals that the majority today only pays lip service to the Roots criteria. Hence, my dissent.