Court Opinion

ID: 9757566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:46:53.108407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:41.083273
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
KLEIN, J.:
¶ 1 I respectfully dissent from the majority for two reasons. First, unlike the situation in Commonwealth v. Trignani, 334 Pa.Super. 526, 483 A.2d 862 (1984), I do not believe that Hernandez volunteered the statement that he never sold drugs, but rather the Commonwealth used a line of questioning designed to elicit an admission of prior criminal activity by Hernandez. Secondly, since Hernandez admitted he was a long-time junkie and implied he stole to pay for his habit, he did not claim that he was of good character.
1. The Commonwealth’s questioning was designed to elicit an admission of prior criminal activity.
¶2 In this case, the prosecutor asked Hernandez whether drug dealers used the drugs themselves. Once the prosecutor asked if drug dealers sold drugs to support their habits, he was probing into how users might raise money to pay for the drugs. This lead was designed to solicit answers implicating criminal activity, either by stealing to support the habit (which Hernandez said almost all junkies do), or selling drugs to raise funds to get drugs to use. Since the prosecutor led Hernandez down this path, he should not have been permitted to use the answers, whether or not they were false, to introduce prior drug sales.
¶ 3 In this Commonwealth, our courts expressly prohibit a defendant in a criminal case from being cross-examined as to other crimes he may have committed with only two exceptions. Commonwealth v. Garcia, 551 Pa. 616, 712 A.2d 746 (1998). Such proof, if admissible at all, may be introduced only during rebuttal by competent witnesses and certified court records, unless the defendant puts his good character in issue or testifies against a co-defendant charged with the same offense. Id., citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5918. See also Commonwealth v. Roots, 482 Pa. 33, 393 A.2d 364 (1978); and Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554, 307 A.2d 255 (1973).
¶ 4 Both Garcia and Roots considered the admission of evidence under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404 for purposes of impeachment by evidence of prior cri-men falsi convictions, meaning those that bear on a witness’s honesty and truthfulness. In this case, however, we are not presented with crimen falsi convictions, thus another standard comes into play. See Garcia, 712 A.2d at 748-49 (distinguishing between cases concerning admission of crimen falsi convictions and exceptions provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5918). The relevant statute, which permits a trial court to admit evidence of a defendant’s non-crimen falsi prior convictions under narrow circumstances, provides as follows:
*653§ 5918. Examination of defendant as to other offenses
No person charged with any crime and called as a witness in his own behalf, shall be asked, or if asked, shall be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed, or been charged with, or been convicted of any offense other than the one wherewith he shall then be charged, or tending to show that he has been of bad character or reputation unless:
(1) he shall have at such trial, personally or by counsel, asked questions of the witness for the prosecution with a view to establish his own good reputation or character or reputation, or has given evidence tending to prove his own good character or reputation; or
(2) he shall have testified at such trial against a codefendant charged with the same offense.
42 Pa.C.S. § 5918 (emphasis added). Therefore, section 5918 allows the prosecution to cross-examine a defendant concerning his past convictions to “repudiate specific evidence of good character” offered by a criminal defendant. Commonwealth v. Trignani, 834 Pa.Super. 526, 488 A.2d 862, 869 (1984).
¶ 5 In Tñgnani, the prosecuting attorney asked the defendant, on cross-examination, whether he had ever shot a particular person. Id. The defendant replied, “I never shot anybody in my life.” Id. Our court determined that the defendant’s response “exceeded the scope of questioning by the prosecutor” and was, in effect, the defendant’s attempt to assert his own good character. Id. Consequently, we found that the trial court properly permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant regarding his prior conviction for an aggravated robbery where a store clerk was shot. Id. Specifically, our court stated that the defendant’s “voluntary admission constituted ... a direct and forcible introduction of [his] character for nonviolence,” and that “the use of the prior conviction was limited to the specific rebuttal of [defendant’s] unsolicited character testimony.” Id.
¶ 6 Here, unlike Tñgnani, Hernandez did not volunteer information to the prosecution; rather, the prosecutor instituted the questioning of Hernandez, asking him whether drug dealers used the drugs themselves. Once the prosecutor asked if drug dealers sold drugs to support them habits, the prosecution was probing into how users might raise money to pay for the drugs. What if Hernandez had said, “Yes, in the past I sold drugs to support my habit, but usually I stole things”? That is a fair response to the question. Unless Hernandez were independently wealthy, these kinds of questions almost always would result in an admission of some prior criminal activity.
¶ 7 The District Attorney had to know that his questions were designed to solicit answers implicating some kind of criminal activity, either by stealing to support the habit (which Hernandez said almost all junkies do), or selling drugs to raise funds to get drugs to use. Since the prosecutor led Hernandez down this path, he should not have been permitted to use the answers, regardless of their veracity, to introduce evidence of prior drug convictions.
2. The defendant did not give evidence of good character.
¶ 8 Moreover, I disagree with the majority because when Hernandez said he did not sell drugs, it did not mean that he had “given evidence tending to prove his own good character or reputation.” Hernandez said he was a long-time junkie, which indicates he is a long-time criminal and certainly not the same as saying he is of good character and unlikely to commit such a *654crime. Hernandez said, “Almost all the addicts, what they do is they steal in stores, they steal cars, they do anything to maintain their habit.” Read fairly, since Hernandez said he was a junkie, he is saying he was a thief who stole' things to pay for his habit. Read in its totality, Hernandez was certainly not claiming good character.
¶ 9 Therefore, this case does not fit within the exception provided in section 5918(1), which would cause Hernandez to lose his protection against the admission of evidence demonstrating prior convictions for an offense he claimed under oath he had never before committed.
¶ 10 For these reasons, I believe that the line of questioning was designed to elicit an admission of criminal activity from Hernandez and that he never attested to “good character.” Therefore, I believe the evidence of prior convictions for selling drugs was improperly introduced, and would reverse this conviction. I respectfully dissent.