Court Opinion

ID: 9700098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:10:26.729696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:04.399605
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the result reached by the majority because the proof of the second rape did not naturally tend to establish the identity of the perpetrator of the first rape. This second rape was not a distinct or “signature” crime which would have proved the identity of appellant as the person who committed the first rape. Commonwealth v. Fortune, 464 Pa. 367, 346 A.2d 783 (1975); Commonwealth v. Wable, 382 Pa. 80, 114 A.2d 334 (1955). Evidence of the second crime is therefore inadmissible.