Court Opinion

ID: 9960700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 20:10:41.161455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:46.243488
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                         EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,     : No. 432 EAL 2023
                                  :
               Respondent         :
                                  : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                  : from the Order of the Superior Court
         v.                       :
                                  :
                                  :
DERRICK WALKER,                   :
                                  :
               Petitioner         :

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,     : No. 433 EAL 2023
                                  :
               Respondent         :
                                  : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                  : from the Order of the Superior Court
         v.                       :
                                  :
                                  :
DERRICK WALKER,                   :
                                  :
               Petitioner         :

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,     : No. 434 EAL 2023
                                  :
               Respondent         :
                                  : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                  : from the Order of the Superior Court
         v.                       :
                                  :
                                  :
DERRICK WALKER,                   :
                                  :
               Petitioner         :
                                      ORDER

PER CURIAM

      AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

      (1)   Where this Court has previously split on the issue, what test should be
            employed in determining when ‘other act’ evidence satisfies the ‘common
            plan’ exception under Pa.R.E. 404(b); and under any of the possible tests
            approved by this Court, did the lower courts err by applying such a diluted
            standard that they improperly admitted prohibited propensity evidence
            under the guise of ‘common plan’?

      (2)   Is the admission of a rape kit report by a forensic nurse after a forensic
            examination without any testimony by that nurse a violation of the
            Confrontation Clause and inadmissible hearsay?

                [432 EAL 2023, 433 EAL 2023 and 434 EAL 2023] - 2