Court Opinion

ID: 9754857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:16:53.40554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:59.762896
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I cannot agree with the majority’s statement that the evidence disclosed a modus operandi. A modus operandi is a method of operating “so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature.” McCormick on Evidence § 190 at 449 (Cleary Ed. 1972). And see Commonwealth v. Peterson, 453 Pa. 187, 307 A.2d 264 (1973). It is this characteristic that permits the prosecutor to prove modus operandi: the proof is relevant to establishing the identity of the criminal Commonwealth v. Wable, 382 Pa. 80, 114 A.2d 334 (1955). Here, the evidence was not so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature. See Commonwealth v. Peterson, supra. Furthermore, appellant’s identity was not at issue.
I nevertheless agree that consolidation was proper. Other exceptions to the general rule precluding evidence of another crime are when the evidence tends to prove motive, or intent, or absence of mistake or accident. Commonwealth v. *192Peterson, supra. The evidence here fit within these exceptions.