Court Opinion

ID: 9699462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:25:47.276778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:50.790252
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
JOYCE, J.:
¶ 1 I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that evidence of Jamal Bennett’s prior arrests for cocaine trafficking should have been admitted to demonstrate that Bennett, not Appellant, constructively possessed the cocaine found inside of Bennett’s automobile. Evidence of Bennett’s prior cocaine arrests may tend to show that Bennett was more likely to possess cocaine. Such evidence may tend to inculpate Bennett by showing his propensity, but it does not exculpate Appellant. While it is axiomatic that evidence which tends to show that the crime for which an accused stands trial was committed by someone else is relevant and admissible,6 this axiom cannot be stretched to the point of permitting the admission of another person’s prior arrests (in violation of Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1)) when that person is not an accused, a complainant, or a witness.
¶ 2 Under Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1), “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” The evidence which Appellant is attempting to introduce is inadmissible pursuant to the above rule.7
¶ 3 It is undisputed that pursuant to the above rule evidence of a defendant’s prior arrests is not admissible against the defendant to show action in conformity therewith. It is also undisputed that most courts applying the above rule have held that (subject to the exceptions outlined in 404(b)(2)) evidence of a defendant’s prior arrests is not admissible against that defendant to establish propensity. However, there is no authority for the assertion by the majority that “this rule [Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1) ] deals exclusively with the evidence of crimes, wrongs or acts which a party seeks to admit to prove something about an accused, a complainant or a witness.” Majority Opinion, at 1201.
¶ 4 A reasonable reading of the language of the rule indicates that “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible [regardless of the proponent of the evidence] to prove the character of a person [any person] in order to show action in conformity therewith.”
¶ 5 The rule does not restrict the class of persons to which it is applicable. It is therefore unnecessary and unwarranted to restrict the application of the rule to circumstances in which such evidence is introduced against an accused, a witness or a complainant.
¶ 6 The primary focus of the rule is the principle that prior actions should not be admissible to show a person’s propensity to act or not act in a certain way. Prior actions or events that are not the subject of the litigation are simply irrelevant to show that a person probably acted or did not act in a certain way. The fact that a person was arrested for drug offenses in the past does not mean that the person was in possession of drugs on a separate occasion. The rule is geared towards attempts to introduce evidence of past conduct or event to establish that a person acted in conformity with the past conduct *1205or event. Therefore, the fact that a person is not on trial does not give a defendant an impetus to introduce evidence of that person’s prior arrests in violation of the above rule (404).
¶ 7 The official Comments to rule 404 states as follows:
The basic principle of Pa.R.E. 404 is consistent with F.R.E. 404 and Pennsylvania law. Pa.R.E. 404, with certain enumerated exceptions, provides that character evidence cannot be used to prove conduct. Under this rule, evidence that an employee had a character trait of absent-mindedness would not be admissible to prove that on a particular occasion he or she failed to fasten the safety latch on a piece of equipment. Comments to Pa.R.E. 404
¶ 8 The above Comments amply support the notion that the primary purpose of the rule is to prohibit use of a character trait or past conduct or events to prove that a person acted or did not act in a certain way on a particular occasion. The language of the rule and the Comments do not indicate that this rule is inapplicable when the person whose character trait or past conduct is sought to be introduced is not on trial and is not a witness or a complainant. There is no logical reason to create such an exception. The drafters of the rule could have restricted its application to an accused, a complainant and a witness by drafting the rule to provide as follows: “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of an accused, a witness, or a complainant, is not admissible to prove the character of an accused, a witness, or a complainant in order to show action in conformity therewith.” However, the drafters did not restrict the rule in this way.
¶ 9 It can be plausibly argued that the drafters deliberately refused to restrict the rule’s application to an accused, a witness or a complainant given the fact that in the preceding subsections (Pa.R.E.404(a)(l); 404(a)(2); and 404(a)(3)), the drafters specifically enumerated the classes of people to whom the exceptions applied, namely, an accused, a complainant, and a witness. Therefore, the drafter’s failure to restrict rule 404(b)(1) to an accused, a complainant, or a witness was deliberate rather than an oversight.
¶ 10 Permitting defendants to introduce evidence of another person’s prior unrelated arrest is also patently unfair to the person whose prior arrests are being introduced as well as to the Commonwealth. The person is not a party to the litigation and does not have the opportunity to defend, dispute or explain the circumstances of the prior arrests and irrelevance of the prior arrests to the case against the defendants. Why should defendants be permitted to attack and pillage the character of another person who is not a party to the litigation and who has no opportunity to defend his character and the circumstances of his prior arrests? Because the person whose arrest is sought to be introduced into evidence is not a party to the litigation, that person has no opportunity to explain whether or not that arrest led to the filing of criminal charges, whether or not criminal charges filed as a result of the arrest were ultimately dismissed, or whether or not the person was acquitted of the charges filed as a result of the arrest.
¶ 11 The logical consequence of permitting a defendant to introduce evidence of another person’s crime to show propensity is that it greatly benefits co-conspirators, accomplices, or joint venturers in cases where one accomplice is not charged or where the accomplices are being tried separately. In such a case, for instance, accomplice A could proclaim his innocence at his trial and claim that accomplice B committed the crime alone. In support of this claim, accomplice A would introduce evidence of accomplice B’s prior arrests or *1206crimes. If accomplice B was not charged, then both individuals could get away with their crime. If accomplice B was being tried separately, he can also proclaim his innocence and blame accomplice A. He would then be permitted to introduce evidence of A’s prior arrests or convictions to show that A probably acted in conformity with his prior conduct.
¶ 12 From the above illustration, it can be seen that permitting a defendant to introduce evidence of another person’s pri- or arrests would vitiate the language and the principle of Rule 404. It would allow the introduction of clearly irrelevant evidence of past conduct and events simply to show propensity. It would also be subject to abuse by co-conspirators and accomplices who are being tried separately.
¶ 13 It must also be pointed out that in light of the totality of the circumstances in this case, it is difficult to understand how Bennett’s prior drug arrests would be relevant in exculpating Appellant.
Appellant was in the left rear passenger’s seat when Jamal Bennett’s car was stopped [by the police]. Ingrid Mead-ley, the person sitting in the right rear passenger’s seat testified that the cocaine [found in the crack in the back seat of the car] was not hers and that Appellant was moving his hands from his pockets toward the crack in the back seat during the traffic stop of the vehicle. The cocaine was found in the crack of the back seat next to where Appellant was seated. Significantly, Appellant admitted to possessing several bags of marijuana which were found in the exact same spot as the cocaine.
Majority Opinion, at 1199. Further, as the majority correctly pointed out, Bennett was removed from the vehicle very early during the traffic stop and was not permitted to re-enter the vehicle. As such, Bennett could not have put the cocaine in the crack of the back seat after Appellant exited the car. These facts are clearly sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was in constructive possession of the cocaine at issue in this case. The admission of Bennett’s prior arrests would not change or cast doubt on any of the above facts: the admission of the arrests would not change the fact that the area where the cocaine was found was in Appellant’s immediate control or the fact that Appellant admitted possession of the bags of marijuana found next to the cocaine in the crack of the back seat. Therefore, the admission of Bennett’s pri- or drug arrests is irrelevant to Appellant’s constructive possession of the cocaine at issue in this case. Admission of such evidence would not help to establish or disprove Appellant’s constructive possession.
¶ 14 Although, not controlling, it is quite instructive that under Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, proof of the conduct of a third person is prohibited where the evidence is offered to prove his or her character as the basis for an inference as to his or her conduct; and the conduct of a third party offered to prove the character of the accused is barred as evidence of defendant’s conduct. U.S. v. Ellis, 493 F.Supp. 1092, 1102 (M.D.Tenn.1979) affirmed 617 F.2d 604, certiorari denied, 449 U.S. 840, 101 S.Ct. 119, 66 L.Ed.2d 48 (1980). In Ellis, following his conviction by the jury of various federal offenses, the defendant filed a post-trial motion in which he alleged among other things, that his constitutional rights were violated by the prosecutors when they sought to impeach him inferentially by proof that his deceased associate, Pomporini, had been convicted during his lifetime of mail fraud. Although the court found this to be a harmless error in light of the evidence against Ellis, it noted that evidence of other crimes or character traits of third parties is inadmissible.
¶ 16 The District Court noted that:
*1207Rule 404(b), Federal Rules of Evidence, states very plainly that “ * * * (e)vidence of other crimes * * * is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. * * * ” Subsection (a) of the same rule reiterates that “ * * * (e)vidence of a person’s character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: * * * ” as related to (1) the accused, (2) the victim of the crime, or (3) a witness “ * * * as provided in rules 607, 608, and 609.”
As Mr. Pomporini was none of these 3 excepted persons, in so far as this case is concerned, the purpose of the prosecuting attorney must be said to have been to show that Mr. Pomporini acted in conformity with his character as a mail-fraud convict in dealing with Mr. Ellis, and thereby to suggest that the jury infer that Mr. Ellis’ conduct was also of a mail-fraud nature.
If such was the purpose of the prosecuting attorney, such evidence was irrelevant and barred: proof of the conduct of a third person is/prohibited where the evidence is offered to prove his or her character as a basis for an inference as to his or her conduct; and the conduct of a third person offered to prove the character of the accused is barred as evidence of the defendant’s conduct. 22 Wright & Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure, 457-458, Evidence, § 5239. “ * * * An important element of a fair trial is that a jury consider only relevant and competent evidence bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence. * * *” Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 131, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476(1968). U.S. v. Ellis, 493 F.Supp. 1092, 1102 (M.D.Tenn.1979).
¶ 16 Similar conclusions were reached in the following cases: U.S. v. Ochoa, 609 F.2d 198 (5th Cir.1980) (cross-examination of defendant, charged with distribution and conspiracy to distribute heroin, with respect to extraneous offenses of defendant’s brother, brother-in-law, and friend (who were not on trial and were not parties to the litigation) constituted prejudicial error); U.S. v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 1392 (7th Cir.1993)(District court properly excluded evidence of specific instances of violent conduct by co-defendant against defendant in trial on the charge of aiding and abetting armed robbery on the ground that whatever marginal relevance specific instances of violent conduct may have had was clearly outweighed by danger of confusion of issues, delay, and unnecessary presentation of evidence); U.S. v. Eason, 920 F.2d 731 (11th Cir.1990)(nontestifying co-conspirator’s prior conviction was inadmissible as being highly prejudicial and violating the tenet that guilt or innocence must be determined one defendant at a time without regard to the disposition of charges against others, even if Government’s intent was solely to use conviction to impeach testifying witness rather than as substantive evidence of defendant’s guilt).
¶ 17 Based on the language of Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1), the principle underlying the rule as well as the guidance of federal cases (interpreting F.R.E. 404), I would affirm the judgment of sentence because evidence of Bennett’s prior drug arrests is irrelevant and inadmissible to prove that Bennett, not Appellant was in possession of the cocaine on the date in question.
¶ 18 For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

. Commonwealth v. McGowan, 535 Pa. 292, 635 A.2d 113, 115 (1993).

. It is noteworthy that the trial court erroneously permitted the admission of Bennett's drug arrest which occurred after the events underlying the instant case. The admission of this irrelevant event to show that Bennett probably acted in conformity therewith did not serve to exculpate Appellant. Despite this undeserved favor bestowed on Appellant by the trial court, the jury still found him guilty.