Court Opinion

ID: 9709636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:52:32.296606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:50.629850
License: Public Domain

McDERMOTT, Justice,
dissenting.
Character evidence is substantive evidence. It is both relevant and important. It should be presented by and from a source knowledgeable as to its truth. While it is certainly true that an arrest in and of itself proves nothing, it is also true that a series of arrests, (not uncommon in this day) may be pause to consider the full knowledge the witness has of another’s reputation. One arrested for a laundry list of offenses in the community in which he lives may indeed be innocent of all, yet the knowledge of such arrests should at least be considered in establishing the accuracy of the prof erred reputation evidence. One who *236comes to laud the estimious reputation of another should at least be aware of all that makes a name.
Because I believe that, this Court erred in Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 188, 436 A.2d 607 (1981), I must dissent from the retroactive application of that decision.
I join with Mr. Justice Nix in his analysis of retroactivity.