Court Opinion

ID: 9693568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:50:25.259414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:48.505383
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The trial court abused its discretion in ruling that appellant’s prior convictions of robbery and theft would be admissible to impeach appellant if he took the stand “merely [to] *39deny the allegations, without offering any alibi,” of the charges of robbery, rape, and aggravated and simple assault. The court’s ruling impermissibly caused appellant to forgo his right as a citizen accused to testify in his own defense.
The majority’s unfounded statement that prior convictions of robbery and theft “could not be reasonably said to invite the jurors to convict the defendant of a brutal sexual attack because of his character or propensity to rape” ignores the element of force which is essential to robbery and which suggests a propensity to commit crimes involving force, including rape. Moreover, the majority ignores the critical fact that appellant was on trial not only for rape but also for robbery and assault. It must be obvious that a prior conviction for robbery would, at the very least, suggest a propensity to commit robbery again.
On this record, the Commonwealth has failed to establish that the circumstances of appellant’s prior crimes of robbery and theft involved dishonesty or false statement, a prerequisite to the admissibility of these crimes. See Commonwealth v. Roots, 482 Pa. 33, 393 A.2d 364 (1978); Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554, 307 A.2d 255 (1973). However, even assuming such a showing, the Commonwealth has in no respect satisfied its burden “to show that the need for this evidence [to cast doubt upon the defendant-witness’s veracity] overcomes its inherent potential for prejudice.” Commonwealth v. Roots, supra, 482 Pa. at 41, 393 A.2d at 368. As this Court has stated,
“[w]hen we consider the difficulty in limiting this type of evidence to the purpose for which it was introduced, the natural tendency for it to be interpreted as indicative of the defendant’s propensity to commit crime, and the ineffectiveness of cautionary instructions, it is apparent that the prosecution should be required to show that the state’s interest in its probative value outweighs the prejudice that will inure to the defendant.”
Id.
This Court has made clear that “of ‘critical importance’ is ‘the extent to which it is more important to the search for *40truth in a particular case for the jury to hear the defendant’s story than to know of a prior conviction.’ ” Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Bighum, supra, 452 Pa. at 567, 307 A.2d at 263. The defendant’s own testimony is most critical in a case where that testimony is the only evidence through which the jury can hear the defendant’s version of the truth. Contrary to the assumption of the majority and the trial court, the need for the defendant’s own testimony is more compelling where, as here, that testimony is his only means to deny commission of the crimes charged, than where an accused defends on the theory of alibi, a defense that can be presented through the testimony of other witnesses.
The majority errs in concluding that “[t]he Commonwealth had no alternative means of attacking the appellant’s credibility, or of cross-examining him upon his mere denial of guilt.” It is well settled that “[t]he scope of cross-examination of a defendant in a criminal case is one of great latitude.” Commonwealth v. Petrakovich, 459 Pa. 511, 523, 329 A.2d 844, 850 (1974). “ ‘The right of cross-examination extends beyond the subjects testified to in direct testimony and includes the right to examine any facts tending to refute “inference or deductions” arising from matters testified to on direct.’ ” Id., 459 Pa. at 523 n.6, 329 A.2d at 850 n.6, quoting Commonwealth v. Lopinson, 427 Pa. 284, 300, 234 A.2d 552, 562 (1967). The Commonwealth had available to it the same means of impeaching credibility that are present in any criminal case where the defendant does not have a prior criminal record.
Whatever the evidentiary value to the Commonwealth of appellant’s prior convictions, it is clear that their probative value was far outweighed by the potential for prejudice to appellant. As this Court has expressly stated, prior crimes are admissible for impeachment only if they involve dishonesty or false statement and are “of essential evidentiary value to the prosecution and not unreasonably unfair to the defense.” Commonwealth v. Roots, supra, 482 Pa. at 39, 393 A.2d at 367. Because on this record the Commonwealth has not satisfied these requirements for the admissibility of *41appellant’s prior convictions, appellant must be granted a new trial.