Court Opinion

ID: 9645943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:40:46.4836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:33.297952
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Pomeroy:
I concur in the result reached by the Court because from my review of the record I am satisfied that the test of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 219 (b)—“transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan”—is here met. That is to say, I believe that the robberies of these two grocery stores, about five miles apart on the eastern periphery of metropolitan Pittsburgh, show a common scheme, plan or design, and that Peterson’s identity as a perpetrator of the second robbery (where he was caught red-handed) is probative in establishing that he was also a perpetrator of the first. Not only were the crimes closely related in time and space, but the getaway car in both was described as orange with a black vinyl top. At the Oakmont robbery it was said to have a license plate with a third digit of “N” and last two digits of either “35” or “53”, while at Wilkinsburg it was found to have the license “14N135”. At Oakmont *202a pistol was brandished while in WilMnsburg it was a shotgun; a pistol, however was found under the seat of the getaway car used in WilMnsburg. Finally, Peterson was identified at trial by witnesses present at both robbed stores. In short, if this case does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 219(b), then I would be at a loss to know what would.
I therefore find it unnecessary to decide whether joinder of offenses under Rule 219 is permissible beyond the scope of the common scheme, plan or design exception to the evidentiary rule that a man’s past misconduct is not relevant in establisMng his conduct on a later occasion.1

 The majority may have held the two robberies here to be not part of a common scheme, plan or design because of tbe following language in Commonwealth v. Jackson, 451 Pa. 462, 303 A. 2d 924 (1973) : “However, even assuming that WilMnsburg and Oakmont are ‘in tbe same neighborhood’, there was no proof offered that the crimes in question were the product of a common scheme or of a continuing conspiracy between appellant and his co-defendants.” The holding in Jackson, however, did not conclude the question of a common scheme, plan or design here. Jackson was not charged with the Oakmont robbery and there were no circumstances to indicate that an unknown man (other than Peterson and Taylor), who might have been Jackson participated in the Oakmont robbery. As the Jackson opinion states, “[as] between appellant [Jackson] and his co-defendants . . . there was no proof . . . that the crimes in question were ... a common scheme.” That statement, in my view, does not hold true for Peterson, who was apprehended fleeing the second robbery and identified as a participant in the first.