{"id":2014,"date":"2017-06-12T08:24:36","date_gmt":"2017-06-12T12:24:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/?p=2014"},"modified":"2021-12-16T14:58:22","modified_gmt":"2021-12-16T14:58:22","slug":"404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/","title":{"rendered":"404(b) and The Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s Discontent"},"content":{"rendered":"

No area of law may be more vexing, and more subject to dispute, than the admission or exclusion of \u201cother acts\u201d evidence \u2013 often mis-labed \u201cprior bad acts\u201d evidence \u2013 in criminal cases. Evidence of an \u201cact\u201d that only conveys the actor\u2019s character is inadmissible; but evidence with a non-character purpose may<\/em> be admissible, subject to a balancing test.<\/p>\n

In its most recent decision on the application of these principles, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ended up with five (5) opinions.\u00a0 That inability to speak in one voice shows discontent about current\u00a0 Rule 404(b) analysis and offers an invitation to future litigants to seek clarification and change.<\/p>\n

The case is Commonwealth v. Hicks<\/em>, No. 718 CAP, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 687 (Mar. 28, 2017).\u00a0 At issue was the admissibility of three assaults on women in a case where Hicks was accused of killing and dismembering a fourth female.\u00a0 The autopsy showed, inter alia<\/em> evidence of \u201cstrangulation and sharp force injury to [the] neck.\u201d\u00a0 The defense was that death resulted from a drug overdoes, and all injuries occurred post-mortem<\/em> when the body was dismembered to avoid discovery.<\/p>\n

And the other acts?\u00a0 As described by the plurality,<\/p>\n

In each case appellant: (1) was introduced to drug-dependent women of\u00a0similar body types for purposes of using drugs; (2) showed a sexual interest in the women, sometimes involving prostitution; (3) resorted to violence when the women behaved in a way he found disagreeable; (4) inflicted injuries on each woman by targeting her neck area with his hands, a sharp edged object, or both; and (5) verbally threatened to kill each woman.<\/p>\n

So, why a divided court, and where is the discontent?<\/p>\n

Three Justices \u2013 the plurality of Justices Dougherty, Todd and Mundy \u2013 found the other acts to meet two thresholds for admitting \u201cother acts\u201d evidence, claiming there were both a \u201crequired logical connection between the prior assaults and the circumstances surrounding the victim’s death\u201d and a\u00a0 \u201c\u2019virtual signature\u2019 for purposes of proving common scheme, intent and identity.\u201d<\/p>\n

When weighing the probativeness of this evidence against the potential for unfair prejudice, the plurality made what appears to be a clear error \u2013 probativeness was assessed by noting the circumstantial nature of the remaining proof.\u00a0 In other words, instead of asking how well do the three other assaults prove culpability in this case, the plurality asked how important was the \u201cother act\u201d evidence since the prosecution\u2019s case was otherwise circumstantial in nature.<\/p>\n

So far, no discontent. But that is where the other four members of the Court count.\u00a0 Chief Justice Saylor began by acknowledging that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s 404(b) jurisprudence had \u201cincorrectly blended\u201d the various 404(b0 exceptions and \u201csubstantially diluted the putatively stringent standard\u201d associated with\u00a0the modus <\/em>operandi\/proof of identity exception.<\/p>\n

The Chief Justice went further.\u00a0 \u201c I maintain concerns about the power of potentially inevitable character inferences associated with other-acts evidence, with requiring defendants to effectively defend mini-trials concerning collateral matters, and about the efficacy of jury instructions in this context.\u201d\u00a0 Nonetheless, he found the evidence admissible in this case because it rebutted a defense of accidental killing through an approach known as the \u201cdoctrine of chances.\u201d\u00a0 The Chief Justice concluded that Hicks\u2019 lawyer failed to develop a separate prejudice analysis.<\/p>\n

Perhaps most importantly, the Chief Justice effectively invited a revisiting of 404(b) jurisprudence.\u00a0 \u201cIt may well be that the interests of justice would be well served were this Court to consider revamping the present approach.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Baer\u2019s approach was more economical.\u00a0 Acknowledging that \u201c<\/strong>the substantive evidentiary ruling in this case presents a close call,\u201d he declined to reach a merits analysis and instead deemed any possible error to be \u201charmless.\u201d<\/p>\n

What remains are the two dissents.\u00a0 Justice Donohue begins with a view of 404(b) as requiring \u201cthat use of prior bad acts evidence should be strictly limited\u2026\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 Asserting that Pennsylvania\u2019s 404(b) rule was meant to adopt and be cabined by its common law predecessor, she finds only two allowable exceptions:<\/p>\n

To make one criminal act evidence of another, [1] a connection between them must have existed in the mind of the actor, linking them together for some purpose he intended to accomplish; or<\/strong> [2] it must be necessary to identify the person of the actor, by a connection which shows that he who committed the one must have done the other.<\/p>\n

This language is drawn directly from the 1872 holding in Shaffner v. Commonwealth<\/em>, 72 Pa. 60, 65 (1872).<\/p>\n

Justice Donohue\u2019s lengthy dissent then proceeds in great detail to dissect each of the \u201cother acts\u201d admitted against Hicks in support of her contention that any similarities are generic and show nothing more than propensity.\u00a0 She also rejects a \u201cdoctrine of chances\u201d analysis, finding it to be propensity under another name, and argues further that even if the doctrine should be applied in Pennsylvania a more stringent test is required, including that the defendant claim that all occurrences \u2013 the act currently on trial and the preceding ones \u2013 were claimed to be accidental.<\/p>\n

The final words came from Justice Wecht.\u00a0 He voiced agreement with \u201cthe requirement that prior bad acts evidence must be strictly limited and admitted only when passed through the rigorous inquiry articulated skillfully by Justice Donohue\u2026\u201d\u00a0 He separately emphasized the concern that a jury instruction to not<\/em> use such evidence to show propensity is difficult for many to follow and \u201cthe obvious danger that the exceptions will devour the rule [so that if] courts do not adhere scrupulously to the terms and purposes of the rule, this danger becomes reality.\u201d<\/p>\n

What does this mean to judges and litigants?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

No area of law may be more vexing, and more subject to dispute, than the admission or exclusion of \u201cother acts\u201d evidence \u2013 often mis-labed \u201cprior bad acts\u201d evidence \u2013 in criminal cases. Evidence of an \u201cact\u201d that only conveys the actor\u2019s character is inadmissible; but evidence with a non-character purpose may be admissible, subject<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,7,11],"tags":[],"coauthors":[238],"class_list":["post-2014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-advocacy-and-evidence-blog","category-evidence","category-trial-advocacy"],"yoast_head":"\n404(b) and The Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s Discontent - Advocacy and Evidence Resources<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"404(b) and The Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s Discontent - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"No area of law may be more vexing, and more subject to dispute, than the admission or exclusion of \u201cother acts\u201d evidence \u2013 often mis-labed \u201cprior bad acts\u201d evidence \u2013 in criminal cases. Evidence of an \u201cact\u201d that only conveys the actor\u2019s character is inadmissible; but evidence with a non-character purpose may be admissible, subject\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-06-12T12:24:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-12-16T14:58:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e\"},\"headline\":\"404(b) and The Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s Discontent\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-06-12T12:24:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-16T14:58:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/\"},\"wordCount\":918,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Advocacy and Evidence Blog\",\"Evidence\",\"Trial Advocacy\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/\",\"name\":\"404(b) and The Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s Discontent - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-06-12T12:24:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-16T14:58:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"404(b) and The Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s Discontent\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\",\"name\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"description\":\"Just another Law Sites site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png\",\"width\":711,\"height\":220,\"caption\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e\",\"name\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g6b68adb939ecac32ef61d8026f0bafe4\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tug27334\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"404(b) and The Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s Discontent - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"404(b) and The Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s Discontent - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","og_description":"No area of law may be more vexing, and more subject to dispute, than the admission or exclusion of \u201cother acts\u201d evidence \u2013 often mis-labed \u201cprior bad acts\u201d evidence \u2013 in criminal cases. Evidence of an \u201cact\u201d that only conveys the actor\u2019s character is inadmissible; but evidence with a non-character purpose may be admissible, subject","og_url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/","og_site_name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","article_published_time":"2017-06-12T12:24:36+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-12-16T14:58:22+00:00","author":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/"},"author":{"name":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e"},"headline":"404(b) and The Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s Discontent","datePublished":"2017-06-12T12:24:36+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-16T14:58:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/"},"wordCount":918,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Advocacy and Evidence Blog","Evidence","Trial Advocacy"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/","name":"404(b) and The Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s Discontent - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-06-12T12:24:36+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-16T14:58:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2017\/06\/12\/404b-pennsylvania-supreme-courts-discontent\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"404(b) and The Pennsylvania Supreme Court\u2019s Discontent"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/","name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","description":"Just another Law Sites site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization","name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png","width":711,"height":220,"caption":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e","name":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g6b68adb939ecac32ef61d8026f0bafe4","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)"},"url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tug27334\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2014","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/31"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2014"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2014\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3411,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2014\/revisions\/3411"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2014"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}