182 A.3d 1002
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Appellant Paris Murphy, an inmate at SCI‑Fayette, was strip‑searched after an altercation on Feb 21, 2016; officers found heroin, cocaine, K2, and stamp bags in his pockets.
- Murphy was tried by jury on possession by an inmate, possession, and possession of paraphernalia; he testified that the items belonged to his cellmate and denied possessing or using drugs.
- On cross‑examination Murphy denied admitting possession at an internal Department of Corrections (DOC) disciplinary hearing; the Commonwealth then recalled a corrections captain and introduced the DOC Disciplinary Hearing Report stating Murphy pled guilty.
- The prosecutor also elicited testimony about Murphy’s prior drug/paraphernalia conviction after Murphy denied ever using those drugs.
- Murphy appealed, arguing (1) the DOC admission and report were inadmissible/unduly prejudicial and (2) questioning about prior convictions was improper under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5918. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of DOC disciplinary admission/report | Commonwealth: admissible to impeach after defendant denied possession and denied admitting guilt at DOC hearing | Murphy: DOC admission irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial; akin to a plea before the criminal court | Court: Admissible for impeachment; Murphy "opened the door" by denying possession and denial of DOC admission; no abuse of discretion |
| Cross‑examination about prior drug convictions | Commonwealth: may impeach defendant who asserts good character/reputation by denying drug use | Murphy: questioning irrelevant and barred by § 5918 because he did not claim good character; prior offenses non‑crimen falsi | Court: Denial of drug use constituted evidence of good character/reputation (opened the door); cross‑examination allowed; convictions were non‑crimen falsi, so admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480 (Pa. 2015) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Nypaver, 69 A.3d 708 (Pa. Super. 2013) (a party who creates a false impression may open the door to otherwise inadmissible impeachment evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Bozyk, 987 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2009) (trial court has wide latitude over scope of cross‑examination)
- Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 862 A.2d 647 (Pa. Super. 2004) (prosecution may question defendant about prior non‑crimen falsi convictions to rebut claims of good character)