Com. v. Dawkins, L.
Com. v. Dawkins, L. No. 3564 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 27, 2017Background
- In January 2011, Appellee Louis Dawkins allegedly arranged for Tracey Barats to buy three handguns (straw purchases) at his direction and with co-defendant Edroy Wigfall; Barats filled out purchase paperwork and received payment from Dawkins; two purchases occurred on Jan. 11 and Jan. 14, 2011.
- Police recovered a gun box traced to a June 2, 2005 firearm purchase by Jill Johnson at Wigfall’s home; no 2011 guns were recovered.
- Johnson gave inconsistent statements: in 2011 she said she bought four guns in 2005 for herself; in 2015 she said she bought four guns for Dawkins and Wigfall but admitted poor memory and oxycodone use.
- Commonwealth charged Dawkins with multiple offenses arising from the 2011 purchases and moved in limine to admit evidence that Johnson purchased four firearms for Dawkins and Wigfall in 2005 (Pa.R.E. 404(b)).
- Trial court denied the Commonwealth’s motion after a hearing, finding the 2005 evidence unreliable and not satisfying common-plan/res gestae exceptions; Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred excluding evidence of 2005 firearm purchases as prior bad acts under Pa.R.E. 404(b) to show conspiracy/common plan/context | The Commonwealth: 2005 purchases by same co-conspirators show common plan/scheme, place witness testimony in context, and prove existence of conspiracy | Dawkins: 2005 incidents are remote, involve different purchaser, unreliable witness statements, and would be unfairly prejudicial | Court affirmed: exclusion proper — 2005 evidence unreliable, lacked close factual nexus or signature conduct, and did not meet common-plan or res gestae exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sitler, 144 A.3d 156 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for admissibility of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2015) (relevance threshold and common-plan balancing)
- Commonwealth v. Ross, 57 A.3d 85 (Pa. Super. 2012) (requirement of close factual nexus and signature behavior for common-plan exception)
- Commonwealth v. Semenza, 127 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2015) (mere repeated commission of same-class crimes insufficient for exception)
- Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657 (Pa. 2014) (res gestae/‘complete story’ exception and probative-prejudice balancing)
- Commonwealth v. Donahue, 549 A.2d 121 (Pa. 1988) (prior-incident evidence must be established by substantial evidence before admission)