Com. v. Lapaglia, M., Com. v. Lapaglia, M. No. 104 WDA 2016

Appellant Michael Lapaglia was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, robbery (inflict serious bodily injury), and burglary for the 2014 killing of Jack Parkes; sentence: life without parole plus a consecutive 10–20 years for robbery.
Victim was found shot in his home; jewelry and valuables were taken the same day and Appellant attempted to pawn many items.
Appellant admitted driving to the victim’s house with a firearm, that the victim was shot with his gun, that he saw the victim fall, and that he disposed of the firearm; he claimed the shooting was in self-defense and that he later took jewelry in a panic.
Commonwealth sought to admit two prior-bad-acts under Pa. R. Evid. 404(b): (1) Appellant’s prior theft (Labor Day party) from the victim’s household and (2) Appellant’s termination from Dollar Bank for cash shortages/theft; the trial court admitted both.
Appellant argued on appeal that admission of those prior acts was an abuse of discretion because they did not sufficiently demonstrate motive, intent, or knowledge relevant to the homicide.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding the prior-act evidence was admissible to show motive (need for money to support heroin addiction) and knowledge (that the victims kept valuable jewelry), and that any error would have been harmless given Appellant’s inculpatory admissions and other strong evidence.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of two prior bad acts under Pa. R. Evid. 404(b)	Prior acts (Labor Day theft; bank termination) were too factually distinct and unsupported to prove motive, intent or knowledge; their admission was improper propensity evidence	Evidence showed motive (need for money to support drug habit), plan/opportunity, and knowledge (Appellant knew victims had jewelry); probative value outweighed prejudice	Affirmed. Evidence admissible under 404(b) to show motive and knowledge; even if erroneous, admission was harmless given overwhelming inculpatory evidence

Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 320 (Pa. Super. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (limitations and balancing test for admission of other-crimes evidence under Rule 404(b))
Commonwealth v. Poplawski, 130 A.3d 697 (Pa. 2015) (harmless-error framework for erroneously admitted evidence)
Commonwealth v. Rushing, 71 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2013) (explaining cell-phone "ping" location evidence)
Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008) (discussion of harmless-error standards cited in Poplawski)