Commonwealth v. Bergen, 142 A.3d 847

On May 3, 2012, Philadelphia officers stopped a car; James Bergen (passenger) was observed reaching under the passenger seat and attempted to flee and resist arrest during a struggle.
Officers recovered a black handgun from under the front-passenger seat after Bergen was handcuffed.
Bergen was tried and convicted of resisting arrest and three firearms offenses; the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 6 to 15 years.
Bergen moved in limine to admit the driver/owner James Black’s prior 1998 firearms conviction to show Black, not Bergen, possessed the gun; the trial court excluded it.
Bergen also argued the trial judge’s courtroom remarks (stating the case was about the gun, not the fight) prejudiced the jury; he moved for mistrial post-trial, which was denied.
The Superior Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the 15‑year‑old single conviction and Bergen waived the misconduct claim for lack of a timely objection.

Issue	Bergen's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Admissibility of driver’s prior firearms conviction	Evidence of Black’s prior gun conviction would make it more likely Black, not Bergen, possessed the gun	Single, 15‑year‑old conviction is minimally probative and prejudicial; Thompson is distinguishable	Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding the prior conviction; its probative value was low and not sufficiently similar/recent to justify admission
Trial judge’s allegedly prejudicial courtroom remarks	Judge’s comments undermined defense theory and counsel’s credibility; warranted mistrial	Defense counsel failed to contemporaneously object; claim is waived; comments did not create prejudice requiring mistrial	Claim waived for failure to object; even if preserved, remarks were not so prejudicial as to require mistrial (court later instructed jury on role and credibility)

Commonwealth v. Thompson, 779 A.2d 1195 (Pa. Super. 2001) (third‑party prior convictions may be admissible when a pattern and temporal proximity make them highly probative)
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55 (Pa. 2014) (evidence of another’s similar crimes admissible if resemblance and timing support inference of same actor)
Commonwealth v. Palagonia, 868 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2005) (distinctive similarity or close temporal proximity required for admission of other‑conduct evidence to show another committed the offense)
Commonwealth v. Kinard, 95 A.3d 279 (Pa. Super. 2014) (constructive possession and joint possession principles; courts assess totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426 (Pa. Super. 2012) (defines constructive possession as conscious dominion)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 683 A.2d 1181 (Pa. 1996) (not all critical or impatient remarks by a trial judge, standing alone, require mistrial; context and jury instructions are dispositive)