Commonwealth v. Gill, R., Aplt.
206 A.3d 459
Pa.2019Background
- In 2013 Speichler reported ~$40,000 stolen from a lockbox in his home; Robert Gill was investigated and charged based on his knowledge of the money and use of $100 bills to buy a truck.
- Gill sought admission of evidence of a June 23, 2016 burglary at the same residence (also ~$40,000 taken from a lockbox, no obvious forced entry, lockbox opened with keys) to show someone else committed the 2013 burglary and to impeach the victim.
- The trial court granted Gill’s amended motion in limine to admit evidence of the June 23, 2016 incident and ordered disclosure of investigatory files; it denied admission of a decades-old allegation involving the victim’s daughter.
- The Commonwealth appealed under Pa.R.A.P. 311(d); the Superior Court reversed the trial court, holding the incidents were insufficiently similar and too remote in time to be admissible.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the Superior Court misapplied the abuse-of-discretion standard by substituting its judgment for the trial court’s; applying the correct deferential standard, the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s ruling admitting the June 23, 2016 evidence and vacated/remanded the disclosure-order issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court applied proper standard of review to trial court's evidentiary ruling | Commonwealth: trial court erred; incidents too dissimilar/remote so Superior Court properly reversed | Gill: Superior Court failed to apply abuse-of-discretion standard and improperly substituted its judgment | Supreme Court: Superior Court misapplied standard; trial court’s discretionary ruling will be reinstated because no abuse of discretion was shown |
| Admissibility standard for "reverse 404(b)" (evidence a third party committed a similar crime) | Commonwealth: adopt two-part Palagonia test (time lapse + resemblance) | Gill: apply Rule 401/403 relevance/balance standard; more permissive | Court declined to alter substantive law here but reaffirmed deferential review; concurrence argues reverse-404(b) should be governed by Rule 401/403, not Rule 404(b) tests |
| Whether the June 23, 2016 incident was sufficiently similar and timely to be admitted | Commonwealth: differences in entry method, use of tools and three-year gap make it inadmissible | Gill: similarities (same victim, amount, lockbox, access by key, no forced entry) make evidence probative to identity/credibility | Supreme Court: admissibility was a close call but trial court acted within discretion; evidence admissible for cross-examination and to present to jury |
| Trial court order requiring disclosure of 2016 investigatory files | Commonwealth: order improperly broad and prejudicial | Gill: files necessary to prepare defense and support motion in limine | Supreme Court vacated Superior Court’s reversal on disclosure and remanded to Superior Court to reconsider that issue consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McGowan, 535 Pa. 292 (Pa. 1993) (defense may introduce evidence of another crime bearing substantial similarity)
- Commonwealth v. Rini, 285 Pa.Super. 475 (Pa. Super. 1981) (recognizes defense can present similar-crime evidence to show another perpetrator)
- Commonwealth v. Weiss, 622 Pa. 663 (Pa. 2013) (reaffirms that evidence showing another committed a crime must bear a highly detailed similarity)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 625 Pa. 104 (Pa. 2014) (reiterates admissibility of evidence tending to show another person committed the charged offense)
- Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 547 Pa. 460 (Pa. 1997) (probative value of similarity is inversely proportional to time between offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Palagonia, 868 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2005) (articulates the two-part test applied by some Superior Court panels: lapse of time and resemblance)
- Commonwealth v. Nocero, 399 Pa.Super. 346 (Pa. Super. 1990) (analyzes reverse-404(b) evidence under 404(b)-style standards)
- Commonwealth v. Bryant, 515 Pa. 473 (Pa. 1987) (404(b) identity standard: nearly identical method akin to a signature)
- Commonwealth v. Clayton, 506 Pa. 24 (Pa. 1984) (remoteness in time is a relevant factor in similarity analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Eichinger, 591 Pa. 1 (Pa. 2007) (explains abuse-of-discretion standard and when appellate courts may overturn discretionary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Hoover, 630 Pa. 599 (Pa. 2014) (appellate courts must not substitute their judgment for trial court's discretionary rulings)
- United States v. Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380 (3d Cir. 1991) (federal precedent supporting a more permissive approach to reverse-404(b)-type evidence: relevance plus Rule 403 balancing)