Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738

Commonwealth appealed after a new-trial order following a murder trial.
Self-defense was the central issue; the trial court excluded the victim King’s nine-year-old robbery conviction.
Appellee allegedly provoked the encounter and fired after King backed away, with a bystander injured.
Superior Court vacated and ordered a new trial based on admissibility of the victim’s prior conviction.
This Court reversed, reinstating the judgment of sentence for first-degree murder and related offenses.
The opinion analyzes the burden of proof for self-defense and the limits on admitting prior-veneer convictions to prove the aggressor or fear.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Burden of proof on self-defense	Commonwealth argues foreseeably that it bears negation burden	Mouzon asserts Commonwealth must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt	Commonwealth bears burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt
Admissibility of victim's prior conviction	Commonwealth contends conviction supports aggressor inference	Appellee argues admissibility supports self-defense theory	Trial court erred in excluding evidence; remand not necessary; conviction admissible under proper conditions
Was there sufficient evidence to raise self-defense	Commonwealth argues defendant provoked the encounter and could retreat	Appellee claims reasonable belief in imminent danger	No, the evidence did not create a jury question on self-defense; nonetheless, conviction reinstated
Consistency with precedent on self-defense and provocation	Commonwealth cites Bracey and related cases to bar self-defense where provocation occurred	Appellee relies on Samuel and other cases to permit self-defense with provocation	Court reaffirmed that provocation forecloses self-defense only when appropriate under law; affirmed reversal

Commonwealth v. Samuel, 527 Pa. 298, 590 A.2d 1245 (1991) (establishes self-defense elements and burden allocation standards)
Commonwealth v. Cropper, 463 Pa. 529, 345 A.2d 645 (1975) (imported intoxication-defense reasoning; discusses burden shift under Crimes Code §505)
Commonwealth v. Rose, 457 Pa. 380, 321 A.2d 880 (1974) (abandoned defendant’s burden of proving intoxication defense; shift to Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. Beck, 485 Pa. 475, 402 A.2d 1371 (1979) (victim’s prior convictions admissible to prove aggressor or fear when self-defense is at issue)
Commonwealth v. Amos, 445 Pa. 297, 284 A.2d 748 (1971) (prior crimes of victim admissible for aggression/propensity relevance)
Commonwealth v. Boone, 467 Pa. 168, 354 A.2d 898 (1975) (discusses retreat and backing-away scenarios in self-defense)
Commonwealth v. Yanoff, Pa. Super. 456 Pa. Super. 222, 690 A.2d 260 (1997) (evidence when victim backs away and defendant may retreat)
Commonwealth v. Bullock, Pa. Super. 948 A.2d 818 (2008) (evidence of self-defense where victim was fleeing)
Commonwealth v. Drum, 58 Pa. 9 (1868) (insulting words alone may not prove provocation; context matters)