Commonwealth v. Palo
24 A.3d 1050
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Palo and his uncle Sullivan burglarized Lizza's Apothecare Pharmacy in Uniontown, breaking through a drive-through window and causing substantial property damage.
- Lizza identified Sullivan on surveillance video; police arrested Sullivan the next day and recovered pills on him.
- Challenged link to Palo primarily through the testimony of ex-girlfriend Charlotte Thorpe, who testified that Palo planned and participated in the burglary and later possessed pills.
- Palo presented alibi testimony by his mother Rosemary Frazee, who claimed Palo was at home from 5:30 to 10:00 p.m. on April 4, 2009.
- To impeach Frazee, the Commonwealth introduced Frazee's old crimen falsi conviction from 1992, over defense objection; the court allowed its use under Pa.R.E. 609(b).
- Frazee’s conviction was introduced alongside Frazee’s alibi testimony as part of the credibility battle between the two key witnesses, Thorpe and Frazee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? | Palo argues the case rests on a single unreliable witness. | Palo contends the Commonwealth failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | Evidence sufficient; credibility determinations for jury. |
| Was it error to admit Frazee's old crimen falsi conviction for impeachment? | Frazee's 18-year-old conviction was too stale and prejudicial. | Old crimen falsi evidence properly admissible to assess credibility given the witness's role. | Admission affirmed; probative value outweighed prejudice; notice issue waived or harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bruce, 916 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. 2007) (sufficiency review and credibility deference to the jury)
- Commonwealth v. Cascardo, 981 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. 2009) (balancing probative value and prejudicial effect of stale credibility evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, (Montez) Harris, 884 A.2d 920 (Pa. Super. 2005) (5-factor test for 609(b) impeachment considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Randall, 528 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1987) (ten-year rule and balancing test for impeachment evidence)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 860 A.2d 102 (Pa. 2004) (credibility and weight of witness testimony limitations on appellate review)
- In re Interest of M.M., 653 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 1995) (impeachment and credibility framework for witnesses)