Commonwealth v. Sitler, 144 A.3d 156

On Nov. 12, 2012 a pickup driven by Robert Sitler struck and killed a pedestrian after allegedly tailgating and speeding; Sitler initially had his girlfriend, Denise Dinnocenti, identify herself as the driver.
Dinnocenti later recanted, stating Sitler was the driver and had instructed her and her children to lie; she also reported Sitler had consumed a few drinks prior to driving.
Sitler gave two statements: initially claiming he was a passenger, later admitting he was the driver and acknowledging a 2006 Alabama vehicular manslaughter conviction and drinking three beers prior to driving.
Detectives and an accident reconstruction expert concluded the truck was traveling at least 50 mph in a 35 mph zone and that tailgating and speed caused the collision; officers detected an odor of alcohol on Sitler but did not observe clear signs of intoxication.
Sitler was charged with homicide by vehicle, multiple motor-vehicle offenses, and several crimen falsi offenses for his false statements; he moved in limine to exclude evidence of his prior conviction, his alcohol consumption, and evidence of crimen falsi convictions if he pleaded guilty to those counts.
Trial court granted the motions in limine excluding the Alabama conviction, excluding evidence of drinking, and barring admission of evidence related to crimen falsi convictions if Sitler pleaded guilty; Commonwealth appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Sitler)	Held
Admissibility of 2006 Alabama vehicular manslaughter conviction under Pa.R.E. 404(b) (knowledge/recklessness)	Conviction shows a close factual nexus and is admissible to prove knowledge/recklessness and motive to lie	Prior conviction is overly prejudicial and merely shows propensity; not sufficiently connected	Reversed trial court: conviction is admissible under Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2) (probative value outweighs prejudice)
Admissibility of evidence Sitler consumed three beers before driving (to prove recklessness/intoxication)	Evidence of drinking + surrounding facts (odor, erratic driving) should be admissible to help prove recklessness	Admission would be prejudicial; Commonwealth offers no expert and cannot prove intoxication from three beers hours earlier	Affirmed trial court: excluded evidence of drinking because record lacks facts showing intoxication (odor alone insufficient)
Admission at homicide trial of evidence relating to Sitler’s crimen falsi convictions if he pleads guilty to those counts	Lies and directing others to lie show consciousness of guilt and are admissible as substantive evidence	Trial court ruled prematurely; defendant may not plead and issue is speculative	Vacated trial court’s preclusion as premature; issue not ripe for review (Commonwealth may renew if/when Sitler pleads)

Sherwood v. Commonwealth, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009) (governs admissibility framework for prior bad acts under Pa.R.E. 404(b))
Ross v. Commonwealth, 57 A.3d 85 (Pa. Super. 2012) (requires a close factual nexus before admitting prior bad acts to avoid propensity inference)
Russell v. Commonwealth, 938 A.2d 1082 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and cautions as to prejudice/instructions)
Powell v. Commonwealth, 956 A.2d 406 (Pa. 2008) (balancing probative value against prejudicial impact for Rule 404(b) evidence)
Cave v. Commonwealth, 281 A.2d 733 (Pa. Super. 1971) (alcohol: mere drinking/odor alone insufficient; must join with other facts to show intoxication caused accident)
Critzer v. Donovan, 137 A. 665 (Pa. 1927) (early articulation that odor/consumption alone is not proof of intoxication)
Jeter v. Commonwealth, 937 A.2d 466 (Pa. Super. 2007) (intoxication evidence is relevant but not dispositive; can be a factor for recklessness)
Buffington v. Commonwealth, 444 A.2d 1194 (Pa. Super. 1982) (odor/consumption alone inadmissible to prove unfitness to drive)
Neitzel v. Commonwealth, 678 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. 1996) (courts should avoid advisory opinions; ripeness considerations)