*1 in testified to the diminution the fair market value of the real estate in question allegedly by appellees’ caused con- duct, e., i. the construction the fence and the maintenance (T. of the a broken condition 148-9a and Exhibit raceway Mr. Q). Gabel then testified to the cost of repairing the (T. on said land 155-6A and R). defects Exhibit Thus, conclusion, court’s of appel- lower after close case, lants’ could not be damages determined was premature; appellees should have been required to sub- stantiate such a conclusion the presentation of their case. the non-suit at Accordingly, entered the close lants’ case be removed and the trial until fully shall resumed concluded, considerations, which all equitable at time includ- but to, laches, not limited ing necessarily prejudice and may then be reviewed rightfully Chancellor. YOORT, JJ.,
PRICE VAN der dissent. J., did not consideration or
decision of case. A.2d Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH of WRIGHT, Appellant. William A.
Superior Pennsylvania. Court 13, 1978.
Submitted March Decided Oct. *2 Dils, K. for Harrisburg,
Arthur Attorney, E. Assistant District MacIntyre, Marion Second Zimmerman, Harrisburg, and District LeRoy Attorney, S. Commonwealth, for appellee. JACOBS, Judge,
Before President and CER- PRICE, VOORT, HESTER, CONE, der and VAN SPAETH JJ.
PER CURIAM: contends that the lower erred in Appellant permit- court case-in-chief, in its evi- ting present, in other dence involvement crimes. and, therefore, We the agree judgment vacate sentence and new remand for a trial. August
On Steelton arrested him with theft charged conspiracy,1burglary,2 receiv- ing stolen All out of same property.3 charges arose 18,1977, transaction. January On trial commenced Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. The Common- following Monts, wealth Lether testimony: victim, m., testified at about 9:30 p. August 1976, he bed in went to bedroom in his home. upstairs When awoke morning he discovered that *3 level in ground of his house was his disarray and several of possessions missing. were The stolen items a included: television, portable binoculars, wallet, a lawnmower, a several articles clothing. Erick King, years old at the trial, time of testified about his role in Mr. burglary Monts’ King, home. who lives about four houses from away Monts, m., 1976, stated that at about or 11 p. August 5, appellant and another individual named Bo4 came to his house and solicited his participation in a house burglary. was King acquainted with a appellant through neighborhood basketball clinic which appellant organized. King and Bo car, quickly plan detailed a while relocated his a Electra, maroon Buick inconspicuous position. to an Appel- lant waited King in his car while and Bo broke into Monts’ home and stole several items. After the three burglary, the the goods separated. divided and then ar- police Steelton Code, 6, 1972, 1. The Crimes Act of December P.L. No. § 6, 1973; eff. June 18 Pa.C.S. 903. § Code, supra; 2. The Crimes 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502. Code, supra;
3. The Crimes § ISPa.C.S. King never further identified Bo and no knows his current whereabouts. 6, 1976, for the of this perpetration King August rested cross-examination, stated that on Au- King On appellant, a call from telephone gust response where, presence in the he went home appellant’s wife, signed wrote and a statement5 King and his exculpating appellant any participation completely examination, King explained redirect burglary. On from a paper prepared by appellant he the statement copied so that to do upon appellant’s suggestion and that he did so “clear” of them. would both King. Police arrested
Officer Deardorff of Steelton burglary, police Because in the King implicated appellant a search warrant for appellant’s obtained and executed with the and showed cooperated police home. Appellant a a television and containing portable them cardboard box well as seized those two items as tape player. appel- two other televisions and several other articles. Over objection, lant’s continuing one of the two other
two other witnesses who each identified it been stolen his and stated that had televisions as own earlier. several months testified that he defense, took the stand and as an insurance Corporation
has worked for Bethlehem Steel King He met Erick when investigator for ten years. for program youths lant a summer basketball organized 1976 summer was a member of King Steelton. King told problems, appellant team but because of some youth program. could no longer *4 participation denied Appellant categorically any to work preparing go He that while explained 6, 1976, on the he saw a tall cardboard morning August he a ride driveway. expecting box his Because was blocking morning rain that he heavy to work and because of wife, intending put his His brought garage. the box into box, Appel- it into the kitchen. transported trash into the 31, 1976, to a lant he took his car July testified on August the car on repaired; picked up again to be garage into evidence. the statement Defense counsel introduced time, he rode to During work with friends. respect statement, With to King’s exculpatory stated that King volunteered to make the statement and King did not know police how the had any information linking to the burglary. Appellant explained the possession of the other two televisions as follows: For one he traded an old set of so speakers as to have a television for children; his the other which was inoperative, he found in the trash.
The owner of the garage testified that car was in his with garage a broken fuel pump July until August 1976. A friend of appellant corroborated these facts. Two co-workers testified that they drove appel- lant to and from work for that Appellant week.
two character witnesses who attested to his excellent repu- tation community. corroborating testimony appellant’s wife completed the defense.6
In rebuttal, Erick took the King stand. He stated that in May, he and another juvenile burglarized a home and stole several items including of the other televisions found in appellant’s home. said that King juvenile the other took that stolen to appellant’s television home.
The jury returned guilty verdicts on the burglary and conspiracy charges. Following the denial of post-verdict motions, the court sentenced appellant to concurrent 6 to 23 month terms imprisonment on charge. each The court also imposed a fine the burglary $500 conviction and ordered appellant to pay costs of prosecution both. This appeal followed.
Appellant contends that the lower court erred in permit- ting the Commonwealth to introduce evidence of the two unrelated stolen televisions found in his home because this 6. Officer Moore of the Steelton Police also testified in defense recounting August early Septem- incident that occurred in late ber, King 1976. At about 1 a. m. informed his uncle and mother that he had shot Police went to the scene of the shooting they King. where encountered He informed that he gun away. had shot and tossed the Police later learned shooting that no had occurred. *5 298 “other introduced prejudicially and
testimony improperly
243
Bradley,
v.
Pa.Su-
evidence.
Commonwealth
crimes”
adopted
(1976),
recently
our Court
208, 212,
“
prized principles
our most fundamental
‘One of
crime,
a distinct
criminal law is that
the administration
circumstances,
given
be
cannot
certain special
under
except
tried for
being
who is
a defendant
against
in evidence
has
person
that a
the fact
This is because
another crime.
he has committed
not
that
proof
committed one offense is
a
testimony upon
such
the effect of
another and because
an emo
prejudice
bound to create
is nevertheless
the defendant'. Com
part against
reaction on their
tional
193,
A.2d
195
Burdell,
Pa.
110
v.
380
monwealth
Peterson,
187,
453 Pa.
v.
(1955).
also Commonwealth
See
Boulden, 179 Pa.Su
Commonwealth v.
(1973);
In the balancing ap- the instant we believe that First, evidence. proach challenged to exclude the operates Although we that evidence of the other stolen televisions is assume relevant, proof. the method of we cannot condone Commonwealth’s accident, only grounds When defended on the of mistake or attempted then have to introduce the should the Commonwealth McCormick, evidence of other stolen televisions rebuttal. See mistake, supra. appellant presented a defense of accident or Until the This is Commonwealth had no need to introduce this evidence. especially other crimes evidence was relevant true here because the only charged, receiving property. to one of crimes stolen In- stead, the the other crimes evidence in its Commonwealth introduced appellant’s case-in-chief in an attack on character. indiscriminate approach required response and made it This some impossible present taint of for him to a defense free from the this evidence. is other crimes committed that the evidence nor neither arrested tenuous; extremely pro- acts. The Commonwealth of those convicted appellant actually King’s co-burglar that showing duced no evidence if he testify nor did he television to appellant gave it was stolen. he also told him did it to give appellant, crime alleged prior Second, in time between lapse of the former makes evidence the current charges guilt. of the issue of and not illustrative remote produce no need had Commonwealth Finally, eye-wit- it had an burglary; the instant evidence to about appellant’s who testified in the crimes ness participant the unsubstantial Commonwealth balancing activity. being interest in not strong against appellant’s interests *7 we find that a “bad person” because he is convicted prevail. must lant’s interest having has an concern
Further, important Evidence instant crime of concentrate on the jury televisions distracts of other stolen possession facts on the narrow from a decision based and extraneous remote them to consider improperly permits to de- the evidence forces Additionally, matters. with which he is as well as the one fend those crimes ex- testimony is importantly, Most currently charged. jury’s to a appeals crimes” that type of “other actly of a person’s a conviction because emotions and leads to the judg- we vacate Accordingly, character. supposedly bad a new trial. grant appellant sentence and ments of PRICE, J., statement. dissenting files statement. HESTER, J., dissenting files a in the consideration J., did not decision of this case.
PRICE, dissenting: Judge, the evidence was admissible I hold that
I dissent. would charges bear on the criminal because it tended to value of the probative pending against evidence proffered outweighs any possible prejudicial effect and is relevant to the issues involved in the pending criminal I would affirm the charges. judgment sentence.
HESTER, Judge, dissenting.
I dissent. I would affirm the judgment of the court below.
Superior Pennsylvania. Court of
Submitted Dec.
Decided Oct.