Commonwealth v. Canada

• Decision Date: 07 January 1983
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Canada, 308 Pa.Super. 494, 454 A.2d 643 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. William CANADA, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

454 A.2d 643

308 Pa.Super. 494

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. William CANADA, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

January 7, 1983

Argued Sept. 15, 1982.

Gary R. Egoville, Asst. Public Defender Norristown, for appellant.

J William Ditter, III, Asst. Dist. Atty., Norristown, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before McEWEN, JOHNSON and HOFFMAN, JJ.

HOFFMAN Judge:

Appellant contends, inter alia, that the lower court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of prior convictions.Because we find that admission of this evidence effectively prevented appellant from testifying, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Appellant was arrested on June 13, 1980 and charged with simple assault burglary, criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, criminal conspiracy, criminal attempt, indecent assault, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment and corruption of children.At a preliminary hearing the prosecution withdrew the burglary charge, and the lower court dismissed the criminal trespass charge.Appellant's pre-trial motion to suppress any use of his prior convictions was denied, and on November 7, 1980appellant was found guilty by a jury of false imprisonment, criminal conspiracy, and indecent assault.Post-trial motions were denied and appellant received suspended sentences on each charge.This appeal followed.

Appellant contends that the lower court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress evidence of prior convictions, resulting in his failure to take the stand and present a defense."Where the defendant has no other means by which to defend himself, it would be particularly unjust to subject him to the introduction of prior convictions."Commonwealth v. Bighum,452 Pa. 554, 567, 307 A.2d 255, 263(1973)."Since the avowed purpose of using prior convictions in rebuttal is to cast doubt upon the defendant's veracity generally as a witness, it is important to limit the convictions so used to crimes involving dishonesty or false statement."Id. at 566, 307 A.2d at 262.Once it is established that the prior conviction was a crime involving veracity ^[1] , the lower court "in making the determination as to the admissibility of a prior conviction for impeachment purposes ... should consider:"

(1) the degree to which the commission of the prior offense reflects upon the veracity of the defendant-witness; (2) the likelihood in view of the nature and extent of the prior record, that it would have a greater tendency to smear the character of the defendant and suggest a propensity to commit the crime for which he stands charged, rather than provide a legitimate reason for discrediting him as an untruthful person; (3) the age and circumstances of the defendant; (4) the strength of the prosecution's case and the prosecution's need to resort to this evidence as compared with the availability to the defense of other witnesses through which its version of the events surrounding the incident can be presented; and (5) the existence of alternative means of attacking the defendant's credibility.

Commonwealth v. Roots,482 Pa. 33, 39-40, 393 A.2d 364, 367(1978)."These factors were designed to limit the admission of this type of evidence to situations where its introduction was of essential evidentiary value to the prosecution and not reasonably unfair to the defense."Id. at 39, 393 A.2d at 367.Applying these criteria to the present case, we agree with appellant that the Commonwealth's "need for this evidence" does not overcome "its inherent potential for prejudice."Id. at 41, 393 A.2d at 368;seeCommonwealth v. Bobko,453 Pa. 475, 480, 309 A.2d 576, 578-79(1973).The convictions were five and eight years old.Testimony given by the alleged victim and her sister raises questions as to the voluntariness of the victim's...