Commonwealth v. Cox
Citation | 115 A.3d 333,2015 PA Super 103 |
Decision Date | 29 April 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 1831 WDA 2012,1831 WDA 2012 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Myron COX, Appellant. |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Carrie L. Allman, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Kevin F. McCarthy, Assistant District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, DONOHUE, SHOGAN, MUNDY, OLSON, AND OTT, JJ.
OPINION BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:
Myron Cox appeals from the judgment of sentence of October 1, 2012, following his conviction of criminal attempt (homicide), aggravated assault, recklessly endangering, and other charges. We vacate and remand for re-trial.
Trial court opinion, 3/27/13 at 3–5 ( ).
Appellant has raised the following issues for this court's review:
Appellant's brief at 6.
In his first issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court should not have admitted evidence regarding the fight prior to the shooting. Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to give proper notice of its intention to offer this evidence, and the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. The Commonwealth responds that it did not become aware of the fight involving appellant until just before trial, and immediately gave notice to appellant. The Commonwealth contends that the evidence goes to motive.
Our standard of review regarding the admissibility of evidence is an abuse of discretion. “[T]he admissibility of evidence is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and ... an appellate court may only reverse upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Weiss, 565 Pa. 504, 776 A.2d 958, 967 (2001) (citations omitted). “An abuse of discretion is not a mere error in judgment but, rather, involves bias, ill will, partiality, prejudice, manifest unreasonableness, or misapplication of law.” Commonwealth v. Hoover, 16 A.3d 1148, 1150 (Pa.Super.2011).
Commonwealth v. Collins, 70 A.3d 1245, 1251–1252 (Pa.Super.2013), appeal denied , 622 Pa. 755, 80 A.3d 774 (2013).
Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404 provides, in relevant part:
Pa.R.E., Rule 404(b), 42 Pa.C.S.A.
Our Supreme Court has explained:
Evidence of a defendant's prior criminal activity is inadmissible to demonstrate his bad character or criminal propensity. The same evidence may be admissible for various legitimate purposes, however, provided that its probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect likely to result from its admission, ... and an appropriate limiting instruction is given. One such evidentiary purpose is ... to demonstrate the defendant's motive for committing the crime charged.
Collins, 70 A.3d at 1252, quoting Commonwealth v. Paddy, 569 Pa. 47, 800 A.2d 294, 307 (2002) (citations omitted). “To be admissible under this exception, there must be a specific ‘logical connection’ between the other act and the crime at issue which establishes that the crime currently being considered grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of facts and circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Ross, 57 A.3d 85, 100 (Pa.Super.2012) (en banc ), appeal denied , 621 Pa. 657, 72 A.3d 603 (2013) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
It has been succinctly stated that (t)he purpose of this rule is to prevent the conviction of an accused for one crime by the use of evidence that he has committed other unrelated crimes, and to preclude the inference that because he has committed other crimes he was more likely to commit that crime for which he is being tried. The presumed effect of such evidence is to predispose the minds of the jurors to believe the accused guilty, and thus effectually to strip him of the presumption of innocence.
Commonwealth v. Kinard, 95 A.3d 279, 284 (Pa.Super.2014) (en banc ), quoting Commonwealth v. Spruill, 480 Pa. 601, 391 A.2d 1048, 1049 (1978).
The evidence regarding the fight between appellant, his brother, and Cochran's friends was not relevant to show motive in this case. The victim, Clardy, was not present during the card game or the subsequent fight over the $5 debt...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Golphin
...rather, involves bias, ill will, partiality, prejudice, manifest unreasonableness, or misapplication of law." Commonwealth v. Cox, 115 A.3d 333, 336 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en banc ) (citations omitted).The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence define hearsay as "a statement that (1) the declarant does ......
- W.C.F. v. M.G.
-
Commonwealth v. Wade
...but, rather, involves bias, ill will, partiality, prejudice manifest unreasonableness, or misapplication of law. Commonwealth v. Cox , 115 A.3d 333, 336 (Pa.Super. 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Additionally, we note that we may affirm the trial court's ruling on an......
-
Commonwealth v. Biesecker, 318 MDA 2016
...currently being considered grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of facts and circumstances." Commonwealth v. Cox , 115 A.3d 333, 337 (Pa.Super. 2015) (en banc ).Appellant challenges the logical connection between the two acts, stating that Appellant's link to her daughter's......