Commonwealth v. Stevenson

• Docket Number: 23 EAP 2023
• Decision Date: 22 July 2024
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 318 A.3d 1264 (Pa. 2024)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Raheem STEVENSON, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

318 A.3d 1264

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee

v.Raheem STEVENSON, Appellant

No. 23 EAP 2023

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: March 6, 2024

Decided: July 22, 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Superior Court entered on December 23, 2022, at 1157 EDA 2021, affirming the Judgment of Sentence entered on April 1, 2021, in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at CP-51-CR-0000724-2018, Timika R. Lane, Judge.

Aaron Bell, Esq., Jules Epstein, Esq., for Appellant Raheem Stevenson.

Josh J. T. Byrne, Esq., Marshall Dennehey, P.C., Michael J. McDonald, Esq., McDonald & MacGregor, LLC, for Appellant Amicus Curiae Pennsylvania Bar Association.

Erin Kelly Rudert, Esq., for Appellant Amicus Curiae Pennsylvania Association for Justice.

Louis C. Long, Esq., Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, Matthew Daniel Vodzak, Esq., Fowler Hirtzel McNulty & Spaulding, LLC, Appellants Amici Curiae Pennsylvania Defense Institute and Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel.

Stuart Michael Wilder, Esq., for Appellant Amicus Curiae Bucks County Criminal Defense Conflict Panel.

Joshua Scott Goldwert, Esq., Tanya Shree Kapoor, Esq., Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, Lawrence Jonathan Goode, Esq., for Appellee Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ.

OPINION

JUSTICE BROBSON

In Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 760, 120 S.Ct. 1851, 146 L.Ed.2d 826 (2000), the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under federal law, a defendant who is unsuccessful in persuading a trial court to exclude evidence of a prior conviction in the context of a motion in limine and then preemptively introduces that evidence cannot claim on appeal that the trial court’s admissibility ruling was in error. This discretionary appeal requires us to decide whether the same rule should be recognized under Pennsylvania law. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that it does not. As the Superior Court reached a contrary conclusion, we reverse the judgment of that court and remand with instructions.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 3, 2017, Yuguang Lin (Lin) and Ruan "Katie" Wenting (Wenting) parked their vehicle in the area of 3000 North Franklin Street in Philadelphia, where the couple lived in an apartment above a beer distributor.¹ After Lin and Wenting exited the vehicle, three masked men approached them and took Lin’s cell phone and Wenting’s purse. The men then indicated that they knew the couple lived in the building and demanded entry. Once inside, the group proceeded to an office, where the three men filled black plastic bags with money from a cash register while also taking Newport cigarettes and Black & Mild cigars from the room. After threatening Wenting with a gun, the men fled.

Wenting and Lin called police, who tracked Lin’s stolen cell phone to a parked vehicle. Upon approaching the vehicle, an officer spotted a purse lying in the street under the passenger side. Inside the vehicle, the police found Shaquan Lewis (Lewis) in the driver’s seat and Raheem Stevenson (Appellant) in the front passenger seat. Police also located a black plastic bag on the floor between Appellant’s feet, as well as Newport cigarettes and Black & Mild cigars strewn about the center console between Lewis and Appellant. After directing Appellant to exit the vehicle, police additionally noticed that Appellant was sitting next to a black flashlight taser leaning against the center console and on top of a red wallet, which Wenting identified along with the purse as belonging to her. Upon further investigation and the execution of a search warrant, police also discovered, inter alia, Lin’s cell phone, a ski mask, and clothing consistent with the victims’ description of Appellant.

Based on the foregoing, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth) charged Appellant with, inter alia, two counts of robbery and one count each of burglary and criminal conspiracy. The matter proceeded to a jury trial. After the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief, Appellant indicated his desire to testify in his defense. Just prior to Appellant taking the stand, defense counsel made an oral motion in limine to preclude the Commonwealth from questioning Appellant about a burglary conviction from 2005:²

THE COURT: All right. Do you want to put anything else on the record?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Just very briefly. My client, back in 2005, had a guilty plea to the charge of burglary. I—

….

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: —I would move to preclude that from coming in. I recognize it’s probably crimen falsi, but just because it’s so remote in time how old it is.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to say anything?

[THE COMMONWEALTH]: Your Honor, given the nature of the charges, I believe he was on–I forgot what the confinement was—I would ask that it be admissible.

THE COURT: All right. It’s admissible. It will be allowed.

(N.T., 3/12/20, at 70-71.)

Thereafter, trial counsel conducted a supplemental colloquy of Appellant, inquiring whether the admissibility of Appellant’s prior conviction altered his decision to testify. Appellant indicated that the ruling had no effect on his desire to testify and acknowledged that his decision contradicted trial counsel’s advice. Appellant then testified, asserting his innocence. At the conclusion of his direct examination, trial counsel elicited from Appellant the fact of his prior burglary conviction:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Mr. Stevenson, before I turn the floor over to the district attorney, back in 2005—I know that was some time ago--but back in 2005, you had a prior matter where you pled guilty and [were] sentenced on a burglary case; is that correct?

[Appellant]: Yes.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay.

(N.T., 3/12/20, at 84.) The Commonwealth did not at any point revisit Appellant’s prior conviction. In its closing charge to the jury, the trial court provided a cautionary instruction specific to the prior burglary conviction.

[1] Following the trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of the aforementioned offenses. The trial court sentenced Appellant to eight to sixteen years of incarceration, followed by ten years of probation. Appellant timely filed a post-sentence motion, challenging, in relevant part, the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of his prior burglary conviction. The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion, and Appellant timely appealed to the Superior Court. On appeal, Appellant reasserted his challenge to the admission of his prior burglary conviction, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct the mandatory balancing test under Rule 609(b)(1) in denying Appellant’s motion in limine to preclude the conviction.³

A unanimous, three-judge panel of the Superior Court affirmed, albeit on alternative grounds. Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 287 A.3d 903, 904 (Pa. Super. 2022). Rather than deciding the merits of Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in ruling that Appellant’s prior conviction was admissible, the Superior Court concluded that Appellant had forfeited that claim on appeal by preemptively introducing the prior conviction himself following the trial court’s ruling. Id. at 905-07. The Superior Court began by setting forth Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 103 (Rule 103), which provides, in relevant part:

(a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only:

(1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record:

(A) makes a timely objection, motion to strike, or motion in limine; and

(B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or

(2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.

(b) Not Needing to Renew an Objection or Offer of Proof. Once the court rules definitively on the record--either before or at trial--a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.

Pa.R.E. 103(a)-(b).

The Superior Court first concluded that Appellant initially preserved his claim of error given that: (1) he made an oral motion in limine to preclude the Commonwealth from using the prior conviction; (2) the Commonwealth opposed the motion; and (3) the trial court denied the motion. Stevenson, 287 A.3d at 905. Nonetheless, the Superior Court next concluded that Appellant forfeited his properly preserved issue by introducing the prior conviction himself following the trial court’s denial of the motion in limine. In support of its conclusion, the Superior Court relied upon this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Conner, 462 Pa. 282, 341 A.2d 81 (1975), which the Superior Court interpreted as holding "that when a defendant introduces evidence at trial, he cannot later raise a claim of error challenging the admission of that evidence." Stevenson, 287 A.3d at 905. While Conner did not involve a factual scenario in which the defendant received an adverse admissibility ruling via a motion in limine prior to introducing the evidence himself—a distinction that the Superior Court acknowledged in the instant matter—the Superior Court nonetheless reasoned that Conner’s holding was not limited to the precise factual circumstance presented and that, "[i]nstead, the Court’s analysis focused on which party admitted the conviction." Id. at 906 (citing Conner, 341 A.2d at 83-84). According to the Superior Court, the fact that the defendant in Conner and Appellant both made the strategic decision to admit their prior convictions themselves to "lessen the sting of the Commonwealth’s anticipated elicitation of the conviction" and later challenged the admission was the "crucial point." Id.

The Superior Court then observed that other cases from that court have similarly "found that a defendant forfeits claims of trial court error concerning the admission of objectionable evidence when he ‘opens the door’ to the evidence." Id. (relying upon Commonwealth v. Lewis, ...