Summary
This is a dissenting opinion in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court appeal concerning whether a defendant charged with unlawful firearm possession under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105 may stipulate to being prohibited from possessing a firearm, thereby excluding the specific prior conviction from evidence. Justice Baer would have adopted the reasoning of Old Chief v. United States under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 403 and ordered a new trial. The dissent concludes that the details of the prior robbery conviction created unfair prejudice beyond what was necessary to establish the defendant’s prohibited status.
Questions Presented
- Whether, under Pa.R.E. 403, the trial court should have required the Commonwealth to accept Jemison's stipulation that he was a person prohibited from possessing a firearm and excluded the name and details of his prior robbery conviction.
- Whether Pennsylvania should adopt the reasoning of Old Chief v. United States for prosecutions under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105, notwithstanding Commonwealth v. Stanley.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (8)
- Commonwealth v. Stanley, 446 A.2d 583 (Pa. 1982)(discussed)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997)(adopted by dissent)
- Commonwealth v. Boyle, 447 A.2d 250 (Pa. 1982)(discussed)
- State v. Ball, 756 So. 2d 275 (La. 1999)(distinguished by dissent)
- State v. Lee, 977 P.2d 263 (Kan. 1999)(followed by dissent)
- State v. Murray, 169 P.3d 955 (Haw. 2007)(discussed)
- Sams v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1323 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)(discussed)
- Commonwealth v. Dillon, 925 A.2d 131 (Pa. 2007)(discussed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…