Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Thomas Dillon, Appellant
June 26, 2007592 Pa. 351
Summary
The Supreme Court held that under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) the Commonwealth may introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior physical abuse of the victim’s mother and brother in its case‑in‑chief to explain the victim’s delayed reporting of sexual abuse. The Court found the trial court erred in conditioning admission of that evidence on a defense‑raised issue and affirmed the Superior Court’s reversal. The decision relied on prior authority such as Commonwealth v. Minerd and Commonwealth v. Barger. Justice BALDWIN dissented, arguing the evidence is overly prejudicial, and Chief Justice CAPPY filed a concurrence limiting the rule to sexual‑assault prosecutions.
Holding
- Whether Rule 404(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence bars the Commonwealth from introducing evidence of the defendant’s physical abuse of the victim’s mother and brother in its case‑in‑chief to explain the victim’s delayed reporting of sexual abuse.. The Commonwealth may introduce such evidence in its case‑in‑chief because it is relevant for purposes other than character or propensity, such as explaining the victim’s delayed report and as res gestae, and the trial court’s conditional exclusion was an abuse of discretion.
Docket 32 EAP 2005
Cited authorities
- Rule 404(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence
- Rule 311(d) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Rule 311(d)
- Rule 404(b)
- Rule 404(b)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence
- Rule 404(b)(2)
- Rule 404(b)
- Rule 404(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence