Commonwealth v. Bonnano

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Bonnano

263 A.2d 913, 216 Pa. Super. 201, 1970 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1811

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 19, 1970

DocketAppeals, 1000 and 1001

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 263 A.2d 913 (Commonwealth v. Bonnano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Bonnano, 263 A.2d 913, 216 Pa. Super. 201, 1970 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1811 (Pa. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Spaulding, J.,

In Commonwealth v. Trowery, 211 Pa. Superior Ct. 171, 235 A. 2d 171 (1967), photographs of the defendant from a police file commonly known as the “rogues gallery” were introduced into evidence over timely objections. This Court held that admission to be reversible error. As we stated in Trowery, the well established common law rule is that, “. . . in a criminal prosecution, proof which shows or tends to show that the accused is guilty of the commission of other crimes and offenses at other times is incompetent and inadmissible for the purpose of showing the commission of the particular crime charged. Shaffner v. Commonwealth, 72 Pa. 60, 13 Am. Rep. 649 (1872); Commonwealth v. Burger, 195 Pa. Superior Ct. 175, 171 A. 2d 599 (1961).” See also, Commonwealth v. Allen, 212 Pa. Superior Ct. 314, 242 A. 2d 901 (1968).

*203 The 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 the crime for which he is being tried.

In the instant case, Officer Barbera testified that he arrested appellant, Frank Bonnano, while appellant was in a federal prison. In Commonwealth v. Choice, 211 Pa. Superior Ct. 176, 235 A. 2d 173 (1967), in a dissenting opinion to a per curiam affirmance, it was stated that evidence could not be admitted at trial which might have the effect of predisposing the jurors to believe the defendant guilty by virtue of previous police contact. 211 Pa. Superior Ct. at 180. In that case, the jury heard testimony that the defendant was arrested “at his parole office.” The dissent reasoned that Trowery required that a new trial be granted. The testimony in the instant case that appellant was arrested while in federal prison violates the principles of Trowery.

The judgment of sentence is vacated and a new trial is granted.

Weight, P. J., would affirm on the opinion of Judge Baebiebi. Jacobs, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Spaulding, J.,

In Commonwealth v. Trowery, 211 Pa. Superior Ct. 171, 235 A. 2d 171 (1967), photographs of the defendant from a police file commonly known as the “rogues gallery” were introduced into evidence over timely objections. This Court held that admission to be reversible error. As we stated in Trowery, the well established common law rule is that, “. . . in a criminal prosecution, proof which shows or tends to show that the accused is guilty of the commission of other crimes and offenses at other times is incompetent and inadmissible for the purpose of showing the commission of the particular crime charged. Shaffner v. Commonwealth, 72 Pa. 60, 13 Am. Rep. 649 (1872); Commonwealth v. Burger, 195 Pa. Superior Ct. 175, 171 A. 2d 599 (1961).” See also, Commonwealth v. Allen, 212 Pa. Superior Ct. 314, 242 A. 2d 901 (1968).

*203 The 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 the crime for which he is being tried.

In the instant case, Officer Barbera testified that he arrested appellant, Frank Bonnano, while appellant was in a federal prison. In Commonwealth v. Choice, 211 Pa. Superior Ct. 176, 235 A. 2d 173 (1967), in a dissenting opinion to a per curiam affirmance, it was stated that evidence could not be admitted at trial which might have the effect of predisposing the jurors to believe the defendant guilty by virtue of previous police contact. 211 Pa. Superior Ct. at 180. In that case, the jury heard testimony that the defendant was arrested “at his parole office.” The dissent reasoned that Trowery required that a new trial be granted. The testimony in the instant case that appellant was arrested while in federal prison violates the principles of Trowery.

The judgment of sentence is vacated and a new trial is granted.

Weight, P. J., would affirm on the opinion of Judge Baebiebi. Jacobs, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.2d 913, 216 Pa. Super. 201, 1970 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-bonnano-pasuperct-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack