res gestae exception in Pennsylvania

2026Relevantly, “admission of distinct crimes may be proper where it is part of the history or natural development of the case, i.e., the res gestae exception.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 320, 326 (Pa. Super. 2012). -6- J-S03025-26 Under the second prong of the test, crimes are capable of separation by the jury when they are distinct criminal offenses that are distinguishable in time, space, and characters involved.

2026Moreover, “[o]ur Supreme Court has consistently recognized that admission of distinct crimes may be proper where it is part of the history or natural development of the case, i.e., the res gestae exception.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 320, 326 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).

2026The res gestae exception permits “the admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts to tell ‘the complete story.’” Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 665 (Pa. 2014).

2026The res gestae exception permits “the admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts to tell ‘the complete story.’” Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 665 (Pa. 2014).

2026In a similar vein, the majority’s new standard also encroaches upon another exception to Rule 404(b)’s prohibition against admissibility of propensity evidence — specifically, the res gestae exception, under which “evidence of other criminal acts is admissible to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.” Commonwealth v. Lark, 543 A.2d 491, 497 (Pa. 1988) (citations & internal quotation marks omitted).

2026In a similar vein, the majority’s new standard also encroaches upon another exception to Rule 404(b)’s prohibition against admissibility of propensity evidence — specifically, the res gestae exception, under which “evidence of other criminal acts is admissible to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.” Commonwealth v. Lark, 543 A.2d 491, 497 (Pa. 1988) (citations & internal quotation marks omitted).

2026Evidence of this kind may also be admissible under the res gestae exception, “where such evidence became part of history of the case and formed part of the natural development of facts.” Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Dillon, 925 A.2d 131, 137 (Pa. 2007) (“this Court has recognized a res gestae exception to - 14 - J-S27004-25 Rule 404(b) which allows admission of other crimes evidence when relevant to furnish the context or complete story of the events surrounding a crime”).

2026The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also recognized “a res gestae exception which allows admission of other crimes evidence when relevant to furnish the context or complete story of the events surrounding a crime.” Commonwealth v. Dillon, 925 A.2d 131, 137 (Pa. - 14 - J-S11036-26 2007); see also Commonwealth v. Lark, 543 A.2d 491, 497 (Pa. 1988) (evidence of other crimes relevant and admissible to show “part of the chain or sequence of events which became part of the history of the case and formed part of the natural development of the facts;” res gestae exception also known as “complete story”

2025Our Supreme Court has explained: [E]vidence of crimes, wrongs, or other bad acts “may be admissible as res gestae when relevant to furnish the complete story or context of events surrounding the crime.” - 16 - J-A19010-25 Commonwealth v. Weiss, … 81 A.3d 767, 798 ([Pa.] 2013); see also Commonwealth v. Robinson, … 864 A.2d 460, 496-97 ([Pa.] 2004) (holding that evidence of other bad acts is admissible where the particular crime or act was part of a chain, sequence, or natural development of events forming the history of a case); Commonwealth v. Williams, … 896 A.2d 523, 539 ([Pa.] 2006) (“This

2025This Court has also recognized the res gestae exception, permitting the admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts to tell “the complete story.” Commonwealth v. Williams, … 896 A.2d 523, 539 ([Pa.] 2006); Commonwealth v. Paddy, … 800 A.2d 294, 308 ([Pa.] 2002); Lark, 543 A.2d at 497 .

2025Another exception to the rule, known as the res gestae exception, “permits the admission of evidence where it became part of the history of the case and formed part of the natural development of facts.” Commonwealth v. Ivy, 146 A.3d 241, 251 (Pa.Super. 2016). - 12 - J-S45040-24 Here, Cruz-Cruz argues the admission of the criminal behavior of his co- conspirators violated Rule 404(b).

2024Evidence of this kind may also be admissible under the res gestae exception, “where such evidence became part of history of the case and formed part of the natural development of facts.” Commonwealth v. Ivy, 146 A.3d 241, 251 , (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Dillon, 925 A.2d 131, 137 (Pa. 2007) (stating, “this Court has recognized a res gestae exception to Rule 404(b) which allows admission of other crimes evidence when relevant to furnish the context or complete story of the events surrounding a crime.” (citation omitted)).

2025Our Supreme Court has explained: [E]vidence of crimes, wrongs, or other bad acts “may be admissible as res gestae when relevant to furnish the complete story or context of events surrounding the crime.” - 16 - J-A19010-25 Commonwealth v. Weiss, … 81 A.3d 767, 798 ([Pa.] 2013); see also Commonwealth v. Robinson, … 864 A.2d 460, 496-97 ([Pa.] 2004) (holding that evidence of other bad acts is admissible where the particular crime or act was part of a chain, sequence, or natural development of events forming the history of a case); Commonwealth v. Williams, … 896 A.2d 523, 539 ([Pa.] 2006) (“This

2025This Court has also recognized the res gestae exception, permitting the admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts to tell “the complete story.” Commonwealth v. Williams, … 896 A.2d 523, 539 ([Pa.] 2006); Commonwealth v. Paddy, … 800 A.2d 294, 308 ([Pa.] 2002); Lark, 543 A.2d at 497 .

2025In addition to the “other purposes” enumerated in Rule 404(b)(2) that allow for the possible admission of prior bad acts evidence, our Supreme Court carved out another special circumstance, known as the res gestae exception, where prior bad acts evidence is admissible if the evidence is “part of the history of [the] case and formed part of [the] natural development of facts.” Commonwealth v. Solano, 129 A.3d 1156, 1178 (Pa. 2015).

2024In addition to the grounds enumerated in Rule 404(b)(2) that allow for the possible admission of prior bad acts evidence, our Supreme Court has created another special circumstance, known as the res gestae exception, where prior bad acts evidence is admissible if the evidence is “part of the history of [the] case and formed part of [the] natural development of facts[.]” Commonwealth v. Solano, 129 A.3d 1156, 1178 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted). -3- J-S08023-24 The motion in limine also sought exclusion of Rivera’s prior conviction for simple assault (Rivera’s 2009 conviction), pursuant to Pa.R.

2025Pertinently, other bad acts evidence is admissible under the res gestae exception where it “was part of the chain or sequence of events which became part of the history of the case and formed a part of the natural development of the facts.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 864 A.2d 460, 496 (Pa. 2004).

2025Our Supreme Court has explained: [E]vidence of crimes, wrongs, or other bad acts “may be admissible as res gestae when relevant to furnish the complete story or context of events surrounding the crime.” - 16 - J-A19010-25 Commonwealth v. Weiss, … 81 A.3d 767, 798 ([Pa.] 2013); see also Commonwealth v. Robinson, … 864 A.2d 460, 496-97 ([Pa.] 2004) (holding that evidence of other bad acts is admissible where the particular crime or act was part of a chain, sequence, or natural development of events forming the history of a case); Commonwealth v. Williams, … 896 A.2d 523, 539 ([Pa.] 2006) (“This

2026“Other acts evidence is admissible under the res gestae exception where it formed a part of a chain, or was one of a sequence of acts, or became part of the history of the event on trial, or was part of the natural development of the facts.” Id.

2026“Other acts evidence is admissible under the res gestae exception where it formed a part of a chain, or was one of a sequence of acts, or became part of the history of the event on trial, or was part of the natural development - 14 - J-S06041-26 of the facts.” Commonwealth v. Carter, 320 A.3d 140, 149 (Pa. Super. 2024).

2023In addition to the “other purposes” enumerated in Rule 404(b)(2) that allow for the possible admission of prior bad acts evidence, our Supreme Court carved out another special circumstance, known as the res gestae exception, where prior bad acts evidence is admissible if the evidence is “part of the history of [the] case and formed part of [the] natural development of facts[.]” Commonwealth v. Solano, 129 A.3d 1156, 1178 (Pa. 2015); see also Commonwealth v. Kinard, 95 A.3d 279, 284 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc); Powell, 956 A.2d at 419 .

2020See Commonwealth v. :Brown, 52 A. 3d 320, 332 (Pa. Super. 2012)(tb.e history of the res gestae exception demonstrates that it is properly invoked when the. bad acts ate part of the same transaction involving the charged crime) See also Commonwealth v. Powell� 956 A.2d 406 (Pn. 2008)(trlal court properly admitted evidence where the statement was offered not to show appellant's propensity to clime. but in the context of establishing the family environment and relationships among appellant). 62 Evidence of the Appellant's prescribing to her minor child, taught the jury about the course of the inv

2016The trial court explained that a startling event is needed to invoke the res gestae exception, one that “deprives a person of their reflective faculties and the statement needs to be a spontaneous reaction to the startling event rather than the result of - 13 - J-A06038-16 reflective thought.” Id. at 15-16 (citing Commonwealth v. Cooley, 348 A.2d 103, 106 (Pa. 1975) (additional citation omitted)).

1991See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Pinkins, 514 Pa. 418, 425-28 , 525 A.2d 1189, 1192-93 (1987) (statements of co-conspirators admissible, under what is apparently the most frequently used exception to the hearsay rule); Commonwealthy v. Cooley, 465 Pa. 35, 40-42 , 348 A.2d 103, 106-07 (1975) (hearsay statements admissible under the res gestae exception for spontaneous or excited utterance); Commonwealth v. Speller, 445 Pa. 32, 34-35 , 282 A.2d 26, 28 (1971) (hearsay statement admissible as a dying declaration).

2025We have explained that the res gestae exception is applicable “where the distinct crimes were part of a chain or sequence of events which formed the history of the case and were part of its natural development.” Commonwealth v. Knoble, 188 A.3d 1199, 1205 (Pa.Super. 2018). -9- J-S33004-25 Additionally, if the Commonwealth plans to introduce other bad acts evidence: [T]he prosecutor must provide reasonable written notice in advance of trial so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the specific nature, p

2022In addition, the res gestae exception applies to bad acts “which are so clearly and inextricably mixed up with the history of the guilty act itself as to form part of one chain of relevant circumstances, and so could not be excluded on the presentation of the case before the jury without the evidence being rendered thereby unintelligible.” Commonwealth v. Knoble, 188 A.3d 1199, 1205 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

2014The Commonwealth further contends if this is considered “prior bad acts” evidence, it is admissible under the res gestae exception as part of a natural development of the facts of this case, asserting appellant’s prior requests to borrow Hunter’s handgun may be introduced to show appellant committed a murder with that same firearm. “ ‘The admissibility of evidence is a matter for the discretion of the trial court and a ruling thereon will be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion.’ ” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 615 Pa. 354 , 42 A.3d 1017, 1027

2014The Commonwealth further contends if this is considered “prior bad acts” evidence, it is admissible under the res gestae exception as part of a natural development of the facts of this case, asserting appellant’s prior requests to borrow Hunter’s handgun may be introduced to show appellant committed a murder with that same firearm. “ ‘The admissibility of evidence is a matter for the discretion of the trial court and a ruling thereon will be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion.’ ” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 615 Pa. 354 , 42 A.3d 1017, 1027

1980The res gestae exception for spontaneous or excited utterance has been defined as: “ ‘a spontaneous declaration by a person whose mind has been suddenly made subject to an overpowering emotion caused by some unexpected and shocking occurrence, which that person has just participated in or closely witnessed, and made in reference to some phase of that occurrence which he perceived, and this declaration must be made so near the occurrence both in time and place as to exclude the likelihood of its having emanated in whole or in part from his reflective faculties.’ [Allen v. Mack, 345 Pa. 407, 410

1980The res gestae exception for spontaneous or excited utterance has been defined as: “ ‘a spontaneous declaration by a person whose mind has been suddenly made subject to an overpowering emotion caused by some unexpected and shocking occurrence, which that person has just participated in or closely witnessed, and made in reference to some phase of that occurrence which he perceived, and this declaration must be made so near the occurrence both in time and place as to exclude the likelihood of its having emanated in whole or in part from his reflective faculties.’ [Allen v. Mack, 345 Pa. 407, 410

2025Our Supreme Court has explained: [E]vidence of crimes, wrongs, or other bad acts “may be admissible as res gestae when relevant to furnish the complete story or context of events surrounding the crime.” - 16 - J-A19010-25 Commonwealth v. Weiss, … 81 A.3d 767, 798 ([Pa.] 2013); see also Commonwealth v. Robinson, … 864 A.2d 460, 496-97 ([Pa.] 2004) (holding that evidence of other bad acts is admissible where the particular crime or act was part of a chain, sequence, or natural development of events forming the history of a case); Commonwealth v. Williams, … 896 A.2d 523, 539 ([Pa.] 2006) (“This

2019Furthermore, even if the issue were not waived, the video surveillance evidence appears to be admissible under the res gestae exception to Pa.R.E. 404(b) (evidence concerning crimes, wrongs, or other acts) because it was “relevant to furnish the complete story or context of events surrounding the crime.” Commonwealth v. Weiss, 81 A.3d 767, 798 (Pa. 2013).

2018Our Supreme Court has explained that this exception applies “where the evidence became part of the history of the case and formed part of the natural development of the facts.” Commonwealth v. Cousar, 154 A.3d 287, 304 (Pa. 2017).

2017The normal channel for admitting evidence of prior bad acts is Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2), which provides that evidence of crimes other than the charged offenses “may be admissible for purpose[s] such as proving motive, opportunity, - 22 - J-S54034-17 intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” In addition, Rule 404(b)(2) permits admission of prior offenses under the res gestae exception, “where the evidence became part of the history of the case and formed part of the natural development of the facts.” Commonwealth v. Cousar, 154 A.3d 287, 304 (Pa. 2017).

1980As such, Owens’ statement came within the evidentiary rule that “[spontaneous exclamations or declarations uttered during or immediately preceding or following the actual infliction of wounds. . . are admissible as within the res gestae rule.” Commonwealth v. Noble, 371 Pa. 138, 145 , 80 A.2d 760 , 763 (1952).

1978As the Supreme Court noted in Commonwealth v. Noble, the res gestae exception is “ ‘a dangerous rule’ ” which should not be extended beyond spontaneous utterances caused by the exciting event. 371 Pa. 138, 144-45 , 88 A.2d 760, 763 (1952).

2021See Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893, 905 (Pa. 2002); see also Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 665 (Pa. 2014) (explaining that the res gestae exception permits the admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts to tell “the complete story”).

2019In applying the res gestae exception, "our courts will allow evidence of prior bad acts where the distinct crime or bad act 'was part of a chain or sequence of events which formed the history of the case and was part of its natural o::� development.' " Drumheller, supra at 137 , 808 A.2d at 905 (citation omitted).

2017Tyson, supra at 358–59 (citation omitted). “[M]uch more is demanded than the mere repeated commission of crimes of the same class, such as -6- J-A04042-17 repeated burglaries or theft.” Commonwealth v. Semenza, 127 A.3d 1, 8 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). “[Our Supreme] Court has also recognized the res gestae exception, permitting the admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts to tell ‘the complete story.’” Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 665 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 164 (2014) (citation omitted).

2017Tyson, supra at 358–59 (citation omitted). “[M]uch more is demanded than the mere repeated commission of crimes of the same class, such as repeated burglaries or theft.” Commonwealth v. Semenza, 127 A.3d 1, 8 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). “[Our Supreme] Court has also recognized the res gestae exception, permitting the admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts to tell ‘the complete story.’” Commonwealth v. Hairston, 84 A.3d 657, 665 (Pa. -6- J-A04043-17 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 164 (2014) (citations omitted).

2025See Commonwealth v. Green, 76 A.3d 575, 584 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding the res gestae exception was inapplicable to allow the prior bad acts evidence where the prior incident was over two months before the shooting in question and the prior incident was “in no way part of the same transaction or sequence of events that constituted the crime for which [a]ppellant was being tried”).

2021The res gestae exception to this general proscription is a special circumstance in which evidence of other crimes may be relevant and admissible “where such evidence was part of the chain or sequence of events which became part of the history of the case and formed part of the natural development of the facts.” Commonwealth v. Green, 76 A.3d 575 , 583–84 (Pa. Super. 2013).

2026Instantly, despite Giles’ argument that this evidence “had no probative value” to prove he murdered Nancy, “evidence of prior abuse between a defendant and a homicide victim tending to establish motive, intent, malice, or ill[-]will is generally admissible.” Commonwealth v. Jackson, 900 A.2d 936, 940 (Pa. Super. 2006), quoting Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697, 711 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted); see also Drumheller, 808 A.2d at 905 (evidence of prior abuse “demonstrates [defendant]’s motive, malice, intent, and ill-will toward” victim); Commonwealth v. Ulatoski, 371 A.2d 186, 190 (

2017Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 919 (2003), evidence of the defendant’s prior abuse of the victim was admissible to show “the chain or sequence of events that formed the history of the case, is part of the natural development of the case, and demonstrates [the defendant’s] motive, malice, intent, and ill-will toward [the victim].” Drumheller, 808 A.2d at 905 ; see also Commonwealth v. Powell, 956 A.2d 406, 419-20 (Pa. 2008) (evidence of prior abuse of victim by defendant admissible under the res gestae exception to help establish “the c

2020Commonwealth v. Crispell, 193 A.3d 919, 936 (Pa. 2018) (evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other bad acts may be admissible as res gestae when relevant to furnish the complete story or context of events surrounding the crime); Commonwealth v. Murphy, 657 A.2d 927, 932 (Pa. 1995) (evidence that defendant killed witness who saw defendant commit the murder for which he was on trial was so interwoven with the facts of the case as to be admissible under the res gestae exception); Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206, 211 (Pa. Super. 2015) (in - 11 - J-S12038-20 order for evidence of prior acts “to be

2012See Commonwealth v. Murphy, 540 Pa. 318, 328 , 657 A.2d 927, 932 (1995) (holding that evidence that the defendant killed a witness who saw the defendant commit the murder he was on trial for was so interwoven with the facts of the case to be admissible under the res gestae exception).

2015See Commonwealth v. Mayhue, 639 A.2d 421, 434-435 (Pa. 1994) (holding evidence of the death of a hitrnan, who accepted money to kill defendant's wife but failed to do so, admissible under the res gestae exception to the general proscription against evidence of prior criminal acts, where such piece of evidence provided another piece of a puzzle which, once completed, revealed defendant's wife's murder to be the culmination of a series of cold, calculating, and unrelenting attempts to bring about her demise); and Commonwealth v. Buchanan, 689 A.2d 930 (Pa. Super. 1997) (where evidence that, two

1997Lark, supra; Stiffler, supra. See also Commonwealth v. Mayhue, 536 Pa. 271, 297-301 , 639 A.2d 421, 434-435 (1994) (holding evidence of the death of a “hitman,” who accepted money to kill defendant’s wife but failed to do so, admissible under the res gestae exception to the general proscription against evidence of prior criminal acts, where such piece of evidence “provided another piece of a puzzle which, once completed, revealed [defendant’s *103 wife’s] murder to be the culmination of a series of cold, calculating, and unrelenting attempts to bring about her demise”).

2023“In addition, evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other bad acts may be admissible as res gestae when relevant to furnish the complete story or context of events - 33 - J-A06015-23 surrounding the crime.” Crispell, 193 A.3d at 936 (original quotation marks omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Lark, 543 A.2d 491, 497 (Pa. 1988) (stating that, the res gestae exception, also known as the “complete story rationale,” permits evidence of other criminal acts to be admitted “to complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place”).

2020Commonwealth v. Crispell, 193 A.3d 919, 936 (Pa. 2018) (evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other bad acts may be admissible as res gestae when relevant to furnish the complete story or context of events surrounding the crime); Commonwealth v. Murphy, 657 A.2d 927, 932 (Pa. 1995) (evidence that defendant killed witness who saw defendant commit the murder for which he was on trial was so interwoven with the facts of the case as to be admissible under the res gestae exception); Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 107 A.3d 206, 211 (Pa. Super. 2015) (in - 11 - J-S12038-20 order for evidence of prior acts “to be

2024Other acts evidence is admissible under the res gestae exception where it “formed a part of a chain, or was one of a sequence of acts, or became part of the history of the event on trial, or was part of the natural development of the facts.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 342 A.2d 84, 90 (Pa. 1975) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2012Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 603 Pa. 92 , 982 A.2d 483, 497 (2009); Lark, supra at 497 ; Commonwealth v. Brown, 462 Pa. 578 , 342 A.2d 84 (1975); Commonwealth v. Coyle, 415 Pa. 379 , 203 A.2d 782 (1964); Commonwealth v. Williams, 307 Pa. 134 , 160 A. 602, 607 (1932); Commonwealth v. Dorst, 285 Pa. 232, 132 A. 168 (1926); Commonwealth v. Coles, 265 Pa. 362 , 108 A. 826 (1919); Commonwealth v. Haines, 257 Pa. 289 , 101 A. 641 (1917); Swan v. Commonwealth, 104 Pa. 218 (1883); Goersen v. Commonwealth, 99 Pa. 388 (1882); Brown v. Commonwealth, 76 Pa. 319 (1874); Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 50 Pa. 9 (1865

1978There, as here, the Commonwealth defended the admissibility of certain out-of-court utterances “on the theory that they qualify under the res gestae exception.” 477 Pa. at 136 , 383 A.2d at 860 .

1978There, as here, the Commonwealth defended the admissibility of certain out-of-court utterances “on the theory that they qualify under the res gestae exception.” 477 Pa. at 136 , 383 A.2d at 860 .