motive exception in Pennsylvania

2020To be admissible under the motive exception, “there must be a specific logical connection between the other act and the crime at issue which establishes that the crime currently being considered grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of facts and circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Ross, 57 A.3d 85, 100 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc) (quotation marks and citation omitted), appeal denied, 72 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013). - 15 - J-A23006-19 In explaining its reason for precluding this evidence, the trial court stated: “[J]iggetts’ purported use of the prior criminal record of the individuals she

2017To be admissible under the motive exception in Rule 404(b)(2), “there must be a specific logical connection between the other act and the crime at issue which establishes that the crime currently being considered grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of facts and circumstances.” Ross, 57 A.3d at 100 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

1992In order to be admissible under the motive exception, evidence of the prior bad acts “must give sufficient ground to believe that the crime currently being considered grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of facts or circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 314 Pa.Super. 364, 367 , 460 A.2d 1182, 1184 (1983), quoting Commonwealth *264 v. Schwartz, 445 Pa. 515, 522 , 285 A.2d 154, 158 (1971).

1992In order to be admissible under the motive exception, evidence of the prior bad acts “must give sufficient ground to believe that the crime currently being considered grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of facts or circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 314 Pa.Super. 364, 367 , 460 A.2d 1182, 1184 (1983), quoting Commonwealth *264 v. Schwartz, 445 Pa. 515, 522 , 285 A.2d 154, 158 (1971).

2015The Griffin court went on to opine that to be admissible under the motive exception, evidence of the prior bad act "must give sufficient ground to believe that the crime currently being considered grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of facts and circumstances. '' Commonwealth v. Martin, 387 A.2d 835 (Pa. 1978) The Court went on to explain that it was plausible that the defendant stopped the vehicle and the victim ran away giving rise to defendant's belief that the victim was going to go to the police station to report the planned robbery.

1996To be admissible under the motive exception, evidence of the prior bad act “must give sufficient ground to believe that the crime currently being considered grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of facts and circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Martin, 479 Pa. 63, 69 , 387 A.2d 835, 838 (1978) (citation omitted).

2017Ulatoski, 371 A.2d at 191 ; accord Reed, 990 A.2d at 1168 .13 The Commonwealth need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prior bad acts actually occurred.

2017Arguments related to the remoteness of the acts generally go to the weight, and not the admissibility, of the prior ____________________________________________ 12 But see Green, 76 A.3d at 583-85 (explaining that the common law res gestae exception requires that the acts be closely temporally related, but that the motive exception does not; holding therefore that evidence that a defendant had previously threatened his girlfriend (who he later shot in the head), by pointing a gun at her head two months prior to the killing was not admissible under the res gestae exception but was admissible to

2009“To be admissible to show motive, the evidence must provide a sufficient ground to believe that the crime currently being considered grew out of, or was in some way caused by, the prior set of facts and circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 562 Pa. 498, 524 , 756 A.2d 1139, 1153 (2000). ¶ 12 Regarding the motive exception, the trial court noted: As we understand it, [Gerber] will testify that he killed Hoffner because he owed money to [Cascardo] and feared what [Cascardo] might do in order to collect that money.

2009“To be admissible to show motive, the evidence must provide a sufficient ground to believe that the crime currently being considered grew out of, or was in some way caused by, the prior set of facts and circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Spotz, 562 Pa. 498, 524 , 756 A.2d 1139, 1153 (2000). ¶ 12 Regarding the motive exception, the trial court noted: As we understand it, [Gerber] will testify that he killed Hoffner because he owed money to [Cascardo] and feared what [Cascardo] might do in order to collect that money.

2006See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 557 Pa. 207, 248 , 732 A.2d 1167, 1189 (1999); Commonwealth v. Brown, 544 Pa. 406, 425 , 676 A.2d 1178, 1187 (1996) (allowing for the possibility of post-conviction relief “if it can be concluded that an alternative not chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater than the course actually pursued” (citation omitted)). 4 The majority proceeds to resolve the claim by attributing an improper motive to the defense, asserting that trial counsel sought only to disparage the victim.

2006See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 557 Pa. 207, 248 , 732 A.2d 1167, 1189 (1999); Commonwealth v. Brown, 544 Pa. 406, 425 , 676 A.2d 1178, 1187 (1996) (allowing for the possibility of post-conviction relief “if it can be concluded that an alternative not chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater than the course actually pursued” (citation omitted)). 4 The majority proceeds to resolve the claim by attributing an improper motive to the defense, asserting that trial counsel sought only to disparage the victim.

2006See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 557 Pa. 207, 248 , 732 A.2d 1167, 1189 (1999); Commonwealth v. Brown, 544 Pa. 406, 425 , 676 A.2d 1178, 1187 (1996) (allowing for the possibility of post-conviction relief “if it can be concluded that an alternative not chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater than the course actually pursued” (citation omitted)). 4 The majority proceeds to resolve the claim by attributing an improper motive to the defense, asserting that trial counsel sought only to disparage the victim.

2006See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 557 Pa. 207, 248 , 732 A.2d 1167, 1189 (1999); Commonwealth v. Brown, 544 Pa. 406, 425 , 676 A.2d 1178, 1187 (1996) (allowing for the possibility of post-conviction relief “if it can be concluded that an alternative not chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater than the course actually pursued” (citation omitted)). 4 The majority proceeds to resolve the claim by attributing an improper motive to the defense, asserting that trial counsel sought only to disparage the victim.

2006See Majority Opinion, op. at ___-___, 898 A.2d at 566 .

2005Defendant argues the Schwartz case demonstrates a logical connection, unlike the present facts alleged by the Commonwealth. 3 The Superior Court explains the admissibility of evidence under the intent and motive exception in Commonwealth v. Camperson, 417 Pa. Super. 280, 285 , 612 A.2d 482, 484 (1992), and states the standard for admissibility: “There must be a logical connection between the prior incident and the crime for which the accused is being tried.

2005Defendant argues the Schwartz case demonstrates a logical connection, unlike the present facts alleged by the Commonwealth. 3 The Superior Court explains the admissibility of evidence under the intent and motive exception in Commonwealth v. Camperson, 417 Pa. Super. 280, 285 , 612 A.2d 482, 484 (1992), and states the standard for admissibility: “There must be a logical connection between the prior incident and the crime for which the accused is being tried.

1992In order to be admissible under the motive exception, evidence of the prior bad acts “must give sufficient ground to believe that the crime currently being considered grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of facts or circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 314 Pa.Super. 364, 367 , 460 A.2d 1182, 1184 (1983), quoting Commonwealth *264 v. Schwartz, 445 Pa. 515, 522 , 285 A.2d 154, 158 (1971).

1992In order to be admissible under the motive exception, evidence of the prior bad acts “must give sufficient ground to believe that the crime currently being considered grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of facts or circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 314 Pa.Super. 364, 367 , 460 A.2d 1182, 1184 (1983), quoting Commonwealth *264 v. Schwartz, 445 Pa. 515, 522 , 285 A.2d 154, 158 (1971).

1977See Commonwealth v. Williams, 230 Pa. Super. 72 , 327 A.2d 367 (1974).

1977See Commonwealth v. Williams, 230 Pa. Super. 72 , 327 A.2d 367 (1974).