right to present defense in Pennsylvania

2025The trial court also appears to have impeded Father’s ability to present a viable defense to the underlying allegations by denying Father’s request to present potentially exculpatory testimony from the Children’s school principal via telephonic appearance pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in these criminal proceedings.8 See Trial Ct. Order, 7/10/24, at 1- 2; see also, e.g., Commonwealth v. Holloman, 621 A.2d 1046, 1053 (Pa. Super. 1993) (“The right to offer testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense

1981Appellant contends that this ruling deprived him of “a fundamental element of due process of law,” Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967), the right to present a defense. *10 “An accused has a fundamental right to present defensive evidence so long as such evidence is relevant and not excluded by an established evidentiary rule.” Commonwealth v. Greene, 469 Pa. 399, 404 , 366 A.2d 234, 237 (1976).

2021Yale’s Brief at 20; see also Reply Brief at 4 (quoting Boyle, 368 A.2d at 669 (“It is well-established that proof of facts showing the commission of the crime by someone else is admissible.”) (emphasis in original)). [J-73-2020] - 19 crimes, wrongs or other acts.

1981See also Commonwealth v. Boyle, 470 Pa. 343 , 368 A.2d 661 (1977); Commonwealth v. Bailey, 450 Pa. 201 , 299 A.2d 298 (1973); Commonwealth v. Collins, 447 Pa. 300 , 290 A.2d 121 (1972).

2025The trial court also appears to have impeded Father’s ability to present a viable defense to the underlying allegations by denying Father’s request to present potentially exculpatory testimony from the Children’s school principal via telephonic appearance pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in these criminal proceedings.8 See Trial Ct. Order, 7/10/24, at 1- 2; see also, e.g., Commonwealth v. Holloman, 621 A.2d 1046, 1053 (Pa. Super. 1993) (“The right to offer testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense

2021Accordingly, an evidentiary rule is constitutionally infirm, as an undue curtailment of the right to present a defense, only “when it infringes on a weighty interest of the defendant and is arbitrary or disproportionate to the purpose it was designed to serve.” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 , 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1731 (2006).

2021Accordingly, an evidentiary rule is constitutionally infirm, as an undue curtailment of the right to present a defense, only “when it infringes on a weighty interest of the defendant and is arbitrary or disproportionate to the purpose it was designed to serve.” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 , 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1731 (2006).

2021In this regard, “state and federal rulemakers have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish [reasonable] rules excluding evidence from criminal trials.” U.S. v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 , 118 S. Ct. 1261, 1264 (1998) As applied to defense proffers, I fail to see how a general ban against using evidence merely to demonstrate a propensity to commit crimes or other bad acts, see Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1), tempered by the allowance for admission of other-bad-acts evidence for other relevant purposes, see Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2), is arbitrary or disproportionate to the relevant aims.

2021In this regard, “state and federal rulemakers have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish [reasonable] rules excluding evidence from criminal trials.” U.S. v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 , 118 S. Ct. 1261, 1264 (1998) As applied to defense proffers, I fail to see how a general ban against using evidence merely to demonstrate a propensity to commit crimes or other bad acts, see Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1), tempered by the allowance for admission of other-bad-acts evidence for other relevant purposes, see Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2), is arbitrary or disproportionate to the relevant aims.

2007A quorum of the Board must fully consider the claim; it did so.” Id. at 549.

1981Appellant contends that this ruling deprived him of “a fundamental element of due process of law,” Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967), the right to present a defense. *10 “An accused has a fundamental right to present defensive evidence so long as such evidence is relevant and not excluded by an established evidentiary rule.” Commonwealth v. Greene, 469 Pa. 399, 404 , 366 A.2d 234, 237 (1976).

1981Appellant contends that this ruling deprived him of “a fundamental element of due process of law,” Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967), the right to present a defense. *10 “An accused has a fundamental right to present defensive evidence so long as such evidence is relevant and not excluded by an established evidentiary rule.” Commonwealth v. Greene, 469 Pa. 399, 404 , 366 A.2d 234, 237 (1976).