crime violation in Pennsylvania

2025This Court has held that: “Specific instances of a victim’s prior conduct are admissible to show a victim’s character trait only if the trait in question is probative of an element of a crime or a defense.” Commonwealth v. Minich, 4 A.3d 1063, 1071 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted).

2025A “pertinent” trait “is limited to a character trait of the victim that is relevant to the crime or defense at issue in the case.” Minich, 4 A.3d at 1072 .

2020A child under the age of 7 years is conclusively presumed incapable of the commission of a crime; a child between the ages of 7 and 14 years is likewise presumed incapable of committing a crime but such presumption is subject to refutation by evidence that the child does possess the criminal capacity; a child over the age of 14 years is prima facie capable of the commission of a crime. - 17 - J-S67044-19 Commonwealth v. Green, 396 Pa. 137 , 151 A.2d 241, 246 (1959).

2020A child under the age of 7 years is conclusively presumed incapable of the commission of a crime; a child between the ages of 7 and 14 years is likewise presumed incapable of committing a crime but such presumption is subject to refutation by evidence that the child does possess the criminal capacity; a child over the age of 14 years is prima facie capable of the commission of a crime. - 17 - J-S67044-19 Commonwealth v. Green, 396 Pa. 137 , 151 A.2d 241, 246 (1959).

2025Therefore, under Rule 404, evidence of the victim’s “pertinent trait” is limited in scope and must be relevant to the offense.” Commonwealth v. Weeden, 253 A.3d 329, 338 (Pa. Super. 2021).

2025“Thus, under Rule 404, evidence of the victim’s ‘pertinent trait’ is limited in scope and must be relevant to the offense.” Commonwealth v. Weeden, 253 A.3d 329, 338 (Pa. Super. 2021), affirmed, 304 A.3d 333 (Pa. 2023).

2025Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280, 1283 (Pa. Super. 2010); see also id. (emphasizing that where the record reveals the VOP court had engaged in such a consideration, an appellate court “cannot re-weigh the sentencing factors to achieve a different result.”). - 16 - J-S05018-25 Instantly, Appellant argues that the VOP court “abused its discretion in imposing [a] manifestly unreasonable probation revocation sentence,” which failed to account for “mitigating factors.” Appellant’s Brief at 18.

2025Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280, 1283 (Pa.Super. 2010).

2022Martz, 118 A.3d at 1180 , quoting Commonwealth v. Green, 151 A.2d 241, 246 (Pa. 1959).

2022Martz, 118 A.3d at 1180, quoting Commonwealth v. Green, 151 A.2d 241 , 246 (Pa. 1959).

2020Under Rule 404(2)(B), evidence of “the alleged victim’s pertinent trait” is “limited to a character trait of the victim that is relevant to the crime or defense at issue in the case.” Id. “[C]riminal defendants asserting self-defense may introduce evidence of a victim’s prior conduct -6- J-S60010-19 tending to establish the victim’s violent propensities.” Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Miller, 634 A.2d 614, 622 (Pa. Super. 1993) (where self- defense was properly at issue in the case, then expert testimony regarding “battered woman syndrome” was relevant to prove the defendant’s state of mind as

2018Under Rule 404(2)(B), evidence of “the alleged victim’s pertinent trait” is “limited to a character trait - 12 - J-A26036-17 of the victim that is relevant to the crime or defense at issue in the case.” Minich, 4 A.3d at 1072 . “[C]riminal defendants asserting self-defense may introduce evidence of a victim's prior conduct tending to establish the victim's violent propensities.” Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Miller, 634 A.2d 614, 622 (Pa. Super. 1993) (where self-defense was properly at issue in the case, then expert testimony regarding “battered woman syndrome” was relevant to prove the defen

2026See Green’s Brief at 49-51 (distinguishing Commonwealth v. Andrews, 768 A.2d 309 (Pa. 2001), because it involved PIC and conspiracy convictions).

2026See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Witmayer, 144 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2016).

2025See - 15 - J-A22020-25 Commonwealth v. Holston, 211 A.3d 1264, 1278 (Pa. Super. 2019) (en banc) (noting that an association between the alleged conspirators and presence at the scene of the crime are factors indicative of a corrupt confederation).

2025This Court has explained that this principle of statutory interpretation applies “whenever our Court has interpreted the language of a statute, and the General Assembly subsequently amends or reenacts that statute without changing that language,” in which case it is “presumed that the General Assembly intends that our Court’s interpretation become part of the subsequent legislative enactment.” Verizon Pa., Inc. v. Commonwealth, 127 A.3d 745, 757 (Pa. 2015).

2025Id. at 211, 214 .

2024Cf. Commonwealth v. Beck, 402 A.2d 1371, 1373 (Pa. 1979), overruled in part by Christine, 125 A.3d at 400 (holding trial court erred in excluding evidence of stabbing victim’s three-year-old conviction for violent crime, where it was not too remote and bore sufficient similarity to the charges at bar).

2024Commonwealth v. Hoover, 16 A.3d 1148, 1149 (Pa. Super. 2011).3 “Pertinent” in this context means relevant to the crime or defense at issue in a criminal case.

2024See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gilliard, 446 A.2d 951, 956 (Pa. 1982) (upholding trial court’s exclusion of murder victim’s prior convictions of violent crimes, where they predated the crime at bar by more than 20 years).

2024Commonwealth v. Nichols, 692 A.2d 181, 186-88 (Pa. Super. 1997); Commonwealth v. Humpheys, 532 A.2d 836, 840 (Pa. Super. 1987).

2024Cf. Commonwealth v. Beck, 402 A.2d 1371, 1373 (Pa. 1979), overruled in part by Christine, 125 A.3d at 400 (holding trial court erred in excluding evidence of stabbing victim’s three-year-old conviction for violent crime, where it was not too remote and bore sufficient similarity to the charges at bar).

2024Commonwealth v. Nichols, 692 A.2d 181, 186-88 (Pa. Super. 1997); Commonwealth v. Humpheys, 532 A.2d 836, 840 (Pa. Super. 1987).

2021Although J.H.F. attempts to frame this as a constitutional challenge to bring it within the purview of the PCRA, a claim that the Commonwealth failed to prove all elements of a crime is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, which is not a cognizable PCRA claim.9 See Commonwealth v. Bell, 706 A.2d 855, 861 (Pa. Super. 1998). ____________________________________________ 8 Similarly, J.H.F. failed to develop this claim in any way before the PCRA court. 9 J.H.F. claims thatI.Z.’s testimony was uncorroborated, which goes to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.

2020See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Jones, 954 A.2d 1194 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2016See Heckrote v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 465 A.2d 118, 119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (petitioner’s admission that he entered a guilty plea and was convicted of new offenses supported the Board’s recommission of him as a convicted parole violator).

2011When the judiciary is required to resolve an issue concerning the elements of a criminal offense, its task is fundamentally one of statutory interpretation, and its overriding purpose must be to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent underlying the statute.” Commonwealth v. Booth, 564 Pa. 228, 233 , 766 A.2d 843, 846 (2001); see also Section 1921(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972(Act), 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a) (providing in relevant part: “The object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly.”).

2011When the judiciary is required to resolve an issue concerning the elements of a criminal offense, its task is fundamentally one of statutory interpretation, and its overriding purpose must be to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent underlying the statute.” Commonwealth v. Booth, 564 Pa. 228, 233 , 766 A.2d 843, 846 (2001); see also Section 1921(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972(Act), 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a) (providing in relevant part: “The object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly.”).