Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5918 (2026)

Examination of defendant as to other offenses.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5918. Examination of defendant as to other offenses.

No person charged with any crime and called as a witness in his own behalf, shall be asked, or if asked, shall be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed, or been charged with, or been convicted of any offense other than the one wherewith he shall then be charged, or tending to show that he has been of bad character or reputation unless:

(1) he shall have at such trial, personally or by counsel, asked questions of the witness for the prosecution with a view to establish his own good reputation or character, or has given evidence tending to prove his own good character or reputation; or

(2) he shall have testified at such trial against a co-defendant, charged with the same offense.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 30 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 862 A.2d 647 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 862 A.2d 647 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). · cites it 10× “2d at 748-49 (distinguishing between cases concerning admission of crimen falsi convictions and exceptions provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5918). ¶ 10 The relevant statute, which permits a trial court to admit evidence of a defendant's non- crimen falsi prior convictions under narrow…”

Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “404(a)(2)(A); 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5918. Throughout the trial, Appellant presented evidence, through his own testimony and the testimony of others, that he has a good reputation in the community and that he was a peaceful, law-abiding person.”

Commonwealth v. Hannibal, S., Aplt., 156 A.3d 197 (Pa. 2016). · cites it 2× “See 42 Pa.C.S. §5918; Pa.R.E. 609(a), (b). Thus, the court reasoned, counsel was required to weigh the benefit of the character evidence against only the non-crimen falsi offenses of disorderly conduct, contempt and drug offenses.”

Commonwealth v. Moser, 999 A.2d 602 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “Additionally, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5918 limits the use of a prior conviction in criminal cases as follows: No person charged with any crime and called as a witness in his own behalf, shall be asked, or if asked, shall be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has…”

Commonwealth v. Stokes, 615 A.2d 704 (Pa. 1992). · cites it 3× “In support of this argument appellant asserts that under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5918, Jackson was a “defendant,” and thus no limitations should apply to impeachment of him as a defendant/witness.”

Commonwealth v. Bullock, 948 A.2d 818 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008). “42 Pa.C.S. § 5918. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified exactly how evidence of prior convictions can be admitted in Commonwealth v.”

Commonwealth v. Strong, 563 A.2d 479 (Pa. 1989). · cites it 2× “Indeed, the policy against using prior convictions against a criminal defendant is codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5918 which provides: § 5918.”

Commonwealth v. Days, 784 A.2d 817 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “Whether the Commonwealth violated the mandates of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5918 by questioning the defendant about prior criminal incidents, unrelated to the instant offenses? b.”

Commonwealth v. Fisher, 741 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 1999). · cites it 2× “Appellant presented evidence that he was devoutly religious. By presenting this evidence as to his good character, Appellant put his character at issue.”

Commonwealth v. Garcia, 712 A.2d 746 (Pa. 1998). · cites it 2× “3 The relevant statutory enactment, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5918 provides: No person charged with any crime and called as a witness in his own behalf shall be asked, or if asked, shall be required to answer, any question tending to show that he has committed, or been charged with, or been…”

Com. of Pa. v. King, 182 A.3d 449 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “In that case, the Commonwealth violated 42 Pa.C.S. § 5918, when it cross-examined a criminal defendant about his prior criminal record.”

In re J.H., 737 A.2d 275 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). · cites it 3× “2d 746 (1998)? ¶ 3 Appellant contends 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5918 and Commonwealth v.”

Show all 30 citing cases →

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5918(1) — 6 cases

Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh, 91 A.3d 1247 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). “404(a)(2)(A); 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5918. Throughout the trial, Appellant presented evidence, through his own testimony and the testimony of others, that he has a good reputation in the community and that he was a peaceful, law-abiding person.”

Commonwealth v. Fisher, 741 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 1999). “Appellant presented evidence that he was devoutly religious. By presenting this evidence as to his good character, Appellant put his character at issue.”

Commonwealth v. Days, 784 A.2d 817 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). “Whether the Commonwealth violated the mandates of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5918 by questioning the defendant about prior criminal incidents, unrelated to the instant offenses? b.”

Com. v. Campas, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).

Mcdaniel v. Sorber (E.D. Pa. 2023).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5918(2) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Stokes, 615 A.2d 704 (Pa. 1992). “In support of this argument appellant asserts that under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5918, Jackson was a “defendant,” and thus no limitations should apply to impeachment of him as a defendant/witness.”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5918(c) — 1 case

Com. v. Gadaleta, P. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.