Commonwealth v. Arrington, L., Aplt (dissenting)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[J-98-2013][M.O. Baer, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee : : : v. : : : : LANCE ARRINGTON, : : Appellant : No. 516 CAP Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on 2/22/2000 in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0812071-1998 ARGUED: March 10, 2010 SUBMITTED: November 4, 2013 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: February 28, 2014 The majority posits that the panoply of other-bad-acts evidence presented by the Commonwealth was not introduced to establish Appellant s propensity for violence, but rather, was offered to establish his identity as the killer. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 13. However, as the decisional law gravitates further and further away from the centering ground of signature crimes, see 1 MCCORMICK, EVIDENCE § 190 (4th ed.1992), the identity/propensity distinction devolves to a matter of semantics. It may well be, as the majority appears to suggest, that Appellant s past violent conduct directed toward women was a key aspect of the prosecution. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 14-15. Nevertheless, upon review of this record, I am unable to support the majority s conclusion that the Commonwealth s case against Appellant was not, in material part, character and propensity based.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.