Admissibility of Crimen Falsi Evidence

Here is another example of how an appellate court decision in a criminal case may have implications in a civil litigation matter.

In the case of Com. v. Gomery, Nos. 2562 EDA 2025 & 2563 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Aug. 27, 2026 Bowes, J., Olson, J. and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court outlined when a criminal conviction qualifies as crimen falsi under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 609.

Under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 609, evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime involving “dishonesty or false statement” may be admitted for purposes of attacking the witness’s credibility.

In its decision in the Gomery case, the Superior Court noted that a prior conviction qualifies as crimen falsi evidence “only if dishonesty or false statement is either: (1) an essential element of the offense; or (2) facilitated its commission.”

The Superior Court further stated that, in determining whether a prior conviction meets this test, “trial courts must address both the elemental aspects of the offense and the conduct of the individual who committed the crime[.]”

In this case, the criminal defendant was charged with attacking another individual.  The victim had a prior criminal history that the defendant wanted to cross-examine on.

The prior offense at issue was the witness's failure to register as a sex offender in violation of Pennsylvania law. The court ruled that, because such an offense may be committed through omission alone and because the underlying facts in this case confirmed that the witness had only engaged in omissive conduct, the prior conviction was found not to be admissible for impeachment purposes under Rule 609.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: Pa. Super. Blog By John Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC in Pittsburgh, PA (Aug. 31, 2026 blog post).


Source of image:  Photo by Shox Art on www.pexels.com.