Evidence of 20 Year Old Crimini Falsi Conviction Precluded

In the case of Lett v. SEPTA, No. 2:19-CV-03170-KSM (E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2022 Marston, J.), the court issued an evidentiary ruling regarding a prior criminal conviction of a Plaintiff in a disability discrimination lawsuit that the Plaintiff filed against his former employer.

The Plaintiff filed a Motion In Limine to preclude the Defendants from introducing evidence at trial regarding the Plaintiff’s 20 year old fraud convictions. The Plaintiff asserted that the probative value of this evidence was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the conviction due to their age.

The court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine. 

Judge Marston noted that, while a criminal conviction involving a dishonest act or false statement could be admitted to attack a witness’ credibility, if the conviction occurred more than ten (10) years ago, the admitting party must prove that its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudice effect.

The court emphasized that the Plaintiff’s criminal convictions occurred twenty (20) years ago.

The court found that, while the Plaintiff’s convictions were indeed probative of the Plaintiff’s character for truthfulness because fraud crimes implied dishonesty, the court ruled that the age of the conviction meant that their probative value did not outweigh the risk of prejudice.

As such, the Plaintiff’s Motion was granted and the evidence precluded.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 10, 2022).

Photo by Michael Forsch on www.pexels.com.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Addresses Several Notable Trial Evidentiary Issues

In the case of Crespo v. Hughes, 2017 Pa. Super. 230 (Pa. Super. July 18, 2017 Ransom, Penella, Shogan, J.J.) (Op. by Ransom, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed several civil litigation trial issues.

In this decision, the court confirmed that liability for loss of future income is established by evidence of shortened economic horizons, not actual income.  

Relative to the loss of future earnings claim, the appellate court also affirmed the trial court's exclusion of the plaintiff's alleged marijuana use as well as his alleged failure to pay child support.  The court agreed that any probative value of this evidence with respect to the wage loss claim was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

On a medical evidence issue, the Superior Court noted that a treating physician could give factual evidence of causation even without filing an expert report where that information was included in the doctor’s treatment notes.  

On another evidentiary issue, the appellate court confirmed that a conviction for receiving stolen property is crimen falsi crime that was admissible against the Plaintiff under Pa. R.E. 609).  

 Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James Beck of the Philadelphia law office of Reed Smith for bringing this case to my attention.  

Judge Nealon Reviews the Law On Admissibility of Prior Convictions

In his recent decision in the breach of contract case of Clark v. GEICO, 12 CV 1278 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 8, 2015 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon addressed a defense motion in limine that raised issues regarding the admissibility of crimini falsi evidence against the Plaintiff under Pa.R.E. 609 and evidence of prior bad acts or crimes by the Plaintiff under Pa.R.E. 404(b).

In this matter, the Plaintiff made a claim under a GEICO auto policy following a loss of his vehicle by fire.  GEICO denied the claim on the grounds that the policy had been declared null and void back to its inception due to material misrepresentations by the Plaintiff during the application process.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

GEICO's motion in limine centered around its desire to introduce evidence of the Plaintiff's prior convictions for receiving stolen property, theft by deception or false statement, DUI, and driving without a license and financial responsibility.  Relying on the above-noted Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, GEICO sought to introduce the evidence at issue in an effort to impeach the Plaintiff's credibility and to demonstrate a motive on the part of the Plaintiff to deceive the GEICO insurance agent in an effort to obtain personal automobile insurance on a vehicle that the Plaintiff was allegedly actually using for commercial purposes.

The Plaintiff countered with an argument that the theft and receiving stolen property charges were older than ten years and not admissible under the applicable test, and that the DUI, driving without a license and financial responsibility charges were not crimini falsi crimes.  The Plaintiff also generally argued that the probative value of the evidence at issue was outweighed by the danger of prejudice and the potential confusing of the issues presented.

After applying the facts to the relevant case law, the court ruled that evidence of the Plaintiff's convictions for theft as well as one of the two receiving stolen property charges would be allowed.

As for the DUI and other driving violations noted, GEICO was not offering such evidence as crimini falsi evidence but rather under Pa.R.E. 404(b) to prove motive on the part of the Plaintiff to deceive the carrier when the Plaintiff allegedly gave an incorrect driver's license number during the application process.

Judge Nealon crafted a remedy by allowing GEICO to show that the Plaintiff's license had been suspended for unspecified reasons.  The Court felt that this benign reference would still enable GEICO to argue the Plaintiff's motive to deceive the carrier when the Plaintiff allegedly provided a false driver's license number during the application process.

This Clark v. GEICO decision provides a thorough recitation of the current status of Pennsylvania evidentiary law on the issue of the admissibility of evidence of a party's prior criminal convictions.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the same may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.