Commonwealth v. Rush
1994 Pa. LEXIS 386, 646 A.2d 557, 538 Pa. 104 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a prior crime is admissible to prove the identity of the perpetrator when the crime is so nearly identical in method as to constitute a "signature," and the temporal remoteness between the crimes is mitigated by the defendant's incarceration for most of the intervening period.
Facts:
- On May 8, 1987, Veranica James Hands, who was eight and a half months pregnant, was found bound, gagged, and stabbed to death in her third-floor apartment.
- The victim suffered over fifty stab wounds from a knife apparently taken from her own kitchen; her unborn baby was also fatally wounded.
- There were no signs of forced entry, and small valuables, including jewelry and cash, were missing from the ransacked bedroom.
- Larry Rush, the victim's distant cousin, resided on the first floor of the same building.
- Later on the day of the murder, Rush confessed to an acquaintance, Jerry McEachin, that he had stabbed his cousin and was seen in possession of her stolen property.
- Rush’s thumbprint, in what appeared to be blood, was found on a doorjamb near the victim’s body, and his other fingerprints were on containers in her bedroom.
- The prosecution introduced evidence of a 1979 crime where Rush attacked another woman under similar circumstances.
- In both the 1979 and 1987 crimes, the victims were female neighbors of Rush, attacked alone in their third-floor bedrooms, had their underclothing removed, were stabbed with knives from their own apartments which were later cleaned and left at the scene, and only small valuables were taken.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry Rush was tried by a jury in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, a trial-level court.
- The jury convicted Rush of murder of the first degree, robbery, burglary, and possession of an instrument of crime.
- After a separate sentencing hearing, the jury returned a sentence of death for the murder conviction.
- Rush, as appellant, filed a direct appeal of his conviction and death sentence to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence of a defendant's prior crime, committed eight years earlier, admissible under the 'modus operandi' exception to prove identity when the defendant was incarcerated for most of the intervening period and the two crimes share numerous unique and distinctive similarities?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaherty, Justice
Yes, evidence of a defendant's prior crime is admissible under these circumstances. While evidence of prior crimes is generally inadmissible due to its prejudicial effect, an exception exists to establish the identity of the perpetrator when the crimes are so similar that they logically appear to be the work of the same person. To be admissible under this 'signature' or 'modus operandi' exception, the method used must be so unusual and distinctive as to earmark the crimes as the handiwork of the accused. Here, the numerous unique similarities between the 1979 attack and the present murder—including the victim profile, location within the building, non-forcible entry, weapon choice, nature of the assault, and specific items stolen—were sufficient to establish such a signature. Although eight years had passed, the court found the time was not too remote because Rush was incarcerated for all but eighty-four days of that period. Therefore, the prior crime evidence was properly admitted for the limited purpose of proving identity.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the 'modus operandi' or 'signature crimes' exception for admitting prior bad acts evidence. It clarifies that the analysis of temporal remoteness between crimes must account for periods of incarceration, effectively tolling the clock and allowing older crimes to be considered recent in a legal sense. The decision provides a detailed factual template for what constitutes 'unusual and distinctive' similarities, distinguishing them from generic criminal patterns. This precedent guides lower courts in weighing the probative value of such evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice, particularly in cases where identity is a central issue.
