Commonwealth v. Neely

OPINION OF THE COURT

LARSEN, Justice.

The issue presented in this case is whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that evidence of good character (reputation) may, in and of itself, (by itself or alone) create a reasonable doubt of guilt and, thus, require a verdict of not guilty.

James Neely, appellant, was convicted by a jury of recklessly endangering another person (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705) and possessing an instrument of crime (18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907). At trial Neely called as character witnesses, Mr. Gregory A. Coleman, Chief of Staff of the Philadelphia City Council and Mr. Bernard Brown, Recreation Supervisor of the Philadelphia Department of Recreation. These two witnesses attested to Neely’s excellent reputation for being a peaceful and law abiding citizen.

At the conclusion of the trial, Neely’s counsel requested a jury instruction in accordance with the Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Jury Instructions that “evidence of good character may, by itself, raise a reasonable doubt of guilt and justify a verdict of not guilty”.¹ The trial judge refused to give this specific charge and, instead, only instructed the jury that “evidence of good character is material and essential testimony in determining the innocence of the defendant”. Notes of Testimony (N.T.) 7/25/89 at p. 598. When defense counsel, displeased with the instruction on character evidence given by the court, requested a more specific charge, the trial judge refused stating: “I am trying to change the law of Parks, I think it’s wrong, so you have an automatic exception to that”. (N.T.) 7/25/89 at p. 606.

Post-verdict motions were denied by the trial court which noted that the case provided it with “a long-overdue opportunity to urge upon our appellate courts that Pennsylvania law on the evidentiary weight given to reputation testimony in cases such as this one is both unsound as well as unjustified and must be repudiated”. Trial Court Op. at p. 7. The Superior Court, in reviewing the case en banc, affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Neely, 372 Pa.Super. 519, 539 A.2d 1317 (1988). We granted allocatur and we now reverse.

In Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 188, 436 A.2d 607, (1981) this court, in a unanimous opinion, noted that “[a] defendant is entitled to a charge that character evidence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and justify an acquittal of the charges.” Id., 496 Pa. at 195, 436 A.2d at 611 fn. 1. In Scott this court reaffirmed our position that such a charge was as imperative in criminal trials in 1981 as it had been in earlier cases of this court. See, Commonwealth v. Cleary, 135 Pa. 64, 82-83, 19 A. 1017, 1018, (1890) (“Evidence of good character ... may of itself, by the creation of a reasonable doubt, produce an acquittal.”) and Commonwealth v. Stoner, 265 Pa. 139, 143, 108 A. 624 625 (1919) (“Good character is of importance in this: that it may, in itself, in spite of evidence to the contrary, raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury and so produce an acquittal.”)

In Cleary we recognized the importance of reputation evidence when we stated: “Of what avail is a good character, which a man may have been a lifetime in acquiring, if it is to benefit him nothing in his hour of peril?” Id., 135 Pa. at 84, 19 A. at 1018 (1890). As my distinguished colleague, Justice James McDermott has commented:

“To offer evidence of an otherwise unblemished life is not a plea of mercy. It is, in fact, to be weighed against any present allegation to the contrary. Character evidence may give a name to damning combinations different than what they seem, and be the truth that sets one free.” Indeed the value of a good reputation has been highly

regarded since antiquity. Reputation has been characterized as more valuable than riches, precious materials and gold: “A good name is better than great riches.” Cervantes, Don Quixote pt. ii, ch. 15 (1615); “A good reputation is more valuable than money.” Publilius Syras, Sententive No. 108. “A good name is better than precious ointment.” Old Testament: Ecclesiastics, vii, 1; “Reputation is a jewel.” Yanburgh, The Provoked Wife Act i, sc., 2; “The purest treasure mortal times afford. Is spotless reputation____” Shakespeare, Richard II, Act i, sc. 1, In. 177; “It is better to have nobility of character than nobility of birth.” (Unknown).

Famous scholars, philosophers and writers have analogized “reputation” to the dominating force that sustains life and to life itself: “Reputation is the life of the mind, as breath is the life of the body.” Gracian, The Complete Gentlemen; “Character is the governing element of life, and is above genius.” Frederick Saunders, Stray Leaves; “Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls ...” Shakespeare, Othello, Act iii, sc. 3, In. 155; “A good name is a second life, and the groundwork of eternal existence.” Bhascara Acharya, Lilawati (Longfellow, Kavanaugh ch. 4.); “Take away my good name and take away my life.” Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia No. 4306; “Character is destiny.” Heraclitus (500 B.C.).

Other authors and luminaries teach us that reputation is virtually immutable:

A great character, founded on the living rock of principle, is, in fact, not a solitary phenomenon, to be at once perceived, limited, and described. It is a dispensation of providence, designed to have not merely an immediate, but a continuous, progressive, and never-ending agency. It survives that man who possessed it: survives his age, — perhaps his country, his language. Edward Everett, Speech: The Youth of Washington, July 4, 1835;

“If you hear a mountain has moved, believe; but if you hear that a man has changed his character, believe it not.” Mohammedan Proverb.

Additionally, inspired writings show us that a good character/reputation ensures trustworthiness: “A good character carries with it the highest power of causing a thing to be believed.” Idem, Rhetoric; “Put more trust in nobility of character than in oath.” Solon, Dioenes Loertius, sec. 16; “Reputation is a hallmark: it can remove doubt from pure silver ...” Mark Twain (from an unmailed letter dated 1886); “Fame is a vapor, popularity an accident, riches takes wings, those who cheer today may curse tomorrow, only one thing endures — character.” Horace Greely.

In this case the trial court candidly admitted both on the record and in its opinion that it was attempting to change the law regarding reputation evidence. That court was wrong when it characterized our courts as having “elevated reputation evidence to undeserved heights”. Trial Court Op. at p. 7. Pennsylvania case law since the turn of the century coupled with a historical view of the importance of “reputation” supports our high regard for the value of reputation evidence and our view that it is not “mere make weight, thrown in to assist in the production of a result” evidence. Cleary at 82, 19 A. at 1019. Clearly then, both of the lower courts erred in ignoring prior precedent of this court.² Often a person takes a lifetime to build his or her reputation and when the dark clouds of life gather, one’s reputation may be all that one has to ward off the impending downpour and at that moment it may be the only beacon of truth — truth is reputation’s reward. A criminal defendant must receive a jury charge that evidence of good character (reputation) may, in and of itself, (by itself or alone) create a reasonable doubt of guilt and, thus, require a verdict of not guilty.

Accordingly, the decision of the Superior Court is reversed and a new trial is ordered.

NIX, C.J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter. FLAHERTY, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

1 . Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instructions § 3.06(3) provides:

DEFENDANT’S CHARACTER (REPUTATION) The law recognizes that a person of good character is not likely to commit a crime which is contrary to his nature. Evidence of good character may by itself raise a reasonable doubt of guilt and justify a verdict of not guilty.

2 . As Chief Justice Nix recently stated in his concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 123, 507 A.2d 66 (1986):

Regardless of how laudable the trial court’s intentions may have been, ... its unauthorized refusal to apply existing law cannot be tolerated. To permit such a practice will throw the administration of justice and the expectations of litigants into utter confusion.

Id., 510 Pa. at 136, 507 A.2d at 73.