Pennsylvania Supreme Court Overturns Lower Court Ruling in the Commonwealth of PA v. Raheem Stevenson

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Eastern District has overturned the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s ruling in the Commonwealth of PA v. Raheem Stevenson.

Attorney Erin K. Rudert, partner at Ainsman Levine, LLC, authored an amicus brief in support of  Stevenson on behalf of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice (PAJ). Rudert is a member of the PAJ Amicus Curiae Committee, which provides briefs on legal issues affecting the rights of injured individuals and their ability to obtain fair and equal access to justice.

Background

Defendant Raheem Stevenson was charged with robbery, burglary, and criminal conspiracy for a crime that took place on Dec. 3, 2017. Stevenson had previously pleaded guilty to burglary in 2005.

Just prior to Stevenson taking the stand to testify, his counsel made a motion in limine that information regarding the 2005 burglary be excluded from the current trial. The judge denied the motion. While on the stand, Stevenson and his attorney chose to preemptively address the unfavorable evidence by discussing the conviction.

Stevenson was convicted for the 2017 crime. On appeal, he claimed the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his previous burglary by failing to weigh the information according to standards set forth by Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 609, which relates to the impeachment by evidence of a criminal conviction.

The Superior Court denied the appeal, ruling that Stevenson introduced the evidence himself while on the stand and, therefore, could not claim the evidence was improperly admitted. The court cited the United States Supreme Court case, Ohler v. U.S. (2000), as a basis for its ruling.

Amicus Victory

In July 2024, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Superior Court’s ruling. Pennsylvania joins a number of other state jurisdictions that have rejected Ohler in favor of state precedent.

The Supreme Court ruled that Stevenson did not waive his right to an appeal based on the inadmissibility of evidence. The justices determined that because the motion to exclude the evidence of his prior conviction was made in limine and overruled, Stevenson and his attorney were correct in expecting the Commonwealth to introduce it to impeach his character. The court decided Stevenson and his counsel had the right to preemptively address the conviction as a trial strategy.

As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling. The Supreme Court has remanded the case to the Superior Court to reconsider the merits of Stevenson’s appeal.

Contact Ainsman Levine, LLC

Ainsman Levine, LLC advocates for the rights of catastrophic injury victims and their families. We have provided clients with effective, quality representation since 1993. We represent parties in Pittsburgh, Western Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

To learn more about our services or Attorney Erin K. Rudert’s work with the PAJ Amicus Curiae Committee, contact us online or call today.