## Facts

- Two people robbed a Philadelphia tavern on February 3, 1965, during which a Texaco credit card was taken from patron John Shinners.
- Six days later, two men entered an Abington service station; one man (identified by the attendant as Foose) presented a Texaco credit card, and the men then robbed the station.
- Foose and another man were arrested soon after; a search of Foose revealed Shinners’s stolen Texaco credit card.
- Foose was tried for the tavern robbery and conspiracy.
- At trial, the Commonwealth called the service-station attendant, who testified not only about the presentation of the Texaco card but also about the subsequent armed robbery of the service station.
- Foose objected that testimony about the separate service-station robbery was impermissible “other crimes” evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether testimony describing Foose’s alleged participation in a later, separate service-station robbery was admissible under exceptions to Pennsylvania’s rule barring other-crimes evidence (e.g., common plan or identity) in a trial for an earlier tavern robbery.
2. Whether any probative value of the service-station-robbery details was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice from propensity inferences.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the judgment affirming Foose’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that admitting testimony about the subsequent service-station robbery was prejudicial error.
- The court concluded the service-station robbery did not bear the required logical connection to the tavern robbery to fit within a recognized other-crimes exception.
- The court indicated that possession of the stolen credit card could be relevant, but the narrative details of the later robbery were not necessary and were unduly prejudicial.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of a defendant’s distinct, uncharged crimes is generally inadmissible to prove the charged offense because one offense does not prove another.
- Other-crimes evidence may be admitted only under limited exceptions, including when it tends to prove a common scheme, plan, or design, or establishes identity through a logical connection between the crimes.
- Exceptions are construed narrowly; the proponent must show that proof of one crime naturally tends to prove the other or the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator.
- Even when an exception is asserted, other-crimes evidence may be excluded when its prejudicial effect (including propensity reasoning) outweighs its probative value.

## Conclusion

Because the later service-station robbery was not sufficiently connected to the earlier tavern robbery to prove identity or a common plan, and because its details invited improper propensity inferences, the Supreme Court held the testimony should not have been admitted and ordered a new trial.


Commonwealth v. Foose, 272 A.2d 452 (Pa. 1971)