Admissibility of Crimen Falsi Evidence

This article addresses how an appellate court decision in a criminal case may have implications in a civil litigation matter.

In the case of Com. v. Gomery, Nos. 2562 EDA 2025 & 2563 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Aug. 27, 2026 Bowes, J., Olson, J. and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court outlined when a criminal conviction qualifies as crimen falsi under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 609.  Under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 609, evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime involving “dishonesty or false statement” may be admitted for purposes of attacking the witness’s credibility.

In its decision in the Gomery case, the Superior Court noted that a prior conviction qualifies as crimen falsi evidence “only if dishonesty or false statement is either: (1) an essential element of the offense; or (2) facilitated its commission.”  The Superior Court further stated that, in determining whether a prior conviction meets this test, “trial courts must address both the elemental aspects of the offense and the conduct of the individual who committed the crime[.]”  Crimen falsi requires an element of deceitfulness, untruthfulness, or falsification bearing on the witness’s propensity to testify truthfully.

In this case, the criminal defendant (Gomery) was charged with attacking another individual (Skowronski) with a machete.  Skowronski, the victim, had a prior criminal history that the defendant Gomery wanted to cross-examine on.  The prior offense at issue was Skowronski’s failure to register as a sex offender in violation of Pennsylvania law.  The trial court denied Gomery’s motion in limine to cross-examine Skowronski on the prior conviction for failing to comply with sex offender registration requirements, ruling that the conviction was not crimen falsi and, therefore, not a proper basis for impeachment.  Gomery was ultimately convicted of aggravated assault, possession of an instrument of crime, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person and appealed challenging the trial court’s ruling barring him from cross-examining Skowronski about his prior conviction.

The appellate court first noted that evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of trial courts.  Ultimately, the appellate court agreed with the trial court, and ruled that, because this particular offense may be committed through omission alone, without any affirmative act of misrepresentation.  The court specifically noted, “A passive failure to act, even when knowing, does not constitute the type of dishonest conduct that crimen falsi encompasses.”  The appellate court further found that because the underlying facts in the case confirmed that the witness/victim (Skowronski) had only engaged in omissive conduct, specifically by failing to update his address, rather than making any false statement to the authorities, the prior conviction was not admissible for impeachment purposes under Rule 609.

In  a current matter we are defending in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, we hope to achieve a different result while applying the same principles regarding what constitutes crimen falsi.  Specifically, we plan to seek admission of a Plaintiff’s prior criminal history in a current Dram Shop matter we are defending.  In that matter, Plaintiff has a history of criminal charges for criminal trespass and mischief.  He pleaded guilty to trespass and received one year of probation.  In Pennsylvania, criminal trespass qualifies as a crimen falsi.  In the vast majority of legal systems, including under the Federal Rules of Evidence 609, criminal trespass is not considered a crimen falsi (a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, which will impact Plaintiff’s credibility).  However, Pennsylvania is a major exception where state courts have explicitly ruled that criminal trespass is an offense in the nature of crimen falsi.  Courts reason that entering a property knowing you lack the license or privilege to do so reflects directly on your personal honesty.  As such, we plan to attack Plaintiff’s credibility, particularly as the facts involved are questionable and our clients offer a different timeline of events, and as Plaintiff’s discovery responses specifically denied any prior criminal convictions.