No area of law may be more ­vexing, and more subject to dispute, than the admission or exclusion of “other acts” evidence—often mis-labeled “prior bad acts” evidence—in criminal cases. Evidence of an “act” that only ­conveys the actor's character is inadmissible; but ­evidence with a non-character purpose may be admissible, subject to a balancing test.

In its most recent decision on the ­application of these principles, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ended up with five opinions. That inability to speak in one voice shows discontent about current Rule 404(b) analysis and offers an invitation to future litigants to seek clarification and change.

The case is Commonwealth v. Hicks, No. 718 CAP, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 687 (March 28). Walter Hicks was accused of killing and ­dismembering a female. The autopsy showed evidence of “strangulation and sharp force injury to the neck.” The defense was that death resulted from a drug ­overdose, and all injuries occurred post-mortem when the body was dismembered to avoid discovery.