tement given by third party, in part to explain why police did not arrest and charge third party, after defense counsel cross-examined police officer on that topic); Commonwealth v. Collazo, 654 A.2d 1174 (Pa.Super. 1995) (allowing police testimony that informant gave agreed-upon signal of consummated drug deal to explain why police moved in to apprehend and arrest appellant, where police officer testified from personal knowledge and observation and court gave cautionary instruction to jury); Commonwealth v. Carelli, 546 A.2d 1185 (Pa.Super. 1988), appealdenied, 521 Pa. 609, 557 A.2d 341 (1989) (allowing testimony regarding police radio report announcing theft and content of anonymous tip, and statement of appellant's wife that appellant was in garage, as part of police investigation); Underwood, supra (allowing police officer to testify to exclamations of others that appellant had just robbed someone, because exclamations used solely to explain why police officer arrested appellant); Commonwealth v. Matthews, 460 A.2d 362 (Pa.Super. 1983) (permitting police officer's testimony on information received from confidential informant as to location of stolen items because it explained why police officers investigated reported location); Commonwealth v. Lewis, 460 A.2d 1149 (Pa.Super. 1983) (allowing victim's testimony on remarks by a third person because information contained therein explained events and course of conduct that preceded appellant's arrest and was part of its history). Binder on Pennsylvania Evidence § 8.01 at 407 suggests the admissibility or exclusion of such statements is subject to a Rule 403 analysis.

This Court has repeatedly upheld the introduction of out-of-court statements for the purpose of showing that based on information contained in the statements, the police followed a certain course of conduct that led to the defendant's arrest. Commonwealth v. Matthews, 314 Pa. Super. 38, 460 A.2d 362 (1983) (out-of-court statement that contraband was in certain apartment and that Matthews had put it there); Commonwealth v. Stewart, 304 Pa. Super. 382, 450 A.2d 732 (1982) (contents of phone call to police from residence where victim's body discovered; defendant found leaving premises); Commonwealth v.Ryan, supra [ 253 Pa. Super. 92, 384 A.2d 1243 (1978)] (plurality opinion) (police radio calls referring to unrelated holdups); Commonwealth v. Smith, 250 Pa. Super. 436, 378 A.2d 1015 (1977) (allocatur refused), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 835, 99 S.Ct. 118, 58 L.Ed.2d 131 (1978) (declarant told officer he could place bets by calling defendant's telephone number); Commonwealth v. Tselepis, 198 Pa. Super. 449, 181 A.2d 710 (1962) (allocatur denied) (informant tip that defendant was conducting a lottery); see alsoCommonwealth v. Sampson, 454 Pa. 215, 311 A.2d 624 (1973) (alleged co-conspirator's denial of involvement offered to show why police did not arrest him); [ Commonwealth v. Lewis, supra,

Commonwealth v. Galloway, id., 302 Pa.Super. at 154, 448 A.2d at 573 (quoting Commonwealth v. Terrell, 234 Pa. Super. 325, 328, 339 A.2d 112, 114 (1975). Seealso, Commonwealth v. Boyd, 315 Pa. Super. 308, 461 A.2d 1294 (1983); Commonwealth v. Matthews, 314 Pa. Super. 38, 460 A.2d 362 (1983).Commonwealth v. Thomas, 328 Pa. Super. 393, 399-400, 477 A.2d 501, 504-05 (1984).

The Commonwealth submits the statements are not hearsay because they were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather, to explain the course of action taken by police. The Commonwealth cites Commonwealth v. Matthews, 314 Pa. Super. 38, 460 A.2d 362, Commonwealth v. Ryan, 253 Pa. Super. 92, 384 A.2d 1243, and Commonwealth v. Tselepis, 198 Pa. Super. 449, 181 A.2d 710 (1962), to support its position. It is true that an out-of-court statement offered to explain a course of conduct is not hearsay. Commonwealth v.Cruz, 489 Pa. 559, 414 A.2d 1032 (1980).

This Court has repeatedly upheld the introduction of out-of-court statements for the purpose of showing that based on information contained in the statements, the police followed a certain course of conduct that led to the defendant's arrest. Commonwealth v. Matthews, 314 Pa. Super. 38, 460 A.2d 362 (1983) (out-of-court statement that contraband was in certain apartment and that Matthews had put it there); Commonwealth v.Stewart, 304 Pa. Super. 382, 450 A.2d 732 (1982) (contents of phone call to police from residence where victim's body discovered; defendant found leaving premises); Commonwealth v.Ryan, supra (plurality opinion) (police radio calls referring to unrelated hold-ups); Commonwealth v. Smith, 250 Pa. Super. 436, 378 A.2d 1015 (1977) (allocatur refused), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 835 (1978) (declarant told officer he could place bets by calling defendant's telephone number); Commonwealth v.Tselepis, 198 Pa. Super. 449, 181 A.2d 710 (1962) (allocatur denied) (informant tip that defendant was conducting a lottery); see also Commonwealth v. Sampson, 454 Pa. 215, 311 A.2d 624 (1973) (alleged co-conspirator's denial of involvement offered to show why police did not arrest him); Lewis, supra (admission of out-of-court statement that set wheels in motion for defendant's capture); State

Subsequent decisions by this Court have adhered to the Waller rule. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Matthews, 314 Pa. Super. 38 EQD, A.2d 362 (1983); Commonwealth v. Thirkield, 311 Pa. Super. 413 EQD, A.2d 954 (1983). I would hold, therefore, that Williams's prior inconsistent statements were improperly admitted as substantive evidence in the instant case.

Commonwealth v. Galloway, id., 302 Pa.Super. at 154, 448 A.2d at 573 (quoting Commonwealth v. Terrell, 234 Pa. Super. 325, 328, 339 A.2d 112, 114 (1975)). See also, Commonwealth v. Boyd, 315 Pa. Super. 308, 461 A.2d 1294 (1983); Commonwealth v.Matthews, 314 Pa. Super. 38, 460 A.2d 362 (1983). Evidence of other crimes is admissible to prove: (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme, plan or design embracing commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to prove the other; or (5) identity.

Also, we summarily reject appellant's other claim the trial judge relied upon purported inadmissible hearsay by virtue of reference in his opinion to an officer's testimony explaining the officer's course of conduct in responding to a radio call regarding the criminal trespass. See Commonwealth v. Matthews, 314 Pa. Super. 38, 460 A.2d 362 (1983). In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with all inferences flowing therefrom and determine whether the factfinder could have reasonably found all elements of the crime established beyond a reasonable doubt.