(dissenting).
The law is clear that as a general rule the prosecution cannot introduce evidence of prior criminal conduct for which the accused is not on trial in order to prove the charge being tried. Commonwealth v. Groce, 452 Pa. 15, 203 A.2d 917 (1973); Commonwealth v. Allen, 448 Pa. 177, 292 A.2d 373 (1972); Commonwealth v. Foose, 441 Pa. 173, 272 A.2d 452 (1971). Certain limited exceptions to this general rule have been recognized. Commonwealth v. Wable, 382 Pa. 80, 114 A.2d 334 (1955); Commonwealth v. Strantz, 328 Pa. 33, 195 A. 75 (1937); Commonwealth v. Chalfa, 313 Pa. 175, 169 A. 564 (1933).
The majority opinion states that a common design may be found in the burglaries testified to by the prosecution’s witnesses because the circumstances surrounding those burglaries “were so very close in nature and in time as to bring [them] within the above exception,” and because each was “masterminded” by appellant. This argument has no merit in this case.
The three witnesses for the prosecution did not indicate that there was anything unique in the kind of property sought to be obtained. Nor was there any evidence that the modus operandi of the other alleged burglaries was unique or identical to the burglary and robbery of the Washick home, or to each other. In fact, one of these witnesses testified that the prior burglaries were *612not even planned, but that the homes were just “picked out.” Another testified that some of these prior burglaries were done at night while others were done during daylight hours. Another testified that on the prior burglaries it was the appellant who went into the houses, some of which were in Philadelphia and some of which were in New Jersey. This witness also testified that some of the burglaries were planned by appellant while others were planned by “Bill.” Moreover, none of the men involved in the Washick robbery were involved in any of the other home burglaries, and although the three witnesses for the prosecution testified that they participated with the appellant in other home burglaries, none of these three witnesses participated in the robbery of the Washick home.
The testimony of the three witnesses established only that the appellant was involved in other home burglaries in which his rental car was used. The majority’s interpretation of this exception emasculates the general rule prohibiting introduction of evidence of prior criminal conduct. See Commonwealth v. Foose, supra. “The presumed effect of such evidence [of prior criminal conduct] is to predispose the minds of the jurors to believe the accused guilty, and thus effectually to strip him of the presumption of innocence.” Commonwealth v. Groce, 452 Pa. 15, 19, 303 A.2d 917, 919 (1973). Evidence of prior criminal conduct “should be received with the utmost caution.” Commonwealth v. Chalfa, 313 Pa. 175, 177, 169 A. 564, 565 (1933). It was error to permit the prosecution witnesses to testify about appellant’s alleged prior criminal conduct. Such error cannot be harmless. Commonwealth v. Harkins, 459 Pa. 196, 328 A.2d 156 (1974), Commonwealth v. Allen, 448 Pa. 177, 292 A.2d 373 (1972), Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 87 S.Ct. 824 (1967).
Judgment of sentence should be reversed and a new trial granted.