Com. v. Bynum, M.
Com. v. Bynum, M. No. 949 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.May 16, 2017Background
- A PFA (protection from abuse) order protected Michelle Melendez from Mickell Bynum; the PFA named Melendez and Bynum.
- On April 19, 2016, Melendez called 911 from a barbershop/nearby street reporting Bynum had pulled her into the barbershop, taken her shoes, left, then returned; the 1:42 call includes Melendez identifying herself and Bynum and shouting at him.
- Police arrived after the call, found Melendez upset and shaking, and later arrested Bynum after a foot chase and contact by officers.
- Melendez did not appear at the indirect criminal contempt (ICC) hearing; no documentation was offered explaining her absence.
- At the non-jury ICC trial the trial court admitted the 911 recording and convicted Bynum of violating the PFA; he was sentenced to 3 months’ incarceration and 3 months’ probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Confrontation Clause of 911 call | Commonwealth: call was nontestimonial emergency request for help, admissible without Melendez testifying | Bynum: statements were testimonial; admission violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation right | Court held call was nontestimonial under Davis; admission did not violate Confrontation Clause |
| Sufficiency/authentication of evidence that caller was Melendez and contact occurred | Commonwealth: 911 recording plus officer testimony that caller/currently located person was Melendez and PFA exists sufficed circumstantially | Bynum: Commonwealth failed to authenticate the caller as Melendez, so no proof of contact in violation of PFA | Court held circumstantial evidence (caller ID in recording, officer verification at scene, confirmation of PFA) was sufficient to prove identity and support ICC conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (nontestimonial 911 calls when primary purpose is to obtain emergency assistance)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements absent witness unavailability and prior cross-examination)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 868 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (trial court discretion on admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 989 A.2d 920 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (discussion of appellate review for evidentiary rulings)