Com. v. Douris, J.
Com. v. Douris, J. No. 998 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- James G. Douris sued Becker Tree Service in magisterial court claiming $5,000 in damages for alleged defective tree work; he presented "proposals"/invoices allegedly from his son‑in‑law, Joseph Connolly, to support $2,000 paid to Becker and $3,000 in repair costs.
- At the magisterial hearing (Nov. 17, 2011) Douris gave sworn testimony and produced the proposals, which lacked contact information and dates; the magistrate ruled for Becker.
- Douris was later tried in Common Pleas (Oct. 2015) and convicted by a jury of perjury, multiple forgery counts, tampering/fabricating physical evidence, and false swearing; sentenced to 30 days to 23 months’ incarceration plus 3 years probation.
- Key factual dispute: Connolly testified he worked for Douris on some projects but denied preparing or recognizing the proposals; Detective Haines testified that Connolly told her he did not prepare the proposals and that he did not do most of the work listed.
- Douris appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence (effectively a weight challenge) that the proposals were falsified by him, and (2) improper admission of Detective Haines’s testimony recounting Connolly’s statements because Connolly was not confronted with those statements at trial.
- The Superior Court reviewed the record, found Douris waived any weight claim for failing to preserve it, and held Detective Haines’s testimony was admissible because it was not offered to prove the truth of the underlying work but to show Connolly disclaimed authorship of the documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/weight of the evidence that Douris prepared falsified proposals | Douris argued witness testimony and documentary inconsistencies show someone else likely prepared the proposals (challenges credibility of prosecution witnesses) | Commonwealth argued evidence supported convictions; credibility and weight determinations for jury | Court treated argument as a weight challenge, found Douris waived preservation requirements and therefore did not reach merits; convictions affirmed |
| Admissibility of Detective Haines’s testimony recounting Connolly’s statements about the proposals | Douris argued the detective’s testimony was hearsay and prejudicial because Connolly was not confronted with the statements at trial | Commonwealth argued the detective’s testimony was not offered to prove the truth of the documentary assertions but to show Connolly disclaimed authorship, so not hearsay | Court held the testimony was not hearsay under Pa.R.E. 803(c) because its purpose was to show lack of authorship, not to prove the truth of the proposals’ contents; admission not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2008) (credibility disputes are weight issues, not sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 825 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2003) (sufficiency review does not include credibility assessments)
- Commonwealth v. Gaskins, 692 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 1997) (fact‑finder resolves credibility; weight claims challenge that resolution)
- Commonwealth v. Dehart, 730 A.2d 991 (Pa. Super. 1999) (appellant’s duty to provide complete certified record for review)
- Commonwealth v. Johns, 812 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2002) (claims relying on omitted record materials are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Lassen, 659 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 1995) (incomplete record results in waiver of claims)
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 867 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 2005) (hearsay defined and inadmissible except as allowed by rules; trial court discretion reviewed for abuse)