Com. v. Garrick, K., Com. v. Garrick, K. No. 852 EDA 2016

In May–June 2012, Oris Jeffers reported that Kerium Garrick pulled a gun and fired it in the air while Jeffers was checking on property; police later executed a search warrant and arrested Garrick at the residence.
During arrest, Detective Michael O’Neill testified Garrick looked at Jeffers and, in an intimidating manner, said “Snitch” and “I’ll see you on the street later.”
Commonwealth proceeded at trial only on a terroristic threats charge based on the arrest-time statements; other charges were withdrawn or dismissed.
Garrick was found guilty of terroristic threats after a bench trial and sentenced to five years’ probation.
On appeal Garrick argued (1) the trial court admitted hearsay when O’Neill related Jeffers’ prior out-of-court statements and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove a communicated threat with intent to terrorize.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Garrick)	Held
Admissibility of detective’s testimony recounting Jeffers’ out-of-court statement	Testimony was admissible non-hearsay to explain the detective’s course of conduct and to show Garrick’s motive	Testimony was inadmissible hearsay and improperly used to prove the truth of Jeffers’ allegations	Court: testimony was permissible to explain police conduct and motive; no hearsay error
Sufficiency of evidence for terroristic threats conviction	O’Neill’s testimony that Garrick, while handcuffed and looking at Jeffers, said intimidatingly “Snitch” and “I’ll see you on the street later” supported element of communicated threat with intent to terrorize	The record lacked proof Jeffers actually heard the remarks and statements were mere spur-of-the-moment grumblings without settled intent	Court: evidence sufficient under totality of circumstances; threat could be indirect and jury could infer communication and intent

Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470 (Pa. 2014) (standards for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
Commonwealth v. Woodard, 129 A.3d 480 (Pa. 2015) (evidentiary review principles affirmed)
Commonwealth v. Dent, 837 A.2d 571 (Pa. Super. 2003) (out-of-court statement admissible to explain course of conduct)
Commonwealth v. Puksar, 740 A.2d 219 (Pa. 1999) (out-of-court statements admissible to show motive or ill-will)
Commonwealth v. Beasley, 138 A.3d 39 (Pa. Super. 2016) (elements and review standard for terroristic threats)
Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discussing intent and spur-of-the-moment threats)
In re L.A., 853 A.2d 388 (Pa. Super. 2004) (terroristic threats need not be direct communications)
Commonwealth v. Anneski, 525 A.2d 373 (Pa. Super. 1987) (distinguishing spur-of-the-moment threats; weight vs. sufficiency)