Com. v. Hynson, J., Com. v. Hynson, J. No. 1037 EDA 2016

Background

Jack Hynson was serving a sentence for aggravated assault and PIC, paroled May 27, 2014, and detained as a parole violator at Kintock Parole Violator Center (KPVC).
On December 15, 2014, KPVC supervisor Michael Marrero escorted Hynson to Episcopal Hospital on an approved medical pass.
Upon arrival a paramedic opened the ambulance door and Hynson ran from the ambulance and Marrero; Marrero ordered him to stop and did not give permission to leave custody.
Hynson walked to Temple Hospital, learned by phone he was in "escape status," did not return or turn himself in, and was arrested December 23, 2014.
After a bench trial Hynson was convicted of escape (18 Pa.C.S. § 5121) and sentenced to 11½–23 months plus three years’ probation; he appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence that he was in official detention and (2) Confrontation Clause/hearsay error from admitting a parole placement checklist.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Hynson)	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Hynson was in "official detention" when he left KPVC	KPVC had detained Hynson in the parole-violator unit; a supervisor escorted him to the hospital and told him he could not leave — totality of circumstances show reasonable person not free to leave	Hynson argued parole supervision is excluded from "official detention" and evidence (supervisor’s recall, records) was inconclusive	Court held Hynson was in official detention (parole violator housed in KPVC); evidence sufficient to convict of escape; weight/credibility challenges were waived
Whether admission of the parole placement checklist violated Confrontation Clause/hearsay rules	Checklist is a routine administrative/business record created for placement/treatment, not for prosecution; custodian McClean properly authenticated it under business-records exception	Hynson argued the checklist was testimonial hearsay (notation "absconder") and the preparer did not testify, so admission violated his right to confront witnesses	Court held checklist qualified as a non-testimonial business record; admission did not violate Confrontation Clause
Whether trial court abused discretion by allowing cross-examination beyond direct-examination scope	Cross-examination was proper after Hynson chose to testify; Camm permits wide cross on subjects beyond limited-purpose testimony	Hynson claimed cross exceeded scope of his direct testimony	Court held no abuse; any error would be harmless
Whether reopening Commonwealth’s case and admitting C-1C was abusive or prejudicial	Reopening to cure foundation and admit additional evidence was within the court’s discretion to prevent a miscarriage of justice	Hynson argued reopening and evidence admission prejudiced him	Court held reopening and admission of properly authenticated business record were within discretion and did not violate due process

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 966 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Super. 2009) (parole violators housed in a detention facility are within Section 5121 "official detention")
Commonwealth v. Wegley, 829 A.2d 1148 (Pa. 2003) ("official detention" construed broadly as restraint of liberty to come and go)
Commonwealth v. Santana, 959 A.2d 450 (Pa. Super. 2008) ("official detention" includes detention by show of authority or physical force; reasonable person standard)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial hearsay)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (business/public records generally non‑testimonial and not subject to Confrontation Clause when created for administrative purposes)
In re Indyk's Estate, 413 A.2d 371 (Pa. 1979) (custodian other than original preparer may authenticate business records if witness explains preparation/maintenance)
Commonwealth v. Camm, 277 A.2d 325 (Pa. 1971) (defendant who testifies for a limited purpose may be subject to wide-ranging cross-examination)