Com. v. Kimmel, G., Com. v. Kimmel, G. No. 1515 MDA 2016

On Aug. 5, 2015, Cecil Barnhart robbed a bank in State College; a dye pack exploded and Barnhart fled into a blue sedan later linked to Gregory Kimmel.
Police found dye-stained currency in the back seat of the blue sedan, which was registered to Kimmel; surveillance identified Barnhart and Kimmel at a nearby hoagie shop the robbery day.
Barnhart pled guilty and invoked his Fifth Amendment right (did not testify) before Kimmel’s September 2016 trial; Barnhart had implicated Kimmel to police according to investigators and statements.
The Commonwealth sought to introduce seven short, edited excerpts (total <2.5 minutes) from Kimmel’s recorded prison phone calls during its case-in-chief, arguing they were statements against interest and showed consciousness of guilt.
Kimmel objected (hearsay, misleading/context), asked the Commonwealth to play entire calls; prosecution declined claiming Bruton concerns and the trial court conducted an in-camera review.
The trial court excluded the edited excerpts as misleading, not constituting admissions or consciousness of guilt, and largely irrelevant or more prejudicial than probative; the tapes could be used for impeachment if Kimmel testified. The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding edited excerpts of Kimmel’s prison calls	Edited excerpts show inconsistent/inculpatory statements and consciousness of guilt; admissible as statements against interest and relevant	Excerpts are hearsay, misleading when taken out of context; entire calls needed under Pa.R.E. 106; excerpts would unfairly prejudice and improperly impeach before testimony	Court affirmed exclusion: in-context review showed statements did not amount to admissions or consciousness of guilt; excerpts misleading, largely irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial; can be used to impeach if defendant testifies

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 193 (prohibits use of non-testifying codefendant’s confession that incriminates co-defendant at joint trial)
Commonwealth v. Robins, 812 A.2d 514 (Pa. 2002) (explains Bruton rule and its scope)
Commonwealth v. Kinard, 95 A.3d 279 (Pa. Super. 2014) (relevance/probativeness standard for evidence)
Commonwealth v. Washington, 63 A.3d 797 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
Commonwealth v. Martinez, 917 A.2d 856 (Pa. Super. 2007) (abuse of discretion definition)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 896 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2006) (definition of relevance under Pa.R.E. 402)
Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Pa.R.E. 106 prevents misleading partial writings/recordings)
Commonwealth v. Bryant, 57 A.3d 191 (Pa. Super. 2012) (admissibility depends on relevance and probative value)