Com. v. Lehman, P.
275 A.3d 513
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background
- On November 22, 2018, 19-year-old Deontaye Hurling was found fatally stabbed in a Johnstown duplex; autopsy showed 45–46 stab wounds and death by exsanguination and bilateral pneumothorax.
- Paul Lehman was arrested after admitting to police he killed Hurling, later testifying at trial that he acted in self-defense because Hurling reached for a gun.
- Lehman sought pretrial admission of four YouTube rap videos performed by the victim (violent lyrics and firearms imagery); the trial court excluded them as unauthenticated and of limited probative value.
- The Commonwealth admitted a post-incident text Lehman sent to Attorney Knepper in which Lehman described stabbing Hurling; Lehman argued the text was protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- At trial the Commonwealth impeached Lehman with prior false testimony he gave at a status conference (about how he got a black eye); Lehman argued this was improper prior bad-act evidence under Rule 404(b).
- Lehman was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life without parole; he appealed only the three evidentiary rulings above; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of victim's rap videos | Videos show victim's violent propensity and corroborate Lehman's reasonable fear/self-defense claim | Videos lack authentication, are likely fictional/exaggerated artistic expression, and are of low probative value under Rule 403 | Affirmed exclusion: no showing Lehman knew videos pre-incident and lyrics were not shown to be autobiographical or closely tied to real events |
| Admissibility of Lehman's text to Attorney Knepper (attorney-client privilege) | Text was a privileged attorney-client communication and inadmissible | No evidence Lehman sought legal advice or had a client relationship with Knepper; text was not sent in context of obtaining legal services | Affirmed admission: privilege elements not met; alternatively, any error was harmless because text was cumulative of other admissions and corroborated self-defense claim |
| Use of prior false status-conference testimony on cross-examination (Rule 404(b)) | Commonwealth improperly elicited prior bad-act evidence without 404(b) notice; barred as evidence of character/action in conformity | Questioning was impeachment of credibility under Rule 607; objection at trial did not invoke Rule 404(b) or preserve that theory for appeal | Affirmed: claim waived for inadequate trial objection and deficient Rule 1925(b) statement; impeachment was permissible and issue not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 28 A.3d 868 (Pa. 2011) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Christine, 125 A.3d 394 (Pa. 2015) (Rule 401/403 balancing and admissibility of prior-act evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Amos, 284 A.2d 748 (Pa. 1971) (admissibility of victim conviction records for self-defense and aggressor proof)
- Commonwealth v. Darby, 373 A.2d 1073 (Pa. 1977) (limitations on using arrest records to prove aggressor status)
- Commonwealth v. Dillon, 598 A.2d 963 (Pa. 1991) (eyewitness testimony of victim's violent tendencies admissible to show reasonableness of fear)
- Commonwealth v. Knox, 190 A.3d 1146 (Pa. 2018) (rap lyrics can be admitted where lyrics are highly personalized and tied to real acts/victims)
- Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536 (Pa. Super. 2015) (rap lyrics admissible when they reference specific real-world details of the charged offense)
- Commonwealth v. Mrozek, 657 A.2d 997 (Pa. Super. 1995) (elements required to invoke attorney-client privilege; privilege can attach when person seeks to become a client)
- Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 738 A.2d 406 (Pa. 1999) (discussion of attorney-client privilege policy)
- Commonwealth v. Flor, 136 A.3d 150 (Pa. 2016) (codified attorney-client privilege principles under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5916)
- In re Interest of J.M.G., 229 A.3d 571 (Pa. 2020) (harmless-error inapplicable to certain psychotherapist-patient privilege breaches; Court limited to Act 21 context)
- Commonwealth v. Reese, 31 A.3d 708 (Pa. Super. 2011) (harmless-error doctrine and when an erroneous admission is cumulative)