Com. v. Torres, J.
3018 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 2, 2017Background
- On April 6, 2014, James Torres was arrested after a physical altercation on West Erie Avenue; police charged him with aggravated assault (for punching Officer Carter) and related offenses.
- Two civilians (Angel Leon and his son) approached responding officers and told them Torres had jumped on their car, punched the father, and tried to pull the son from the vehicle.
- Torres moved in limine to preclude Officers Carter and Wolk from testifying to the Leons’ out-of-court statements; the court denied the motion.
- At trial Officer Carter testified about the Leons’ excited, emotional statements; the jury convicted Torres of aggravated assault.
- On appeal Torres argued (1) the testimony was impermissible other‑acts evidence under Pa.R.E. 404(b); (2) inadmissible hearsay; (3) violated the Confrontation Clause as testimonial; and (4) unfairly prejudicial under Pa.R.E. 403.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the statements were part of the natural development of events, admissible as excited utterances, non‑testimonial, and not unduly prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission as other crimes/404(b) | Testimony impermissibly introduced other crimes/wrongs to show propensity | Statements were part of the history/natural development of the incident and therefore admissible | Evidence was part of the natural development of facts; admission did not violate 404(b) |
| Hearsay (excited utterance) | Leons’ out‑of‑court statements were hearsay with no exception | Statements qualified as excited utterances under Pa.R.E. 803(2) given timing and demeanor | Court held statements admissible as excited utterances |
| Confrontation Clause (testimonial) | Statements were testimonial and admission deprived Torres of the right to confront witnesses | Statements were non‑testimonial because made to police during an ongoing emergency; officers testified so cross‑examination occurred | Statements were non‑testimonial; no Crawford violation |
| Rule 403 prejudice | Probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice and should be excluded | Probative value (explaining why police arrived and what happened) outweighed potential prejudice | Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence not unduly prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. May, 540 Pa. 237, 656 A.2d 1335 (Pa. 1995) (standard of review for admissibility and Rule 403 analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2015) (other‑acts evidence admissibility principles)
- Commonwealth v. Collins, 550 Pa. 46, 703 A.2d 418 (Pa. 1997) (other crimes evidence may be part of the history and natural development of the facts)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 623 Pa. 506, 83 A.3d 137 (Pa. 2013) (definition and timing requirements for excited utterance)
- Commonwealth v. Keys, 814 A.2d 1256 (Pa. Super. 2003) (factors for evaluating excited utterance: witness presence, time lapse, narrative form, opportunity to speak to others)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 624 Pa. 183, 84 A.3d 680 (Pa. 2014) (testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements and ongoing emergency inquiry under Crawford)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 518 Pa. 290, 543 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1988) (relevance of unpleasant facts that form part of the natural development of events)
- Commonwealth v. Page, 965 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2009) (explanation of unfair prejudice under Rule 403)