Com. v. Wells, J.
1237 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- On Oct. 4, 2015 a 911 caller (Brenda Newby) reported seeing a black male draw a firearm; she described clothing (blue checkerboard shirt and hat, blue jeans).
- Erie police located a person matching that description (John Dewayne Wells) minutes later; Officer Smith attempted contact and Wells fled on foot.
- Officers chased, tackled, and subdued Wells after he attempted to enter a residence; a scuffle ensued during arrest.
- During the struggle officers observed a firearm fall from Wells and seized it; controlled substances were also found on his person.
- Wells was convicted by jury of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and resisting arrest and sentenced to 3–6 years; defense counsel filed an Anders brief and petitioned to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 911 recording as substantive evidence under present-sense impression hearsay exception | Commonwealth: 911 caller’s contemporaneous description is admissible as a present-sense impression and was corroborated by police arriving minutes later and finding a person matching the description | Wells: (challenged via Anders brief as frivolous) argued trial court erred in admitting the 911 call (implied hearsay challenge) | Trial court properly admitted the 911 call under the present-sense impression exception; corroboration requirement satisfied; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (requirements for Anders/Santiago briefs on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Blauser, 166 A.3d 428 (Pa. Super. 2017) (procedural review before granting counsel withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590 (Pa. Super. 2010) (summarizing Santiago substantive brief requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Hood, 872 A.2d 175 (Pa. Super. 2005) (discussing present-sense impression and corroboration for 911 calls)
- Commonwealth v. Coleman, 326 A.2d 387 (Pa. 1974) (explaining reliability basis for present-sense impressions)
- Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 859 A.2d 1254 (Pa. 2004) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246 (Pa. Super. 2015) (independent review for additional non-frivolous issues on Anders appeals)
- People v. Brown, 610 N.E.2d 369 (N.Y. 1993) (supporting corroboration where officers arrived shortly after 911 call and found suspects matching description)