Commonwealth v. Allshouse
36 A.3d 163
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Per Supreme Court remand, case reconsiders Confrontation Clause post-Bryant.
- Child A.A. statements to Geist and Dr. Ryen were challenged under TYHA and Crawford framework.
- Geist interview occurred on May 27, 2004; A.A. implicated Appellant in J.A.'s injury.
- Dr. Ryen interview occurred June 8, 2004; statements were also admitted.
- Trial court deemed A.A.'s statements nontestimonial or cumulative, admissible under hearsay.
- Court ultimately affirmed Superior Court, rejecting ex post facto, harmless error, and testimonial-status challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.A.'s statements were testimonial under Crawford and Bryant | Appellant: statements testimonial; Bryant redefines ongoing emergency | Commonwealth: statements non-testimonial under ongoing-emergency framework | A.A.'s Geist statement non-testimonial; Ryen statement harmless error |
| Whether TYHA amendments violate ex post facto clauses | Amended TYHA expands class of admissible statements | Amendment does not change proof required for conviction (Hopt/Thompson) | Amendment not ex post facto; not amounting to less-proof rule |
| Whether admission under TYHA constitutes harmless error | Dr. Ryen testimony was cumulative; error harmless | Admission could prejudice; but argued harmlessness | Harmless error; admission of Ryen statement affirmed as harmless |
| Whether the trial court could rely on Roberts after Bryant | Roberts framework still viable for admissibility | Bryant supersedes Roberts for primary purpose inquiry | Court used Bryant framework; upholding non-testimonial finding and admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (rejected Roberts’s reliability approach; testimonial vs. nontestimonial)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (primary purpose; ongoing emergency test; interrogations)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (redefines ongoing-emergency and primary purpose; mixed-motive analysis)
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1980) (reliability-based admissibility prior to Crawford)
- Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1884) (ex post facto as to rules of evidence not altering offense elements)
- Thompson v. Missouri, 171 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1898) (ex post facto analysis for evidence rules)
- Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513 (U.S. 2000) (amendment to evidence rules considered ex post facto under Calder fourth category)
- Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (U.S. 2007) (retroactivity of Crawford; reliability framework narrowed)