Commonwealth v. Belknap
105 A.3d 7
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- On Nov. 22, 2012, Officer Robert Barth found Joshua Belknap unconscious, face down, surrounded by bystanders; two people told Barth they believed Belknap had overdosed in their vehicle.
- Barth performed a sternum rub, checked vitals, and recovered a needle with an orange cap from Belknap’s pocket.
- Belknap was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia (35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32)); he waived a jury and proceeded to a bench trial.
- At trial, Barth testified to the bystanders’ out-of-court statements that Belknap had overdosed and had a heroin addiction; defense objected as hearsay.
- The trial court admitted the statements under the medical treatment hearsay exception (Pa.R.E. 803(4)); Belknap was found guilty but given no confinement.
- On appeal, Belknap argued the statements were inadmissible hearsay and unreliable; the Superior Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the statements under Rule 803(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under medical-treatment exception (Pa.R.E. 803(4)) | Commonwealth: statements made to first responder were for/pertinent to medical diagnosis/treatment and therefore admissible | Belknap: statements were hearsay, not made to medical personnel, unreliable and not pertinent to treatment | Admitted: statements to first responder were made to obtain/assist medical treatment and were reasonably pertinent; admission not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 52 A.3d 1139 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review for admissibility is abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 681 A.2d 1288 (Pa. 1996) (discusses scope and reliability considerations for medical-treatment hearsay exception)
- Commonwealth v. Fink, 791 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2002) (statements for medical diagnosis/treatment admissible as substantive evidence)
- Commonwealth v. D.J.A., 800 A.2d 965 (Pa. Super. 2002) (two requirements for Rule 803(4): made for treatment and reasonably pertinent)
- Commonwealth v. Mendez, 74 A.3d 256 (Pa. Super. 2013) (abuse of discretion definition)
- Commonwealth v. Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate review and correcting misapplication of law)