172 A.3d 1
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On May 5, 2015 Mary McGinley reported that Keith Lamont Berry struck her in his residence and took her cell phone; officers observed injuries and blood on the victim.
- Officers later went to Berry’s home, saw droplets on the tile near a mop and bucket that appeared to be blood, photographed them, and left; Berry was subsequently found hiding and arrested.
- Berry was charged with robbery, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, and two counts of simple assault; a jury convicted him on all counts.
- The day before trial Berry filed a motion in limine to exclude any testimony identifying the substance on his floor as blood because it was not chemically tested; the trial court denied the motion.
- At trial two officers testified that the droplets appeared to be blood; photographs of the droplets were admitted and Berry extensively cross-examined the officers about lack of testing.
- The trial court instructed the jury on credibility and weighing evidence; Berry appealed only the denial of the motion in limine. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Berry's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lay witnesses could testify the droplets were blood without lab testing | Officers’ statements were improper definitive assertions that the substance "was" blood and required chemical proof | Lay opinion that a stain "appeared to be" blood is admissible under Pa.R.E. 701; photographs and testimony permitted jury to weigh it | Affirmed: lay witnesses may testify the substance appeared to be blood; admission not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 410 A.2d 880 (Pa. Super. 1979) (lay witness may testify a stain appeared to be blood)
- Commonwealth v. Glover, 401 A.2d 779 (Pa. Super. 1979) (no chemical analysis required for lay testimony that substance appeared to be blood)
- Commonwealth v. Schroth, 388 A.2d 1034 (Pa. 1978) (permitting representation of a stain as blood where witness testimony supported it)
- Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002) (standards for relevance under Pa.R.E. 401)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594 (Pa. 2008) (relevance as threshold for admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Huggins, 68 A.3d 962 (Pa. Super. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2015) (same)