Commonwealth v. Brown
185 A.3d 316
| Pa. | 2018Background
- On Dec. 9, 2012 Darnell Brown shot Cory Morton multiple times; Morton died. Dr. Marlon Osbourne performed an autopsy and prepared a report concluding cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds and manner homicide.
- At trial Osbourne was unavailable and did not testify; the Commonwealth admitted his autopsy report into evidence and called Dr. Albert Chu (who did not perform the autopsy) to testify after reviewing Osbourne’s report and autopsy photos.
- Defense objected under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause (citing Bullcoming/Melendez‑Diaz); trial court overruled. The jury convicted Brown of third‑degree murder; sentence 25–50 years.
- The Superior Court held the autopsy report was testimonial and admission without Osbourne’s testimony violated Confrontation Clause, but deemed the error harmless because cause of death was not seriously disputed; affirmed on other grounds.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and held the autopsy report was testimonial and its admission without Osbourne’s testimony was error, but the error was harmless because Dr. Chu presented an independent opinion based in part on admissible autopsy photographs and thus the jury had adequate evidence of cause of death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth/Brown) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether autopsy reports are testimonial | Commonwealth: most autopsy reports are non‑testimonial because they are created for statutory, public‑health, and investigative purposes, not primarily for use at trial | Brown: statutory scheme requires autopsies for suspicious deaths and reports are prepared to determine whether death resulted from criminal acts, so they are testimonial | Autopsy report was testimonial under primary‑purpose test (Crawford/Melendez‑Diaz/Bullcoming/Yohe) |
| Whether admission of a testimonial autopsy report without author’s testimony violates Confrontation Clause | Commonwealth: expert (Dr. Chu) could rely on report and photos; expert testimony satisfied confrontation requirements | Brown: surrogate expert’s reliance on a testimonial report (without author on the stand) violates Melendez‑Diaz/Bullcoming; Rule 703 cannot salvage testimonial hearsay | Admission of testimonial autopsy report without author’s testimony was constitutional error |
| Whether an expert who did not perform autopsy may give independent opinion based partly on the autopsy report | Commonwealth: permitted; experts may rely on facts/data (Pa.R.E. 703/705); Chu formed independent opinion after reviewing photos and report | Brown: if expert merely parrots non‑testifying author’s conclusions or bases opinion chiefly on testimonial report, Confrontation Clause is violated | Dr. Chu’s independent opinion (based on photos and his review) did not violate Confrontation Clause as to his independent conclusions; but any testimony relaying Osbourne’s opinions was improper |
| Whether the Confrontation error was harmless | Commonwealth: error harmless because cause of death was not seriously contested and Chu’s testimony and other evidence proved cause of death | Brown: error prejudicial because testimonial report and its contents were admitted without cross‑examination | Error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt: autopsy report was cumulative of Dr. Chu’s independent opinion and other testimony; no reasonable possibility it contributed to verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements inadmissible absent prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (forensic certificates are testimonial; author must testify)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (surrogate testimony insufficient to admit testimonial forensic report)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (fractured decision on when expert use of lab reports implicates Confrontation Clause)
- Commonwealth v. Yohe, 621 Pa. 527 (state precedent applying Confrontation Clause to forensic reports)