Commonwealth v. Fransen
42 A.3d 1100
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Fransen was convicted by jury of first-degree murder, accomplice criminal homicide, and conspiracy to commit criminal homicide; sentenced to life imprisonment; appeal filed nunc pro tunc.
- Victim found shot multiple times in East Stroudsburg on Nov. 27, 2002; Levanduski (co-defendant) implicated by victim’s statements and letters.
- DNA hair evidence linked beard hair to Fransen.
- Co-defendant Levanduski’s statements to Detective Miller were admitted with limitations to avoid Bruton issues; trial court allowed testimony about Levanduski’s involvement but not direct statements about Fransen.
- Extensive letters between Fransen and Levanduski were admitted; victim’s letter was challenged as hearsay and later found inadmissible for truth but deemed harmless error; substantial independent evidence supported conspiracy.
- Post-trial procedural history includes multiple Rule 1925 proceedings, Grazier hearings, nunc pro tunc appeals, and a PCRA petition; majority affirmed judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bruton violation from Detective Miller's testimony | Fransen argues Bruton error from Levandu(s) statements. | Levanduski statements implicated co-defendant, should have been redacted. | No Bruton violation; court limited testimony to Levanduski’s involvement. |
| Admission of victim’s letter as hearsay | Letter was critical to motive/relationship evidence. | Letter contains hearsay without exceptions. | Letter admitted but ruled harmless error. |
| Redirect questioning about missing pistol | Wolbert testimony about pistol ownership was improper hearsay. | Defense opened the door; redirect proper. | Not error; questioning within scope and door opened by defense. |
| Sequestration of Jackie Sandt | Sandt’s testimony following Barletto’s testimony violated sequestration. | No sequestration order; no objection shown. | Waived for lack of preservation/record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (co-defendant statement in joint trial must be redacted or curbed to protect cross-exam rights)
- Commonwealth v. Levanduski, 907 A.2d 3 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc; letter hearsay analysis applicable to appellant)
- Commonwealth v. Priest, 18 A.3d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2011) (hearsay rule guidance and exceptions)
- Commonwealth v. Moore, 594 Pa. 619, 937 A.2d 1062 (2007) (harmless error standard for evidentiary error)
- Commonwealth v. Parker, 591 Pa. 526, 919 A.2d 943 (2007) (affirming judgment on record; harmless error considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Marinetti, 547 Pa. 294, 690 A.2d 203 (1997) (harmless error analysis applied to confrontation-type error)