Commonwealth v. Green
76 A.3d 575
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Victim was shot in the head in her apartment on August 9, 2010; a single bullet was recovered from her skull and she died. Terrence Lee (friend) originally identified Harry Green (boyfriend) as the shooter to police but recanted at trial; the trial judge found the pretrial ID credible and the in-court recantation not credible.
- In the hours before the shooting the Victim had argued with Green; Green took her cell phone and was later seen with the phone back in the Victim’s apartment after the shooting. A witness observed Green leaving the scene wearing a white shirt with blood.
- Green was charged with murder (third-degree verdict returned) and carrying a firearm without a license; sentenced to 20–40 years (murder) plus consecutive 18–36 months (firearm). Cases tried non-jury to the court.
- At trial the court admitted: (1) out-of-court statements by the Victim to others that she wanted to leave Green and was afraid of him (admitted under Pa.R.E. 803(3)); (2) testimony about a prior incident where Green pointed a gun at the Victim several months earlier; and (3) testimony by the Victim’s mother about events the day of the shooting and the Victim’s unhappiness in the relationship.
- On appeal Green argued these admissions were erroneous (state-of-mind hearsay misuse, mixed/misleading statements, improper prior-bad-acts evidence, and irrelevant/prejudicial testimony by the Victim’s mother). The Superior Court affirmed, finding some hearsay and some maternal testimony were admitted in error but the errors were harmless; the prior gun-pointing incident was admissible under Rule 404(b)(2) (motive/absence of accident).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Green's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility of Victim’s out-of-court statements under Pa.R.E. 803(3) (state of mind) | Admitted to show Victim’s intent/fear which tends to show motive/relationship context and that Victim acted consistent with those statements | Statements were hearsay not admissible to prove truth; Victim’s state of mind not a material issue under Thornton so statements should be excluded | Majority: Admission under 803(3) was an abuse of discretion (conflict with Thornton) but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; concurrence would have admitted under 803(3) |
| 2. Admission of Victim’s other hearsay that conveyed mixed messages / commentary (Levanduski) | Statements were probative of relationship deterioration and motive | Statements were mixed, non-threatening commentary and inadmissible hearsay under Levanduski | Court treated these as part of same hearsay analysis and concluded admission was erroneous but harmless given overwhelming other evidence |
| 3. Admission of prior gun-pointing incident (prior bad acts) | Relevant to motive, intent, and to show lack of accident; completes history of the relationship | Prior act was prejudicial character evidence and not part of same transaction — should be excluded | Court: Not res gestae, but admissible under Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2) to show motive and absence of accident; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| 4. Admission of Victim’s mother’s testimony about Victim’s unhappiness and timeline | Testimony established cell-phone chain of custody/timing and context; some testimony was relevant | Mother’s statements about Victim’s unhappiness were irrelevant and prejudicial sympathy evidence | Court: Some maternal testimony was irrelevant and should not have been admitted, but any error was harmless (cumulative evidence, bench trial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Thornton, 431 A.2d 248 (Pa. 1981) (victim’s out-of-court statements inadmissible under state-of-mind exception when offered to prove defendant’s intent)
- Commonwealth v. Sneeringer, 668 A.2d 1167 (Pa. Super. 1995) (victim’s intent to end relationship admissible as probative of motive)
- Commonwealth v. Levanduski, 907 A.2d 3 (Pa. Super. 2006) (distinguishes Thornton and Sneeringer; excludes mixed, conjectural victim letters as weak probative value)
- Commonwealth v. Laich, 777 A.2d 1057 (Pa. 2001) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 956 A.2d 406 (Pa. 2008) (Rule 404(b) framework and permissible non-propensity uses of prior-bad-acts evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Lark, 543 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1988) (res gestae / "complete story" rationale for admitting other-act evidence when interwoven in same transaction)