Commonwealth v. Hilliard
172 A.3d 5
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Victim Anthony Baltimore was shot nine times on August 22, 2015 and taken to the hospital in life-threatening condition; at the hospital he told Detective Fallert that Giante Hilliard shot him.
- Hilliard was also treated at the same hospital that day for a gunshot wound to his hand; Detective Fallert spoke with Hilliard after giving Miranda warnings.
- Commonwealth charged Hilliard with Attempted Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Carrying a Firearm Without a License; one firearm count was later dismissed.
- At the preliminary hearing Baltimore testified he did not see who shot him and did not recall what he told officers; Detective Fallert testified about Baltimore’s hospital identification of Hilliard, which the court admitted as an excited utterance.
- After the preliminary hearing, Hilliard filed a habeas petition arguing (1) Baltimore’s hospital statement was inadmissible hearsay/testimonial and (2) the Commonwealth therefore failed to establish a prima facie case; the trial court granted the habeas petition and dismissed all charges.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the Superior Court reversed, holding the trial court improperly disregarded evidence admitted at the preliminary hearing and misapplied the prima facie standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in granting habeas and dismissing charges for lack of prima facie case | Commonwealth: the court must consider all evidence admitted at the preliminary hearing (including hearsay admitted by the hearing judge) and view it in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth | Hilliard: Baltimore’s hospital statement was unreliable / testimonial; trial court properly reconsidered admissibility and found no prima facie case | Reversed: trial court erred by excluding evidence admitted at the preliminary hearing and by weighing credibility; Commonwealth met prima facie burden |
| Whether hearsay admitted at preliminary hearing should be considered in prima facie determination | Commonwealth: Pa.R.Crim.P. 542 allows hearsay to establish elements at preliminary hearings and such evidence must be considered | Hilliard: the statement was potentially inadmissible and testimonial, undermining its use to establish identity | Held: reviewing court must consider evidence actually received at preliminary hearing; any admissibility challenges do not justify disregarding that evidence for prima facie review |
| Whether conflicts in testimony required dismissal at preliminary stage | Commonwealth: credibility/weight issues are for the factfinder at trial, not for preliminary hearing or habeas | Hilliard: inconsistencies (victim denying identification) defeated prima facie proof of identity | Held: inconsistencies go to weight/credibility and cannot support habeas dismissal when prima facie evidence exists |
| Whether the trial court could reassess prior evidentiary rulings on habeas | Commonwealth: habeas scope is narrow and should not permit de novo reassessment that nullifies Commonwealth’s ability to try the case | Hilliard: trial court may examine admissibility and Confrontation Clause issues before trial | Held: trial court exceeded scope by effectively reweighing and ignoring evidence admitted at the preliminary hearing; reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Santos, 876 A.2d 360 (Pa. 2005) (standard for appellate review of habeas grant after preliminary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Weigle, 997 A.2d 306 (Pa. 2010) (preliminary hearing purpose and prima facie standard)
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 867 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 2005) (review considers all evidence actually received at trial/hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Landis, 48 A.3d 432 (Pa. Super. 2012) (weight and credibility not considered at preliminary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Randolph, 873 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 2005) (use of deadly weapon on vital part permits inference of intent to kill)
- Commonwealth v. Keller, 823 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Super. 2003) (criticizing habeas grants that disregard evidence admissible at preliminary hearing)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause framework for testimonial hearsay)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirements for custodial warnings)