Commonwealth v. Parker
104 A.3d 17
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Victim Chauncy Miller called his grandmother shortly before he was found fatally shot; during the call he (in questions) denied taking anything and asked her to tell "Bey." Grandmother testified to the content and demeanor of that call.
- Anthony Hyman witnessed the shooting and gave a prior statement identifying Parker as the shooter but recanted at trial; his prior written/photo-array statement was admitted into evidence and sent back with the jury.
- A detective testified that photographs used in photo arrays were taken from a police database; defense argued this implied prior criminal convictions.
- Detective Cahill testified about hallway conversations bearing on Hyman’s motivation; defense objected below on relevance but did not preserve a hearsay-specific objection.
- Trial resulted in convictions on murder and firearm charges and life without parole; Parker appealed raising five evidentiary and jury-charge issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Parker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether Victim’s out-of-court questions to his grandmother were hearsay | Questions are non‑assertive and not hearsay; testimony admissible to show demeanor/state of mind | The questions contained implied assertions (denying theft, referencing "Bey") and were hearsay | Court: A question can be a statement if it contains an implied assertion; here it did, but admission was nonetheless proper under the state‑of‑mind exception (Pa.R.E. 803(3)) |
| 2) Whether prior inconsistent statement/photo array (Hyman) should have been sent back with the jury | Exhibit admitted substantively; sending it back assisted deliberations | Sending an impeaching statement back is prejudicial (Russell) | Court: Exhibit was admitted substantively and sending it back was within discretion; no abuse of discretion |
| 3) Whether detective’s reference to a police database warranted mistrial | Database reference innocuous; does not imply conviction | Reference implied prior criminal history and unfairly prejudiced jury | Court: No mistrial; reasonable jurors would not infer a prior conviction from a police database reference (Brown/Young) |
| 4) Whether hallway testimony about Hyman’s motive was inadmissible double hearsay | Testimony was relevant to Hyman’s motivation and admissible | Testimony constituted inadmissible double hearsay | Court: Issue waived—defense objected on relevance, not hearsay; no preserved hearsay objection |
| 5) Whether flight jury instruction was improper | Flight charge was appropriate given evidence and trial court discretion | Record lacked evidence of flight; instruction prejudicial | Court: Issue waived—defense failed to preserve specific objection after charge |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Kentucky, 384 S.W.3d 117 (Ky. 2012) (adopting rule that questions containing implied assertions may be hearsay)
- Commonwealth v. Puksar, 740 A.2d 219 (Pa. 1999) (victim’s out‑of‑court statements admissible under state‑of‑mind to show motive)
- Commonwealth v. Russell, 322 A.2d 127 (Pa. 1974) (prior inconsistent statement admitted solely for impeachment should not be sent back with jury)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 512 A.2d 596 (Pa. 1986) (police possession of a photo does not necessarily imply prior conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 849 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2004) (photo‑database testimony referencing "contact with the police" does not reasonably imply prior criminal conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Causey, 833 A.2d 165 (Pa. Super. 2003) (prosecution witness’ prior statement admitted as exhibit may be sent out with jury)
- Commonwealth v. Riggins, 386 A.2d 520 (Pa. 1978) (victim’s recorded statement admitted and sent to jury was not reversible error when properly admitted)
- Barnett v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 176 (Pa. Super. 2012) (courts rarely find materials given to juries during deliberations reversible error)