Commonwealth v. Stays
70 A.3d 1256
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- On June 22, 2008 Nasir Farlow was shot in both legs; eyewitness/victim Ivan Williams initially identified Duane Stays as the shooter to police, signed a written statement, and circled Stays’ photo in a photo array.
- Police used Williams’ statements to obtain a search warrant; officers found Stays in the apartment with a Glock .40 that ballistics matched to a shell casing recovered at the scene.
- At the preliminary hearing Williams recanted his prior identification and disavowed the signed array; defense counsel declined to cross-examine him.
- Williams was murdered between the preliminary hearing and trial; at trial the Commonwealth read Williams’ preliminary hearing testimony and his signed police statement into the record.
- The jury convicted Stays of aggravated assault, carrying a firearm without a license, and possession of an instrument of crime; Stays appealed, raising hearsay/Confrontation Clause, sufficiency, and weight-of-the-evidence claims.
- The Superior Court, on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, affirmed the sentence, holding prior inconsistent statements and former testimony admissible under Pa.R.E. 803.1 and 804(b)(1) and rejecting preserved and unpreserved confrontation and sufficiency/weight challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Williams’ out-of-court statements and signed photo array | Commonwealth: statements are admissible as prior inconsistent statements and former testimony | Stays: statements are hearsay lacking indicia of reliability because declarant is unavailable | Admissible — Rule 803.1 admitted the signed statement/array at the preliminary hearing; Rule 804(b)(1) permitted former testimony at trial after declarant’s death |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of Williams’ statements | Stays: Sixth Amendment bars admission because Williams was unavailable at trial and could not be cross-examined then | Commonwealth: defense had opportunity to cross-examine at preliminary hearing; availability of cross-examination suffices | Not preserved at trial; on the merits, no violation — opportunity to cross-examine at the preliminary hearing satisfied confrontation requirements (Green/Barber/Wholaver) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault and PIC | Stays: no direct physical evidence linking him (only one casing, no testing of blood, victim didn’t testify) | Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence (ballistics match, Williams’ identification) sufficient to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Sufficient — circumstantial evidence plus identification evidence supported convictions |
| Motion for new trial — weight of the evidence | Stays: verdict against the weight given recantation and gaps in physical evidence | Commonwealth/trial court: jury was entitled to credit Williams’ initial statements and the physical corroboration | Denied — trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict did not shock the court’s sense of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (U.S. 1970) (opportunity for cross-examination at earlier hearing can satisfy Confrontation Clause when witness is unavailable)
- Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1968) (similar holding on preliminary-hearing cross-examination satisfying confrontation)
- Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883 (Pa. 2010) (opportunity to cross-examine, not its actual occurrence, satisfies Sixth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. McCrae, 832 A.2d 1026 (Pa. 2003) (prior inconsistencies affect weight, not admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Presbury, 665 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. 1995) (admissibility of prior inconsistent statements under Pa. rules)
- Commonwealth v. Colavita, 993 A.2d 874 (Pa. 2010) (appellate courts cannot address issues not preserved below)
- Commonwealth v. Bazemore, 614 A.2d 684 (Pa. 1992) (prior inconsistent preliminary-hearing testimony admissible if defendant had notice and opportunity to cross-examine)