289 A.3d 894
Pa.2023Background
- April 6, 2018 shooting in Norristown; surveillance video showed Jamal Wallace and Mason Clary together near the victim; Wallace was seen retrieving and concealing a firearm and later shooting the victim.
- Clary was on parole and wearing a GPS ankle monitor; GPS records from the monitor were extracted and used by police to place Clary (and by association Wallace) at the scene.
- At a joint trial, the Commonwealth offered the GPS data; defense objected as hearsay and argued the data was created for litigation and unreliable; the trial court admitted the records under the business‑records exception and alternatively held they were not hearsay because they were machine‑generated.
- Wallace was convicted of aggravated assault and related offenses and sentenced; he appealed claiming the GPS data was inadmissible hearsay and, alternatively, failed the business‑records test.
- The Superior Court affirmed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and affirmed: GPS data generated automatically by a device is not a "statement" under Pa.R.E. 801 and therefore is not hearsay; authentication and reliability issues are for other evidentiary rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wallace) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GPS data from an ankle monitor is hearsay under Pa.R.E. 801 | GPS data is an out‑of‑court "statement" that must satisfy a hearsay exception (e.g., business records); device output reflects human‑designed processes and can be treated as a declarant's assertion | Pa.R.E. 801 defines a statement as a person’s assertion; machine‑generated data is not an assertion by a person and therefore is not hearsay | Court held GPS data is not hearsay because it is not a person’s oral/written assertion or nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion |
| Whether the GPS records satisfied the business‑records exception (Pa.R.E. 803(6)) | Even if hearsay, the records were unreliable and prepared for litigation; custodial testimony was insufficient | Commonwealth argued records were routinely generated and stored by the monitoring vendor and were properly authenticated by a qualified witness | Superior Court decision affirmed on non‑hearsay ground; trial court’s business‑records ruling left intact but Supreme Court did not decide business‑records merits |
| Whether human involvement in creating the software renders machine output a "statement" | Because humans program machines, output reflects human assertions and should be subject to hearsay analysis | Human authorship of software does not transform automated, mechanical outputs into a person’s assertion | Rejected—human creation of software does not make automatically generated GPS data a person’s statement |
| Whether Confrontation or reliability concerns require treating GPS data as hearsay | Cross‑examination and scrutiny of accuracy require treating GPS output as hearsay evidence subject to confrontation safeguards | Reliability/authentication are addressed under Pa.R.E. 901 (authentication) and other rules, not by labeling the data hearsay | Court noted confrontation/reliability issues are addressed via authentication and admissibility procedures, not by classifying device output as hearsay |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lizarraga‑Tirado, 789 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2015) (satellite/GPS coordinates placed on a map by software held not hearsay because not a person’s statement)
- People v. Rodriguez, 16 Cal. App. 5th 355 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (computer‑generated ankle‑monitor report not a statement of a person and thus not hearsay)
- State v. Kandutsch, 799 N.W.2d 865 (Wis. 2011) (computer‑generated report from automated process is not hearsay)
- Channell v. State, 200 So.3d 247 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) (GPS bracelet data held hearsay under Florida law)
- Commonwealth v. Le, 208 A.3d 960 (Pa. 2019) (cell‑phone records were treated under business‑records exception; Court noted hearsay was assumed for analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 168 N.E.3d 294 (Mass. 2021) (computer‑generated records cannot be hearsay because they are not produced by human declarants)