In the Interest of D.Y.
34 A.3d 177
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellant D.Y. was adjudicated delinquent after an October 10, 2008 burglary and related offenses at 1520 North 60th Street, Philadelphia.
- A fingerprint officer collected latent prints from the scene; a fingerprint technician testified to a match with Appellant based on a ten-print card and AFIS databases.
- The juvenile court admitted the fingerprint technician as an expert and allowed him to testify that the latent prints matched Appellant despite hearsay implications.
- Appellant challenged the admissibility of the fingerprint testimony as hearsay and argued lack of proper foundation for the ten-print-card source.
- The court found the expert testimony admissible under Pa.R.E. 703 and 705 and affirmed the adjudication and disposition.
- Judge Lazarus dissented, arguing that the ten-print card lacked foundation and should have prompted reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fingerprint expert’s hearsay testimony was admissible | D.Y. challenges admissibility of hearsay within expert testimony | Commonwealth argues proper admission under Rule 703/705 and cross-examination supported it | Admissible under Pa.R.E. 703 and 705 |
| Whether the source/link between ten-print card and latent prints was properly established | D.Y. argues lack of foundation linking ten-print card to him | Commonwealth contends expert reliance on the card is permissible | Not necessary for ruling; majority finds no error in admission; dissent would reverse for lack of foundation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rolan, 964 A.2d 398 (Pa.Super.2008) (issues not preserved for appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Constant, 925 A.2d 810 (Pa.Super.2007) (weight vs. sufficiency analysis contrasted)
- Meals, 912 A.2d 213 (Pa. 2006) (sufficiency as weight; expert diagnosis context)
- Commonwealth v. Pedano, 405 A.2d 525 (Pa.Super.1979) (chain-of-custody; foundation concerns; distinguishable)
- Boucher v. Pa. Hosp., 831 A.2d 623 (Pa.Super.2003) (expert reliance on hearsay material admissible when relied upon)
- Maravich v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 504 A.2d 896 (Pa.Super.1986) (admissibility of hearsay relied upon by experts)
- Primavera v. Celotex Corp., 608 A.2d 515 (Pa.Super.1992) (reliance on hearsay by experts permissible)
- Collins v. Cooper, 746 A.2d 615 (Pa.Super.2000) (trustworthiness via expert reliance)