*1 Pеnnsylvania, Appellee, COMMONWEALTH v. COCCIOLETTI, Appellant. Anthony John Appellee, Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH GARRITY, Appellant. Anthony Donald Pennsylvania. Court Supreme 2, 1980. Argued Oct. Feb. 1981. Decided *4 Martino, for in No. 106. Pittsburgh, appellant L. Leonard ’ in No. Green, Kensington, appellant for M. New Irving 107. for Greensburg, Atty., Dist. Mahady,
Patrick H. Asst. appellee. NIX, LARSEN, ROBERTS, O’BRIEN, J.,
Before C. and KAUFFMAN, JJ. and FLAHERTY
OPINION LARSEN, Justice. and Garrity Donald were
Appellants John Coccioletti shooting for the death of homicide charged with criminal of guilty one were found murder Appellants Dale Clawson. of trial joint jury. Appel- after a before a degree third denied, motions and a lants’ were sentence three post-trial to ten was entered years imprisonment on verdict.
This appeal direct involves issues whether evidence is sustain their sufficient to convictions for murder of the third whether degree; cеrtain firearms ammunition admitted; were properly and whether appellants’ Sixth were rights joint violated their trial. Appellants initially contend that evidence was insuffi- conviction, cient to a sustain particularly that the evidence prove accomplice insufficient to To liability. evaluate evidence, must view sufficiency we the evidence in the light most favorablе as to the Commonwealth verdict winner, as true all the evidence and infer- accept reasonable which, believed, ences if upon jury properly could have verdict, based its and determine whether such evidence and inferences sufficient to prove guilt are in law a beyond Stockard, reasonable doubt. Commonwealth A.2d 1088 circumstantial evidence is Entirеly sufficient to a Prado, sustain conviction. Commonwealth v. evidence, Pa. The in light read a most Commonwealth, to the favorable is as follows:
Appellants Garrity drinking Coccioletti and heavily on the night question. A short time after 1:45 a.m. on 25, 1979, March a friend them drove to Coccioletti’s cabin located on Line County Road in rural area of Westmore- land County. passing Two motorists observed appellants at the right side of the road in front of Coccioletti’s cabin shortly before 2:15 a.m.
At victim, approximately 2:15 a.m. the Dale Clawson was driving a truck pick-up County on Line Road. passenger A in the victim’s truck he testified that observed persons, two
neither, of whom he could identify, standing on the right side of the road in front of cabin. A split second .Coccioletti’s them, аfter passing heard passenger gunshot, a forward, victim and the truck slumped veered off the road and crashed. The then observed the fatal passenger wound which passing had been caused a bullet by through the rear window of the through truck victim’s skull.
One of the motorists who saw appellants the scene a few minutes before incident heard the fatal shot and observed the victim’s truсk off the road. incident,
Shortly after a friend who was unaware that killing a had occurred met appellants and drove them to a restaurant. they passed As the victim’s wrecked truck Coccioletti a sense of expressed responsibility “I by stating, feel kind of for it because I threw responsible an M-80 at the truck.” [firecracker]
After their appellants and friend arrived at the restau- rant, from they telephone received call another friend if in asking any Garrity were involved incident. involvement, denied and the left the restaurant. But group cabin, appellants began while back to Coccioletti’s driving of certain in explain guns concoct a the whereabouts story Coccioletti, their asked “What are we possession. Garrity responded, “Wе guns?” to do with the Coccioletti going Prior to [Jeanette, could were in Jeanette say they Pa.].” from a .44 cabin, emptied bullets at the Coccioletti arriving hid the Coccioletti also carrying. caliber revolver he was was Garrity that pistol revolver and a .45 caliber automatic in the woods. some leaves carrying under cabin where arrived at Coccioletti's finаlly Appellants Coc- doing. them what had been they another friend asked across the road- shooting had been they cioletti replied anyone could have hit way they only possible but the way, a ricochet. was by recovered, not been two bullet has the fatal
Although the roadside in found cartridges .45 caliber spent had been spent cartridges cabin. These front of Coccioletti’s which was pistol automatic caliber fired from the .45 glass the homicide. Broken after Garrity’s possession *6 in front of Coccioletti’s cabin where highway found on the Dr. the the window truck. Manuel bullet shattered Pelaez, testified that a bullet was the pathologist a forensic testified of path cause of death.1 He also that the the bullet skull, through the rear window and the victim’s through that, high velocity, on its the bullet could have and based not been a ricochet. and inferences that can the evidence be drawn
Since
of
therefrom
establish that one
clearly
appellants fatally
skull,
victim in the
there is sufficient evidence to
shot the
appellant.
the conviction as to that
sustain
contention that the
Appellants’
evidence is insuffi
finding
сient
to sustain a
of accomplice
is also
liability
without merit. The least
of concert or
degree
collusion is
sufficient to
a finding
sustain
of
as an
responsibility
accom
plice.
460,
Commonwealth v.
467 Pa.
359
367
Mobley,
A.2d
(1976).
In this case the record shows that
the appellants
were together prior to and
the homicide.
during
Coccioletti
stated
that both
had
shooting
been
across the
Furthermore,
roadway.
appellants acted in concert
conceal their firearms and fabricate statements concerning
the whereabouts of their firearms.
It is
for
unnecessary
Commonwealth to show which appellant actually fired the
shot,
fatal
because whichever appellant was not the actor
would be equally responsible
аccomplice.
as an
Common
223,
wealth v.
481 Pa.
Bradley,
(1978),
Appellants next contend that admission into evidence of certain handguns and ammunition was reversible error. Appellants’ 1. prove claim that the is evidence insufficient causa- beyond tion that, pathologist a reasonable doubt. The forensic testified degree certainty, with a reasonable of medical the bullet wound degree caused certainty death of the victim. A reasonable of medical support jury guilty. is sufficient to verdict of Common- Stoltzfus, (1975), appellants’ wealth v. 462 Pa. and claim is without merit.
110 The Commonwealth seized ninе and a quantity firearms from the ammunition cabin owned the same by Coccioletti day casings the homicide. Two were also spent bullet found on the side of at the road the scene of homicide. ammunition, Three handguns, two casings any admitted into evidence trial. or all this Whether evidence on depends could be admitted its rele properly McCusker, vance. Pa. Commonwealth v. 448 292 A.2d 286 possession
A from the defendant’s weapon taken be there is no that it is the may proof admissible even where Yount, v. 455 murder Pa. Commonwealth weapon. Bederka, A.2d In Commonwealth seized (1975), explained we are weapons A.2d *7 prove to that the relevant tend defendant they because to the possessed commit murder. The necessary the means weаpon lack of is the murder weapon goes that the to proof not the but its Com admissibility. of the evidence weight 472 Pa. Royster, monwealth v. testified that fatal wound pathologist
Since the forensic bullet, testimony was the pathologist’s provides made aby handguns, the three properly admitting the foundation for has of them are the proven any not it been that whether or Furthermore, handguns two murder weapon. weap as same two being friend appellants’ identified by after the homicide. to conceal appellants attempted ons that on the scene of were found spent cartridges The two that the car expert A testified the homicide. ballistics pistol .45 automatic from the caliber tridges had been fired Garrity’s posses in to registered which was Coccioletti tend cartridges prove spent homicide. The sion after the inflicting means operative had the that the appellants Fur to be admitted. properly were held fatal wound and in even the absence are admissible thermore, cartridges v. in Commonwealth linking appellants: them to of evidence (1977) a knife sheath A.2d 747 Martinez, 475 Pa. stabbing propеr a was area of fatal found in the immediate be that sheath to show despite a failure ly admitted longed to the accused.
Ill evidence is within the The admission of demonstrative absent an abuse of discretion discretion of the trial court and Hudson, will not be overturned. Commonwealth 620, not find abuse of any We do handguns discretion and we conclude that and ammuni tion were admittеd. properly both relevant and their Amendment con-
Appellants finally claim that
Sixth
frontation
were violated when the trial court admit-
rights
ted,
objections,
over
their
their out-of-court
statements
which
friend
Appellants’
permit-
each other.
was
implicated
Coccioletti,
ted to
that
asked
“What are we
testify
Garrity
to do with the
to which Coccioletti
going
guns”?
responded,
[Jeanette,
“We could
were in Jeanette
An-
say they
Pa.].”
that
permitted
testify
other friend was
Coccioletti admit-
shooting
ted that
had been
across the
appellants
roadway,
could have
possible way they
but the
hit
only
anyone
clearly implicated
a ricochet. These statements
the non-de-
Neither
testified
appellant.
appellant
clarant
so neither was
Therefore,
or
subject
to cross examination
confrontation.
conclude,
their
Amendment
rights
Sixth
to con-
(i.
other)
front adverse witnesses
e. each
have been violated.
States,
on Bruton v. United
Appellants rely
391 U.S.
(1968),
88 S.Ct.
A well-established to the exception hearsay per rule mits the out-of-court declarations of one to be co-conspirator admitted against another co-conspirator provided that the declarations were during made the and in fur conspiracy McCormick, therance of the design. common Law of Evi dence, 645, p. (2d 1972). Evans, 267 In ed. Dutton v. 400 § (1970), L.Ed.2d 213 a criminal case 74, 91
U.S. S.Ct. Georgia, of the U. Court originating Supreme in the State S. declaration aby co-conspirator held that an out of court which the defendant was admissible and the implicated rights Amendment were not violated even defendant’s Sixth did not take the stand. though co-conspirator the Unlike existed, the Bruton case where no the hearsay exception in a Georgia dеclarations were admitted Court under the to the co-conspirator exception hearsay rule. Dutton, Supreme
In the U. S. Court refused to the equate rule with the hearsay Sixth confrontation clause, e., though may i. even a statement come within an rule, exception to the it must still hearsay against be tested the The confrontation clause. Court held that the confron- tation clause was not violated whenever the had declarations Id. at strong reliability”. “indicia of at 220. S.Ct. the reliability” These “indicia of satisfied Sixth Amendment “practical confrontation clause concern for the policy in truth-determining process criminal trials accuracy Id. ...” at 220. S.Ct.
Dutton (1) case because the governs appellants’ implicating out-of-court declarations each have appellants’ (2) appellants’ indicia of declara strong reliability” Pennsylvania exceptions tions were admissible under to the hearsay rule. in Dutton are also
First, the reliability” present “indicia in declarations do not ex- present Appellants’ this case. such, homicide, admit and as would not be pressly given weight Appellants togethеr undue jury. the incident and were aware of each other’s throughout fully roles, clearly personal so the declarations are based on knowledge. Because the made the declarations no apparent each other’s there would be reason to presence, declarations, homicide, lie. The made soon after have strong spontаneity. Finally, indicia of declarations are The against penal reliability own interest. appellants’ the confrontation clause. appellant’s satisfy declarations Ransom, See Commonwealth
113
Second,
the out-of-court
Pennsylvania,
in
declarations of
one co-conspirator
against
can be admitted
another co-con-
spirator prоvided that
the declarations were made during
the conspiracy and in furtherance of the common design.
Evans,
85,
(1980).
Commonwealth v.
489 Pa.
185,
(1978), this Court held
Both requirements rights and their Sixth appellants’ case thus have not been violated. is affirmed.
The of sentence judgment ROBERTS, J., in the result. concurred J., dissenting FLAHERTY, opinion. a filed FLAHERTY, Justice, dissenting. by that error was committed ground
I
the
dissent on
of
seized dur-
handguns
evidence of one
the
admission into
residence. Under limited circum-
ing
appellant’s
a search of
possession
a defendant’s
is
stances a
taken from
weapon
proof
an absence of
that
it
notwithstanding
admissible
of a homicide. Commonwealth
in the commission
employed
v.
Common
581,
(1977).
A.2d
Royster,
472 Pa.
372
1194
Bederka,
Com
wealth v.
(1975).
459
The rationale Bederka, in Commonwealth at on was Pa. stated by “The of appellant weapons 331 A.2d 183: possession was certainly to in the actual murder similar the ones used the appellant possessed necessary relevant to establish that means added). tо the The (Emphasis commit murder.” Larsen, that noting of Mr. Justice while two of opinion only into were handguns the three admitted evidence identified two that being weapons as the same testimony homicide, applies forego the the attempted to conceal after with to all ing admissibility respect weap of three principle however, handgun, The no connection with ons. third bore homicide, it was seized from appellant’s the other than that residence course Nor was ad- during investigation. the of handgun mission into third necessary evidence appellant means to have prove possessed necessary crime, committed since the other two handguns Handguns sufficient for that exist certainly purpose. solely destruction, as and instruments оf the introduction into relevance, evidence a for handgun, without basis its is due inflammatory appearance prejudicial, imputes possessor. destructive character to its weapon The if court below deemed that admission of third error, weapon into evidence were such error could not be counsel, asserted as prejudicial upon because defense subse- *11 officers, quent cross-examination of police intentionally elicited the fact that not repeatedly were three only weap- ons seized rather a total nine weapons but were discover- ed appellant’s Testimony residence. established that these other weapons shotgun included and rifles which could be used for hunting. object Counsel did to admission however, of the three handguns, may speculate and one only as to counsel’s for bringing motive the other guns Nevertheless, attention of the cannot jury. it be assumed pursued cross-examination would have the same course if any of the handguns three had been previously excluded from evidence. upon improper Based admission into evidence of the I handgun, grant third would a new trial. A.2d Pennsylvania, Appellee,
COMMONWEALTH of WARD, Appellant. E. Bruce Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of
Submitted March 1980. Decided Feb. 1981.