Title: Com. v. Jones

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

344 Pa. Superior Ct. 420 (1985) 496 A.2d 1177 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Damon JONES, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted April 16, 1985. Filed August 2, 1985. *421 Daniel P. Alva, Philadelphia, for appellant. Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee. Before WICKERSHAM, BECK and CERCONE, JJ. WICKERSHAM, Judge: A single, narrow issue is presented in this appeal which follows Damon Jones' conviction of murder in the first degree.[1] The case was heard in a bench trial before the Honorable Joseph T. Murphy commencing January 27, 1983. Appellant Jones, in his brief, sets forth the facts as follows: Brief for Appellant at 1-4 (footnotes omitted). Appellant frames the issue as follows: Brief for Appellant at 1. At trial, the Commonwealth was permitted to introduce, through the testimony of Anita Brooks, the preliminary hearing notes wherein John Williams testified. The preliminary hearing was held June 3, 1982 before the Honorable *424 Mitchell S. Lipschutz and appellant was represented by counsel. William's testimony, under oath, included the following: Record at 17-19. At the bench trial before Judge Murphy, Williams had a partial or near total memory loss. He said, inter alia, "Q. Directing your attention further, Mr. Williams, to June the 3rd of 1982, the preliminary hearing at City Hall Courtroom 675 before the Honorable Mitchell S. Lipschutz, do you remember appearing at that preliminary hearing? "A. Yea. "Q. What did you testify to at that preliminary hearing? *426 "A. I don't remember. "Q. You don't remember? Do you remember being asked a series of questions as to what you knew about the death of Darrell Chubby Williams? "A. Yea. "Q. Are you saying you have no present recollection of what you testified to then? "A. Yea. "Q. Mr. Williams, do you know why you are in Court here today? "A. Yea. "Q. Why are you here? "A. To testify. "Q. And what are you to testify about? "A. A murder. "Q. Whose murder? "A. I don't know. "Q. You don't know? "A. No. "Q. On June the 3rd of 1982 before the Honorable Mitchell S. Lipschutz in courtroom 675 of City Hall, didn't you testify that Damon Jones told you that he killed Chubby Williams, and he showed bloody clothing? "A. I don't remember. "Q. Mr. Williams, do I understand your answer to mean that you remember appearing and testifying at a preliminary hearing; is that correct? "A. Yea. *427 "Q. And when you appeared and testified at the preliminary hearing, is it your statement or your testimony that you don't remember what you testified to? "A. Yea. "Q. Do you remember giving the answer? A. He told me he had shot Chubby. "A. No. "Q. Do you remember this question? Q. Who told you that? "A. No. "Q. Do you remember giving this answer? A. Damon. "A. No. "Q. Do you remember this question? Q. When he told you that he had shot Chubby, did you say anything to him? "A. No. "Q. You don't remember that question? Do you remember giving this answer? A. I said, `No, you didn't,' like that. Do you remember saying that? "A. No. "Q. Do you remember this question? Q. And did he say anything when you said that? Do you remember that question? "A. No. "Q. Do you remember this answer? A. Yea, he showed me some bloody clothes. "A. No. "Q. You don't remember giving that answer? "A. No. "Q. Remember this question? Q. What kind of clothes were they? *428 Do you remember that question? "A. No. "Q. Do you remember this answer? A. A tan jacket and some tan pants. "A. No. "Q. Are you saying you didn't say that at the preliminary hearing? "A. I don't remember. "Q. Has anything happened between June the 3rd and today that caused you to forget what happened on June 3rd? "A. No. "Q. Who did you tell the Detectives killed Chubby Williams? "A. I don't remember. "Q. You don't remember? "A. No. "Q. Did you tell them that Damon Jones told you he shot Chubby? "A. No. "Q. You never told the detectives that? "A. I don't remember telling them that. "Q. You don't remember telling them that? "A. Yea. "Q. And you were under oath back at the preliminary hearing on June 3rd when you told the Judge there that Damon Jones told you he shot Chubby Williams, were you not? *429 "A. Yea. "Q. You are under oath here today, are you not? "A. Yea. "Q. Did Damon Jones tell you he shot Chubby Williams? "A. No. Record at 75-76, 77-78, 81-82, 90, 91-92, 94-96, 102-103 and 106. This is not a situation where the witness refused to testify on the basis of the privilege against self-incrimination, U.S. Const. Amend. V; Pa.Const. art. I, § 9. Compare Commonwealth v. Rodgers, 472 Pa. 435, 372 A.2d 771 (1977). In Rodgers, the preliminary hearing testimony of one Ferguson was read into evidence over objection. Ferguson had asserted his fifth amendment privilege. Justice Roberts, speaking for a unanimous court said: Id., 472 Pa. at 452-53, 372 A.2d at 779 (footnote and citations omitted). *430 We are compelled to follow Rodgers logic in that the "true test of unavailability is the unavailability of the witness' testimony, not his or her person." Id., 472 Pa. at 453, 372 A.2d at 779. It thus follows that a "partial lack of memory renders [a witness] unavailable for purposes of the common law exception . . . [t]his approach ha[ving] the value of fairness to both parties in that necessary testimony is admitted, with the opponent being able to cross-examine the witness both as to his asserted lack of memory as well as to [any] present testimony." Commonwealth v. Graves, 484 Pa. 29, 38, 398 A.2d 644, 649 (1979).[2] The Graves Court offers additional guidance when it states, "[w]hatever reason is offered for the witness' failure to recall the events to which he has previously testified can be challenged since the witness is available and subject to inquiry upon the subject." Id., 484 Pa. at 38, n. 5, 398 A.2d at 649, n. 5 (1979). This Court has since addressed the issue of memory loss in the wake of the Graves decision. In Commonwealth v. Von Smith, 303 Pa.Super. 534, 450 A.2d 55 (1982) (after remand), the court, faced with the total memory loss of two Commonwealth witnesses held: "[c]learly, the Graves decision recognizes complete lack of memory as a ground for determining a witness' unavailability as well as partial memory loss. Obviously, total lack of recall presents a more compelling instance to find unavailability than does partial memory loss." Id., 303 Pa.Superior Ct. at 540, 450 A.2d at 58. *431 In his opinion filed August 14, 1984, Judge Murphy observed: Lower ct. op. at 6-7. We conclude, under the facts of this case, that where a witness has previously testified at a preliminary hearing, under oath, and has been cross-examined by defendant's counsel, such testimony is admissible where the witness claims no memory of such at trial. We find that John Williams was an unavailable witness, under such circumstances, within the common law rule. We believe Von Smith is controlling here and accordingly hold that the lower court properly admitted the prior testimony. Judgment of sentence affirmed. [1] Jones was also convicted of possessing instruments of crime, generally. [2] See Commonwealth v. Stasko, 471 Pa. 373, 370 A.2d 350 (1977) and compare Commonwealth v. Clarkson, 438 Pa. 523, 265 A.2d 802 (1970) (where the witness had died prior to trial) in which the court said: While it is true that the focus of a preliminary hearing is narrower than that of a trial, we are not persuaded that the difference requires exclusion of the testimony taken at such a hearing. Our basic concern is for the reliability of the testimony which was elicited in the preliminary hearing, and we do not feel that its reliability is affected by the scope or focus of the proceeding. It would certainly be more desirable to have the witness present at trial, but it would be vastly less desirable to exclude such evidence altogether. Id., 438 Pa. at 525, 265 A.2d at 803 (emphasis added). Id., 471 Pa. at 381, 370 A.2d at 354 (emphasis in original).