J-S11022-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

NATHANIEL CUFFY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2194 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 1, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0002979-2020

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED AUGUST 03, 2023

Nathaniel Cuffy appeals the judgment of sentence following his 

convictions for simple assault and harassment.1 He challenges the admission 

of evidence. We affirm. 

Cuffy’s convictions stem from an argument between him and the victim. 

After receiving a radio call for a person screaming, police officers arrived on 

the scene and observed Cuffy on top of the victim with “his hands around the 

shoulder [and] neck area” of the victim. See N.T., Trial, 4/23/21, at 11, 27.

Both officers were wearing body cameras at the time. Id. at 13, 32. After 

speaking with the victim, the officers arrested Cuffy. The Commonwealth 

charged Cuffy with numerous crimes including those mentioned above. 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a) and 2709(a)(1), respectively. 
J-S11022-23

- 2 -

Cuffy filed a motion in limine to exclude as hearsay any statements from 

the victim that the Commonwealth wished to introduce by way of the body 

camera footage. At the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth introduced 

the body camera footage of one officer. It offered that the statements made 

by the victim were admissible under the hearsay exception for present sense 

impressions. N.T., Motion to Suppress Hearing, 4/23/21, at 6. It also told the 

court that it was not arguing that the statements were admissible under the 

excited utterance exception. Id. After reviewing the video, the court 

determined that the victim’s statements were not covered by the excited 

utterance exception but were covered by the present sense impression 

exception. Id. at 27.

The trial court conducted a bench trial the same day. The court found 

Cuffy guilty of the above-referenced crimes and sentenced him to 18 months’

reporting probation. This timely appeal followed.

Cuffy raises the following issue: “Did not the [] lower court err and abuse 

its discretion by improperly allowing the introduction of hearsay evidence on 

a recording of a police officer’s body worn camera that was not an excited 

utterance?” Cuffy’s Br. at 3.

Cuffy challenges the admission of evidence, which we review for an 

abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Luster, 234 A.3d 836, 838 

(Pa.Super. 2020). Hearsay is an out of court statement offered into evidence 

to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Pa.R.E. 801(c). Hearsay is not 

admissible unless an exception applies. Pa.R.E. 802. One such exception is an 
J-S11022-23

- 3 -

excited utterance, which is “[a] statement relating to a startling event or 

condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that 

it caused.” Pa.R.E. 803(2). 

Cuffy maintains that the court abused its discretion when it denied his 

motion in limine to preclude the admission of the victim’s statements. He 

states that the court denied the motion and concluded that the statements 

were admissible under the excited utterance exception to hearsay. He makes

no argument that the court erred in finding the statements admissible under 

the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.

Cuffy’s challenge is meritless. Cuffy’s sole argument on appeal is that 

the court erred in finding the statements admissible under the excited 

utterance exception. However, the court admitted the statements under the

present sense impression exception to hearsay. Cuffy does not challenge this 

finding on appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed.2

____________________________________________

2

In his Rule 1925(b) statement, Cuffy claimed that the court’s admittance of 

the victim’s statements violated his right to confrontation. See Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) Statement, filed 4/21/22. However, he has abandoned this claim by 

failing to argue it in his brief. 
J-S11022-23

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/3/2023