Opinion ID: 6356952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Autopsy Report and Harmless Error

Text: We now consider whether the challenged autopsy report-presented without accompanying testimony by its author Dr. Osbourne-was testimonial in nature such that Brown's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was violated by its admission at trial. We recognize cases from a number of jurisdictions hold autopsy reports are non-testimonial because they are not created primarily for presentation in a criminal trial and thus, the admission of the report without the supporting testimony of its author in criminal trials does not raise Confrontation Clause concerns. Pennsylvania law requires the preparation of autopsy reports in all cases of sudden, violent, and suspicious deaths, or deaths by other than natural causes, and in such cases, the autopsy and subsequent report are designed to determine whether the death occurred as the result of a criminal act. See 35 P.S. § 450.503 ; see also 16 P.S. § 1237. Moreover, the law requires the coroner or medical examiner charged with conducting and reporting the results of such autopsies to consult and advise the local district attorney to the extent practicable. See 16 P.S. § 1242. Accordingly, we determine the primary purpose for preparation of an autopsy report under these circumstances is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution and that any person creating the report would reasonably believe it would be available for use at a later criminal trial. Thus, we conclude the autopsy report in this case was testimonial. 10 See Crawford, supra ; Melendez-Diaz , supra ; Bullcoming , supra ; Yohe , supra . Because the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Osbourne was testimonial in nature, under the Crawford , Melendez-Diaz , Bullcoming and Yohe precedents, the report could properly be introduced into evidence without Dr. Osbourne's accompanying testimony only if Dr. Osbourne was unavailable and Brown had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him. Crawford , 541 U.S. at 59 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . There is no dispute Brown had no prior opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Osbourne. Accordingly, we determine the admission of Dr. Osbourne's report into evidence at Brown's trial was error.
We now consider the Commonwealth's argument the error was harmless. This Court has long held [w]here a trial error violates the federal constitution, this Court, at a minimum, must employ the federal harmless error rule. Commonwealth v. Story , 476 Pa. 391 , 383 A.2d 155 , 162 (1978), citing Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 21, 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). A constitutional error cannot be found harmless unless an appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. Id. However, [i]f there is a reasonable possibility that the error may have contributed to the verdict, it is not harmless. Commonwealth v. Mitchell , 576 Pa. 258 , 839 A.2d 202 , 214 (2003). The Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 215 . This Court will find harmless error where: (1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis ; (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict. Commonwealth v. Young , 561 Pa. 34 , 748 A.2d 166 , 193 (1999) (citation omitted). Here, the Superior Court concluded the error was harmless without specifically engaging in the analysis described in Young . Instead, the court held the error was harmless simply because there was no serious dispute regarding the victim's cause of death. Brown , 139 A.3d at 220 (admission of report harmless error because the victim was shot several times in chest, cause of death was not seriously at issue[,] and extensive expert testimony was not necessary under the specific facts of this case). Nevertheless, our own application of the Young test reveals that admission of the autopsy report in this case was harmless error. Specifically, as will be more thoroughly explained infra , we conclude the erroneously admitted autopsy report was merely cumulative of Dr. Chu's independent opinion regarding the cause of death which was properly admissible.