Opinion ID: 2066555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: PCRA Discovery and Evidentiary Rulings

Text: Appellant next presents four claims based on alleged errors made by the PCRA court in certain discovery and evidentiary matters that arose during the PCRA hearing. [15] 1. Testimony of Dana Cook Appellant first claims that the PCRA court erred in excluding the testimony of Dana Cook, an investigator employed by the defense, in support of appellant's claim that trial counsel Savino was burdened with a conflict of interest. Appellant alleges that Ms. Cook would have testified that inmate James Drayton told her in 2000 that he overheard a 1992 conversation between Attorney Savino and Aaron Montague during which Savino told Montague that he [Montague] did not need to worry about being a potential suspect [in the Graves murder] because Savino had everything under control. Appellant's Brief at 65. Appellant argues that Cook's testimony would not have constituted double hearsay because neither statement would have been inadmissible. First, appellant contends that Savino's statement to Montague was not hearsay because it was not offered to show that Montague was a potential suspect (or that Savino indeed had everything under control) but, rather, to show that Savino was aware of Montague's connection to appellant's case. Second, appellant insists that Drayton's statement to Cook would have been admissible as a statement against interest under Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3) because Drayton would have invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege if he had been called to testify at appellant's PCRA hearing and the statement would have subjected him to conspiracy to obstruct justice charges. The Commonwealth counterargues that this claim is frivolous. The Commonwealth notes that Drayton's statement to Cook was not a statement against interest under Rule 804(b)(3) because, inter alia, it did not indicate that he had conspired with anyone to keep the conversation secret; it did not suggest either affirmative interference with a government function on the part of Drayton or force, violence, physical interference or obstacle, breach of official duty, or any other unlawful act, as required by the obstruction of justice statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5101; and, in any event, the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice had expired three years before Drayton's alleged statement to Cook, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 5552(b). The PCRA court addressed this claim in a Supplemental Opinion filed on July 29, 2005. In determining that Drayton's statement to Cook did not constitute a statement against interest, the court noted, inter alia, that the statement did not subject Drayton to criminal liability and that Cook was not a person of authority or a person whose interests were adverse to Drayton's. Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 804(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (b) Hearsay Exceptions. The following statements, as hereinafter defined, are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:     (3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. In a criminal case, a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.
Pa.R.E. 804(b). The statute of limitations for obstruction of justice is five years. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5552(b)(1). The instant claim is indeed frivolous. Laying aside appellant's failure to address the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice and to attempt to do more than baldly assert Drayton's potential liability for such offense, appellant suggests no corroborating circumstances clearly indicat[ing] the trustworthiness of [Drayton's alleged] statement. Because Drayton's alleged statement to Cook clearly would have been inadmissible, we need not address the admissibility of Savino's alleged statement to Cook. The PCRA court did not err in excluding Cook's testimony.