Court Opinion

ID: 9949042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 17:11:10.454578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:33.753150
License: Public Domain

J-A26008-23

                                2024 PA Super 43

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
               v.                         :
                                          :
                                          :
 RICKY G. VANCE                           :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 2886 EDA 2022

      Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 20, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
                     at No(s): CP-46-CR-0003484-2021

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

CONCURRING OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:               FILED MARCH 8, 2024

     The majority opinion astutely disposes of this appeal, and I join in its

affirmance. I write separately to explain my slightly different approach to

some issues.

     Regarding the Google GPS location data, I agree with the majority that

under Commonwealth v. Wallace, 289 A.3d 894, 908 (Pa. 2022), Vance’s

hearsay argument lacks merit. I also find Vance’s Confrontation Clause

challenge likewise meritless. See Vance’s Br. at 4, 29-32. As in Wallace, the

GPS data was not the statement of a person but rather the product of the

operation of a computer. Id. at 904-05. There therefore was no human

declarant to subject to “confrontation,” since, as the Supreme Court pithily

stated in Wallace, “a machine cannot be cross-examined.” Id. at 907.
J-A26008-23

       Moreover, even assuming a pertinent human witness could be identified,

the admission of the GPS data here did not contravene Confrontation Clause

precedents limiting the clause’s applicability to “testimonial statements.” See

Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237, 243 (2015) (quoting Crawford v. Washington,

541 U.S. 36, 54 (2004)).1 A statement is testimonial if its primary purpose “is

to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal

prosecution.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 185 A.3d 316, 319 n.3 (Pa. 2018).

Here, Google obtained and retained the GPS location data as part of its

ordinary business, which is unrelated to criminal prosecutions. Google did not

obtain or retain the data primarily for use in a possible criminal case.

       Vance also makes an authentication argument regarding the GPS

location records. The majority finds them properly authenticated under

Pa.R.E. 902(11) “because they were accompanied by a certification provided

by Google’s custodian of records.” Majority Op. at 9-10. To the majority’s

comments I add only my assessment that the certification met the necessary

requirements.

       Rule 902(11) provides that “[t]he original or a copy of a domestic

record” is properly authenticated if it “meets the requirements of Rule

803(6)(A)-(C), as shown by a certification of the custodian or another qualified

____________________________________________

1 See also Commonwealth v. Yohe, 79 A.3d 520, 531 (Pa. 2013).

                                           -2-
J-A26008-23

person[.]”2 Rule 803(6) permits the admission of “records of a regularly

conducted activity” over a hearsay objection if certain conditions are met.

Subsections (A) through (C) of the rule require that

       (A) the record was made at or near the time by--or from
           information transmitted by--someone with knowledge;

       (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted
           activity of a business”, which term includes business,
           institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of
           every kind, whether or not conducted for profit;

       (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity[.]

Pa.R.E. 803(6)(A)-(C).

       The certification of Google’s custodian of records meets these

requirements. In the certification, he states that Google servers record this

data automatically at the time, or reasonably soon after, it is entered or

transmitted by the user. He also explains that the data is kept in the course

of this regularly conducted activity, and that it was made by regularly

____________________________________________

2 Pa.R.E. 902(11) provides in full:

       The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they
       require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be
       admitted: . . . (11) Certified Domestic Records of a Regularly
       Conducted Activity. The original or a copy of a domestic record
       that meets the requirements of Rule 803(6)(A)-(C), as shown by
       a certification of the custodian or another qualified person that
       complies with Pa.R.C.P. No. 76. Before the trial or hearing, the
       proponent must give an adverse party reasonable written notice
       of the intent to offer the record--and must make the record and
       certification available for inspection--so that the party has a fair
       opportunity to challenge them.

                                           -3-
J-A26008-23

conducted activity as a regular practice of Google. Vance’s authentication

challenge is meritless.3

       As for Vance’s authentication and hearsay arguments against the

admissibility of the records custodian’s certification, I agree with the majority

that any error was at most harmless. As the majority aptly points out, this

evidence was not read into the record, or published or otherwise given to the

jury. See Opinion at 12, n.7. With these additional comments, I join the

majority opinion.

       Judge Dubow and Judge McLaughlin join the concurring opinion.

____________________________________________

3 Authentication of computer-generated data or reports under Rule 902(11) is

proper under the current iteration of the Rules of Evidence and existing
precedents. Because the records were permissibly authenticated in this way,
there was no need for a determination of the accuracy or reliability of the data
as part of the authentication process. See Wallace, 289 A.3d at 907 (stating
“[t]he best way to advance the truth-seeking process with respect to
[computer-generated] ‘statements’ is not through cross-examination of the
machine operator, but through the process of authentication,” and noting that
Rule 901(9) permits authentication of a “process or system” with “[e]vidence
describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate
result” (citation omitted)). The Supreme Court may need to give further
guidance to address the means by which parties may raise the accuracy and
reliability concerns identified in Wallace when machine-generated data is
authenticated as a business record.

                                           -4-