Court Opinion

ID: 9440336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 16:07:48.766278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:46.179911
License: Public Domain

J-S11022-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  NATHANIEL CUFFY                              :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   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

      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

                                      -2-
J-S11022-23

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.

                                           -3-
J-S11022-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/3/2023

                          -4-