Court Opinion

ID: 9586555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:12:50.78839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:42.999801
License: Public Domain

Benton, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that an appellant is not required to anticipate the Commonwealth’s defense to the appellant’s claim of error and, thus, is not required to provide the record necessary to support the Commonwealth’s claim. I also agree with the majority that the Commonwealth has an obligation to ensure that the record contains the evidence necessary to support its claim of harmless error. I disagree with the majority that dismissal of the appeal is the appropriate remedy in this case. The Commonwealth asserts that it reasonably relied to its detriment on Leon Pat Ferguson’s representation that evidence unrelated to Ferguson’s claim of error, but necessary to the Commonwealth’s defense, would be made a part of the record. Assuming, as does the majority, that the Commonwealth’s reliance has been reasonable and that we are faced with a fairness issue, I believe that the appropriate remedy would be to permit the record on appeal to be supplemented with that evidence which was considered by the trial judge in rendering the judgment. The Commonwealth’s reliance does not justify punishing this appellant, whose claim of error is supported by the record, and requiring him to exercise the writ of habeas corpus in order to obtain evidence to support the Commonwealth’s claim of harmless error.
*196The record before us establishes that over objection, the trial judge permitted Adrian Johns to testify that Ernest Russell, one of the two men who robbed the bank employees, told her that “they had to kill somebody because the man was in their way.” The judge’s ruling was erroneous. The testimony of a witness concerning an extrajudicial statement of another, offered as evidence of the truth of the statement, is hearsay. Arnold v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 275, 279-80, 356 S.E.2d 847, 850 (1987). Although the trial judge admitted the evidence as a third party declaration against penal interest, the judge erred because this recognized exception to the hearsay rule requires the party offering the evidence to establish the unavailability of the third party. Scaggs v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 1, 5, 359 S.E.2d 830, 832 (1987). The Commonwealth offered no proof that Russell was unavailable.
The erroneous evidentiary ruling was not harmless. The proof linking Ferguson to the bank robbery consisted of doubtful eyewitness testimony and other circumstantial evidence. Russell was unequivocally identified as a participant in the robbery. The inference that the Commonwealth sought to have the jury draw from Russell’s hearsay statement was a vital link in proving Ferguson’s participation. The Commonwealth sought to tie Ferguson to the robbery first by attempting to show that Ferguson was in Russell’s apartment counting money within an hour and a half of the robbery, and second, by allowing the jury to infer that Russell’s incriminating statement also incriminated the person in the apartment with him.
Through the testimony of Rhonda Carroll, a convicted felon, the Commonwealth sought to establish Ferguson’s presence in Russell’s apartment. Carroll had been charged with robbing a bank with Russell on another occasion and had been given immunity from that prosecution in return for her testimony against Ferguson. For less than a second she was in the presence of a man whom she identified as Ferguson. Although she said that the man she saw for “a second” wore a “sports jacket,” she did not describe whether the jacket was white or colored, whether it zippered or buttoned, whether it was short or long, or whether it was solid or patterned. Although witnesses testified that the robber wore “a sports jacket” and Carroll testified that the man she saw wore “a sports jacket,” no testimony or evidence in this record *197supports a conclusion that the jackets were identical or even similar. There is no evidence as to the style, color, length, or any other identifying characteristic of either “sports jacket.”
Johns, a convicted felon, testified that a detective paid her one thousand dollars cash in exchange for her testimony against Ferguson. On direct examination, over objection, she testified as follows concerning a conversation that she had with Russell:
Q Explain to the jury what happened when you went to Rhonda’s room that day.
A Well, he came into the room and he said he had to kill somebody.
Q Did he say in what connection, with what he had to kill somebody?
A No, he didn’t.
* * * *
Q He told you he had killed someone.
A Unh-huh.
(emphasis added)
Despite responding on three occasions that Russell said that he, Russell, had to kill someone, on cross-examination she changed her testimony and then indicated uncertainty:
Q Now, when you met with the police, you told them that Ernest [Russell] had said that he had to kill somebody or they had to kill somebody because the man was in his way or something like that.
A They had to kill somebody because the man was in their way, yes.
Q He and they, which one did he use?
A I don’t know.
She then testified that she had given a statement to the police to the effect that Russell said “[h]e had to kill somebody or they had to kill somebody because the man was in his way, something like that.”
*198It is beyond dispute that Russell was present and implicated in the killing. The evidence, exclusive of Russell’s statement, proved that Russell was one of the two persons who robbed the bank. However, Russell was not a defendant in this trial. The Commonwealth obviously deemed the hearsay statement purportedly made by Russell to be significant as a link in the chain of proof placing Ferguson in the bank. By attempting to prove that Russell’s statement was made under circumstances that related to the robbery and his companion, the Commonwealth wanted the jury to infer that Russell’s statement also implicated his companion at the time — who the Commonwealth alleged was Ferguson.
That evidence was crucial to the Commonwealth’s case because, despite the majority’s assertion that Ferguson had been identified by eyewitnesses, the circumstances of these identifications were less than ideal. The witnesses were only able to see the face of the second robber for one or two seconds. Moreover, the robber that each identified as Ferguson wore a black nylon stocking over his face and head. More than sixteen months passed between the robbery and the trial in which Ferguson was identified by the witnesses. Despite the witnesses’ testimony that they were able to look directly at the robber’s face for only two or three seconds and despite the fact that the robber wore a black stocking over his face and head, the Commonwealth sought to have the jury believe the witness identifications. The corroboration provided by Russell’s hearsay statement was an important part of that effort.
In its harmless error analysis, the Commonwealth downplays the significant impact of the hearsay statement and places unwarranted emphasis on inconclusive circumstances. In support of its conclusion that the evidence against Ferguson was overwhelming, the Commonwealth relies upon a statement made by Ferguson to a detective following their conversation in New York. The detective testified that as he was leaving Ferguson after an interview, Ferguson said “Why did it take you eight months to find me?” There is nothing intrinsic in either the statement or the circumstances surrounding the statement that suggests that Ferguson was guilty. The Commonwealth asserts that the statement is incriminating; however, the Commonwealth provides no clue as to the significance that it attaches to the statement. The Commonwealth relies on innuendo by taking out of context one statement that was made following a lengthy interview in which the police *199confronted Ferguson about the robbery.
Likewise, while it may be suspicious that one of Ferguson’s fingerprints was found on a handcuff used in the robbery, that fact alone is not sufficient to prove guilt but is a circumstance that the jury could have considered. The jury was also aware that the robbers were wearing gloves when the handcuffs were used. Because the evidence established that Ferguson and the identified robber were friends, there are numerous circumstances that may account for Ferguson’s print on the handcuff.
Both of these matters — the statement and the print — are matters for the jury to consider. Their existence does not support a conclusion that the evidence of Ferguson’s guilt was overwhelming. By cataloging a set of circumstances that it deems suspicious and lumping those circumstances with the abundant evidence of Russell’s guilt, the Commonwealth mistakenly concludes that the evidence against Ferguson is overwhelming. The evidence in this record does not support a conclusion that the Commonwealth “prove[d] beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967); see also Jones v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 732, 737, 240 S.E.2d 526, 529 (1978). The inadmissible hearsay evidence served the purpose for which it was offered by the Commonwealth — to prove by inference that Ferguson was the robber. Accordingly, I would reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial.