Com. v. McBurrows
Decision Date | 01 June 2001 |
Citation | 779 A.2d 509 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Javan McBURROWS, Appellee. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Mary M. Killinger, Assistant District Attorney, Norristown, for Com., appellant.
Garrett D. Page, Norristown, for appellee.
Before: McEWEN, President Judge, DEL SOLE, KELLY, POPOVICH, JOHNSON, JOYCE, MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and LALLY-GREEN, JJ.
¶ 1 In this prosecution for murder in the first degree, the Commonwealth has appealed from the Order which granted in part the defense's omnibus pre-trial motion to suppress the testimony of the Appellee's wife on the grounds of spousal privilege pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5914. At issue is whether a wife's observation of her husband's disposal of the alleged murder weapon is a confidential communication between spouses protected under § 5914. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
¶ 2 The facts and procedural history may be summarized as follows. On January 15, 1999, the Appellee was charged with first and third degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, recklessly endangering another person, possessing an instrument of a crime and endangering the welfare of children.1 These charges arose out of the fatal abuse allegedly inflicted by the Appellee against a minor child, Michael Davis (age 4), who was in his care on January 9, 1999.2
¶ 3 On the evening in question, the Appellee's wife, Mrs. McBurrows, testified she observed the abuse which was inflicted upon the victim. The suppression court summarized her rendition of the events from her statements to the police on January 11, 1999 and January 13, 1999 as well as her preliminary hearing testimony on March 3, 1999 as follows:
Suppression Court Opinion, 8/31/99, at 3-7.
¶ 4 On May 18, 1999, the Appellee filed an omnibus-pre-trial motion seeking among other things, to preclude the testimony of his wife on the basis of spousal immunity or privileged communications pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 5913, Spouses as witnesses against each other, and 5914, Confidential communications between spouses. A hearing was held on the motion on June 28, 1999. Following the hearing, the defense agreed to submit the challenged portions of Mrs. McBurrows' testimony from her statements given to the police on January 11, 1999 and January 13, 1999, as well as her testimony from the preliminary hearing on March 3, 1999.
¶ 5 By Order dated July 20, 1999, the suppression court granted in part and denied in part Appellee's suppression motion. For purposes of this appeal, the suppression court found Mrs. McBurrows' testimony regarding her observation of Appellee's disposal of the mason's level allegedly used to beat the victim to death was privileged pursuant to § 5914.3 The Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal on July 21, 1999. In the notice of appeal, the Commonwealth certified pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(d)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Luster
... ... Commonwealth v. McBurrows, 779 A.2d 509, 514 (Pa.Super.2001) (internal citation omitted). The privilege under 42 Pa.C.S.A. 5914 prevents a spouse from testifying against the ... ...
-
Com. v. Small, 472 CAP.
... ... While Janice Small was divorced from Small when she testified, N.T. Trial, 5/17/96, at 773-74, since the statement at issue occurred when they were married, the privilege could apply. See Commonwealth v. McBurrows, 779 A.2d 509, 514 ... 980 A.2d 562 ... (Pa.Super.2001) ("The privilege remains in effect through death or divorce.") ... For § 5914 to apply, it is also "essential ... the communication be made in confidence and with the intention that it not be divulged." May, at 1342; ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Reese
... ... Id. Thus, the Hancharik Court had no reason to reference In re Watt's Estate. Likewise, in Commonwealth v. McBurrows, 779 A.2d 509 (Pa.Super.2001) ( en banc ), appeal denied, 572 Pa. 732, 815 A.2d 632 (2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 829, 124 S.Ct. 60, 157 ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Mattison
... ... See Commonwealth v. McBurrows, 779 A.2d 509, 518–19 (Pa.Super.2001) (overruling the Superior Court's prior holding in Clark and holding that Pennsylvania law does not extend ... ...