Commonwealth v. Kramer
| Docket Number | 1539 MDA 2022,J-S21040-23 |
| Decision Date | 03 November 2023 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JONATHAN M. KRAMER Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Jonathan M. Kramer appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of eighteen to thirty-six months of incarceration, imposed following his jury convictions for flight to avoid apprehension and related offenses. We affirm.
In the early afternoon of December 27, 2021, Detective Michael Dissinger and Corporal Mark Vandermartin of the Pine Grove Police Department arrived at Appellant's house to serve a felony arrest warrant that they had been trying to serve for months. The detective parked at one end of the road and the corporal parked at the other. Appellant's vehicle was in the driveway but they did not see Appellant. After leaving for a lunch break, they returned to the house to find Appellant's vehicle gone. The officers took up the same positions on the street to await Appellant's return.
Eventually Appellant's truck approached. Appellant had a front-seat passenger, John Siegel. When Appellant saw Detective Dissinger's vehicle, he swerved away and did not continue towards the house. Detective Dissinger pursued and ultimately activated his emergency lights and sirens to initiate a stop. After announcing "[c]at and mouse" to Mr. Siegel Appellant drove away at a high rate of speed, at least double the posted speed limit, for 200 yards. See N.T. Trial, 8/23/22, at 115. Appellant then drove off-road through a grassy area and into a grocery store parking lot, where pedestrians were returning to their vehicles. The officers blocked Appellant's truck with their vehicles and successfully took him into custody. They then learned that Mr. Siegel also had a warrant for his arrest, so he was taken into custody as well. Within Appellant's truck, the officers recovered methamphetamine, marijuana, and a marijuana grinder. Based on the foregoing, Appellant was charged with various flight and drug-related charges, as well as summary traffic offenses.
Appellant proceeded to a jury trial on August 23, 2022. Of relevance, the Commonwealth presented testimony, over Appellant's objection, from Detective Dissinger that he had reviewed police reports indicating that Appellant previously called the police department to ascertain whether he had any outstanding warrants. Mr. Siegel also testified, without objection, that Appellant had told him prior to the incident that the police were looking for him. Appellant testified in his own defense. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of one count each of flight to avoid apprehension, fleeing or attempting to elude police, recklessly endangering another person, and possession of drug paraphernalia, as well as two counts of possession of a controlled substance.[1] The court found him guilty of two summary traffic violations. Thereafter, he was sentenced as indicated above.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.[2] Appellant presents a single issue for our consideration: "Did the trial court err in allowing [Detective] Dissinger to testify to the contents of police reports prepared by other officers indicating that [Appellant] called the Pine Grove police station to inquire about warrants?" Appellant's brief at 3 (cleaned up).
We consider this issue pursuant to the following legal principles. "Our standard of review for evidentiary rulings, including the admission of hearsay, is abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Luster, 234 A.3d 836, 838 (Pa.Super. 2020) (cleaned up). Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d 482, 492 (Pa.Super. 2020) (cleaned up).
Appellant argues that Detective Dissinger's testimony about the contents of the police report was inadmissible hearsay because: (1) the report was not produced; (2) Detective Dissinger did not recall the date of the report, when he read it, or if he read it before the incident; and (3) the Commonwealth did not call the author of the report as a witness. See Appellant's brief at 9. The Commonwealth counters that it was not hearsay because it was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but to establish Appellant's state of mind. See Commonwealth's brief at 7.
The relevant exchange between the Commonwealth and Detective Dissinger occurred thusly:
N.T. Trial, 8/23/22, at 46-47.
Based on the foregoing, we readily conclude that Detective Dissinger's testimony regarding the police report constituted hearsay. The police report was an out-of-court statement, and the truth of the matter asserted in the report was that Appellant called the police department to inquire about his wanted status. Since the Commonwealth called Detective Dissinger to testify to this fact, and not the author of the report, Appellant was deprived of the opportunity to test this evidence. Indeed, on cross-examination, Detective Dissinger was unable to offer any additional information regarding the report. See id. at 57-58. The Commonwealth did not offer the testimony pursuant to any exception to the hearsay rule, and we discern no applicable exception upon review of the certified record. Accordingly, the trial court erred in ruling that the testimony was not inadmissible hearsay.
Our analysis does not end here, however, as we may nevertheless affirm if the error was harmless. "Under the harmless error doctrine, we must vacate the order on review to correct the error unless we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the error is harmless." Commonwealth v. Murray, 248 A.3d 557, 576 (Pa.Super. 2021) (cleaned up).
Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick, 255 A.3d 452, 483 (Pa. 2021) (cleaned up).
"[W]hen reviewing for harmless error, the appellate court considers only the uncontradicted evidence and, having done so, proceeds to determine whether that body of uncontradicted evidence was so overwhelming that the erroneous admission of the evidence could not have impacted the verdict." Id. at 470 (cleaned up). Finally, we observe that the harmless error "doctrine reflects the reality that the accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial." Commonwealth v. Wilson, 286 A.3d 1288, 1300 (Pa.Super. 2022) (cleaned up).
The Commonwealth argues in the alternative that, even if the evidence was hearsay, its admission was harmless because the testimony from Mr. Siegel that Appellant knew the police were looking for him, "coupled with Appellant's actions of flight upon making contact with police, established that he evaded police for the purpose of avoiding apprehension." Commonwealth's brief at 8-9. Likewise, the trial court concluded that "the jury's verdict was based upon solid evidence and the reasonable inferences deduced therefrom, and that any error alleged was harmless since Mr. Siegel confirmed Appellant's knowledge of the outstanding warrants." Trial Court Opinion, 1/10/23, at 5. While not so artfully crafted, we deem these averments as invoking the second and third types of harmless error.[3]
Our review of the certified record confirms that the testimony regarding Appellant's inquiry to police as to his wanted status was merely cumulative of other evidence demonstrating his intent to flee from police to avoid apprehension.[4] See Fitzpatrick, supra at 483. Specifically, that evidence established that Appellant: (1) told Mr. Siegel that the police were looking for him; (2) only moved his vehicle when the police were not parked outside his house; (3) drove away from the parked police vehicles instead of continuing on his apparent route home; (4) sped away when Detective Dissinger attempted to stop...
To continue reading
Request your trial