Commonwealth v. Lippert

• Citation: 311 A.2d 586,454 Pa. 381
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Glenn J. LIPPERT, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 26 November 1973
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

311 A.2d 586

454 Pa. 381

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Glenn J. LIPPERT, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 26, 1973.

Justin K. McCarthy, Gus Milides, Easton, for appellant.

Charles H. Spaziani, Dist. Atty., Easton, for appellee.

Before JONES C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.

OPINION

MANDERINO Justice.

The appellant, Glenn J. Lippert, was found guilty by a jury of second-degree murder. Post-trial motions were filed and denied. Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than ten or more than twenty years.

Dorothy Lippert, the wife of the appellant, was found dead in her bed during the early morning of February 16, 1970. The cause of her death was asphyxiation by strangulation. Appellant and his wife, though separated, were spending a weekend together at her apartment at the time of her death. Appellant claims that the trial court erroneously admitted, over defense counsel's objection, the hearsay testimony of four prosecution witnesses. We agree with the appellant and reverse the judgment of sentence.

Four prosecution witnesses testified concerning declarations that the decedent had made to them on occasions prior to her death. These statements were hearsay and should not have been admitted into evidence. One of the witnesses was Helen Lucio who worked with the decedent at the Mack Printing Company. She testified that during the latter part of 1969, the decedent said that she had been choked by her husband. Bernadette Greenleaf, who also worked at the Mack Printing Company, testified that sometime during the summer of 1969, she was told by the decedent that her husband had strangled and choked her. The other two witnesses who gave hearsay testimony were the appellant's stepchildren who lived with the decedent. Debora Cline testified that at the end of November or the beginning of December in 1969, the decedent said that she had been choked by the appellant until she passed out. She also testified that in the summer of 1968 or 1969 (she could not remember which) her mother had said that the appellant had strangled her. Frederick Cline testified that his mother told him that the appellant had choked her until she passed out. He was not sure when his mother made the remark.

Defense counsel objected to all of the above testimony. It is classic hearsay and should not have been admitted.

The prosecution agrees that the testimony by the above four witnesses was hearsay but claims that all of the statements were admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. We do not agree.

The prosecution argues that evidence of the prior relationship between the accused and the victim is relevant in a murder case. We agree, but the rule, upon which they rely, is a rule of relevancy, and does not mean that the evidence is necessarily competent. Evidence that is relevant is nonetheless inadmissible if it violates the hearsay rule or any exclusionary rule of evidence. 'All facts having rational probative value are...