Opinion
J-S02023-18 No. 906 EDA 2017
04-24-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KYLE CARTER Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 20, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005038-2012 BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and RANSOM, J. MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant Kyle Carter appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment of sentence of eighteen to forty years' incarceration following a jury trial and conviction for third-degree murder. Appellant challenges whether the court erred by admitting into evidence a document that lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and authenticity. He also alleges the court erred by permitting the jury to view the document during its deliberations. We affirm.
We adopt the facts and procedural history set forth in the trial court's decision. Trial Ct. Op., 4/21/14, at 1-4. Appellant timely filed, and the court denied, a post-sentence motion raising the above issues. Post-Sentence Mot., 9/30/13; Order, 1/15/14. Appellant timely appealed, but this Court dismissed his appeal for failure to file a brief. Order, 7/16/14. Appellant filed a successful Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition reinstating his direct appeal rights nunc pro tunc. Appellant timely appealed and timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
Appellant raises the following issues:
1. Did the court err in admitting into evidence an unsigned document characterized by the Commonwealth as a "notarized" document where said document was so unreliable as to not warrant its admission?Appellant's Brief at 5.
2. Did the court err in permitting the document in question to go out with the jury during deliberations?
We summarize Appellant's arguments for both of his issues. He contends that the document had his unverified signature and a notary stamp, but no signature by the notary. Appellant's Brief at 13-14. Appellant asserts that the document was insufficiently authenticated and thus should not have been admitted for the substantive purpose of tying Appellant and the firearm used to kill the victim together. Appellant also points out that the document was used as evidence that he was attempting to evade culpability. Id. at 15. He argues that the court erred by permitting the jury to view the document as it had minimal evidentiary value. We hold Appellant is due no relief.
Appellant also claims that the evidence was inadmissible hearsay. Appellant's Brief at 14-15. But Appellant waived that argument as his only objection was that the document was not properly authenticated. N.T. Trial, 7/18/17, at 54; Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
"The admission of evidence is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and an appellate court may reverse only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion." Commonwealth v. McFadden , 156 A.3d 299, 309 (Pa. Super. 2017). Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 901 requires parties to authenticate documents with "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." Pa.R.E. 901(a). Parties may use circumstantial evidence to authenticate documents. See Commonwealth v. Collins , 957 A.2d 237, 265 (Pa. 2008). "[T]he ultimate determination of authenticity is for the jury. A proponent of a document need only present a prima facie case of some evidence of genuineness in order to put the issue of authenticity before the factfinders." Commonwealth v. Brooks , 508 A.2d 316, 320 (Pa. Super. 1986). Further, the trial "court makes the preliminary determination of whether or not a prima facie case exists to warrant its submission to the finders of fact, but the jury itself considers the evidence and weighs it against that offered by the opposing party." Id. (citation omitted).
We may rely on caselaw predating the enactment of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence to the extent the caselaw does not contradict the rules. Commonwealth v. Aikens , 990 A.2d 1181, 1185 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2010).
Generally, "the jury may take with it such exhibits as the trial judge deems proper." Pa.R.Crim.P. 646. But any objection to the jury's view of such exhibits must be made to the trial court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Miller , 80 A.3d 806, 811 (Pa. Super. 2011); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
After careful consideration of the parties' briefs, the record, and the decision by the Honorable Glenn B. Bronson, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's decision. See Trial Ct. Op., 4/21/14, at 4-7. Having found no abuse of discretion, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/24/18
Image materials not available for display.