Caseflicks

Superior Court of Pennsylvania • 2014

Commonwealth v. Belknap

105 A.3d 7 | 2014 Pa. Super. 259 | 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4526

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that Rule 803(4) can admit emergency statements to a trained police first responder when the statements are made to obtain care and describe a possible cause of the victim's condition.

Background

Police responded at night to the Brookhaven Swim Club, where Officer Robert Barth found Joshua Belknap unconscious and face down in a gravel parking lot. Belknap had a rapid pulse and was breathing but was unresponsive. As Barth tried to assess and revive him, two people identifying themselves as Belknap's friends said that Belknap had become unconscious in their vehicle, that they believed he had overdosed, and that he had struggled with heroin addiction. Barth administered a sternum rub and searched Belknap's pockets for identification, recovering a needle with an orange cap. He found no alcohol or controlled substances in the immediate area.

Belknap was charged with possessing drug paraphernalia. At his bench trial, he objected when Officer Barth repeated the friends' statements, arguing that they were hearsay. The trial court admitted the statements under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 803(4), the exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment. The court found Belknap guilty, imposed no confinement, and directed him to comply with general probation-and-parole rules because he was already on parole in another matter. Belknap appealed, challenging the admission of the statements.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Officer Barth's testimony that Belknap's friends said he had overdosed on heroin and had a heroin addiction under the medical-treatment hearsay exception.

Holding

No. The friends' statements were admissible under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 803(4) because they were made to help a trained first responder assess and treat Belknap's apparent medical emergency.

Reasoning

The Superior Court reviewed the evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. Hearsay is ordinarily inadmissible, and the party offering it must establish a reliable exception. Rule 803(4) permits a statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment when the statement is reasonably pertinent to treatment or diagnosis in contemplation of treatment. The exception applies when the declarant has a motive consistent with obtaining medical care and the statement's content is of the sort medical personnel reasonably rely upon.

The statements were made in the midst of an emergency. Belknap was unconscious, face down, and surrounded by people when Officer Barth arrived. Barth immediately asked what had happened so that he could determine how to proceed. The friends' report that Belknap had gone unconscious in their car and might have overdosed was therefore offered to secure prompt care for Belknap, not for litigation or some unrelated purpose.

The information was reasonably pertinent to treatment even though Barth testified on cross-examination that it did not change how he handled Belknap. A possible heroin overdose explained the likely cause of Belknap's unconsciousness and could assist a first responder in evaluating and treating him. Barth was an experienced police officer trained to resuscitate possible overdose victims, and he received the information while assessing Belknap's condition and performing emergency first-response care.

The court rejected Belknap's argument that Rule 803(4) applies only to statements made to physicians or nurses. The rule's comment expressly says that the exception is not limited to physicians, and Pennsylvania law permits statements concerning the cause of an injury when pertinent to treatment. Officer Barth was the first responder actively evaluating Belknap's symptoms and their cause, so the statements could fall within the exception despite being made to a police officer.

The statements also bore the reliability that supports the exception. The friends had an evident motive to give accurate information that could help revive an unconscious Belknap. Further, the trial judge, acting as factfinder, expressly stated that it would disregard testimony about Belknap's prior heroin use and would consider the evidence only for its proper medical-treatment purpose. Admission of the evidence therefore did not deny Belknap a fair trial.