138. Commonwealth v.

Coleman
Oct. 16, 1974
Jones, C. J. of the SC of Pennsylvania
Recit-Ready Version:
Diane McCarthy called her mother to tell her that her boyfriend Coleman wouldnt let her leave the
apartment, that he would hang up the phone, and would, after hanging up, kill her. The trial court convicted
Coleman of assault and battery, assault with intent to kill, and second degree murder on the basis of the
mothers testimony to that effect. Coleman said that the evidence was not properly part of the res gestae, but
a mere opinion without fact.
The SC disagreed. While the declarations over the phone were not excited utterances in the classic sense of
res gestae, they were present sense impressions, which are reliable due to their contemporaneity with the
occurrence or condition which they describe. Thus, the evidence is admissible.
Facts:
On May 3, 1971, Diane McCarthy was awakened by her boyfriend, James Coleman, who lived with her at her
apartment in Allentown, Pennsylvania. She later phoned her mother Marilyn that Coleman wouldnt let her
leave the apartment, that he would hang up the phone, and that he would kill her. Marilyn then called the
police. Five minutes later, Coleman , blood-spattered and with cuts on his face and hands, hailed a patrol car
and said he had hurt his girlfriend. Diane was found dead of multiple stab wounds.
Colemans defence was self-defence, as he claimed that Diane launched an unprovoked attack on
him with a letter opener, which led him to admittedly stab her. Coleman was convicted of aggravated assault
and battery, assault with intent to kill, and second degree murder.
Evidence at issue:
Coleman contends that Marilyn should not have been allowed to testify as to Dianes statements over the
phone. He alleges that the admission of the testimony under the rule of res gestae was improper because
Diane only gave opinions without factual support. He also claimed that such testimony defeated his defense
of self-defense and prevented a verdict of voluntary manslaughter without malice.
Issues:
WON Dianes testimony is admissible. (Yes)
Ratio:
Lets begin with a look at the res gestae exception:
The Court has consistently recognized the validity and rationality of the res gestae exception to the
hearsay rule. A res gestae declaration is a spontaneous declaration by a person whose mind has been suddenly
made subject to an overpowering emotion caused by some unexpected and shocking occurrence, which that
person has just participated in or closely witnessed, and made in reference to some phase of that occurrence
which he perceived, and this declaration must be made so near the occurrence both in time and place as to
exclude the likelihood of its having emanated in whole or in part from his reflective faculties.
**************HERE BE RATIONALE***********
The rationale behind the res gestae exception is that the startling event speaks through the verbal acts of the
declarant and vests reliability in an out-of-court statement whose accuracy would otherwise be suspect. The
spontaneity of an excited statement is the source of reliability and the touchstone of admissibility.
Prof. McCormick has indicated that the term res gestae is more generic than particular in nature. It
partakes of the characteristics of excited utterances.
*****************DF*****************************
Here, there is no doubt that the challenged testimony would fall under the classic definition of
hearsay. The statements made over the phone more resemble a verbalization of her perception of Colemans
attitude and behaviour than a declaration of emotion engendered by a prior physical occurrence. For tat
reason, they do not fit the description of excited utterance.
**************Present sense impressions*************
However, the court allowed the evidence to be admitted, because they felt that there should be an
exception to the hearsay rule covering present sense impressions, i.e. declarations concerning conditions or
non-exciting events which the declarant is observing at the time of his declaration. The indicium of reliability
of these kinds of statements is in view of the contemporaneousness with the observation of the occurrence or
condition. Relative immediacy of the declaration insures that there will have been little opportunity for
reflection or calculated misstatement. The declaration is instinctive rather than deliberative.
Thus, the declarations over the phone are part of the present sense impression exception to the
hearsay rule. Diane told her mother that Coleman would not let her leave the apartment, that he would hang
up the phone, and that as soon as the phone had been hung up, he would kill her. The mother testified that
Coleman could be heard shouting in the background, and Coleman himself testified that he and Diane had
engaged in a loud argument immediately prior to the call. The contemporaneity of the declarations and the
observation seem clear.
Moreover, the mothers failure to have observed the situation in the apartment is not enough to
disallow application of the exception. Verification is not a prerequisite to the admissibility of testimony under
the res gestae exception.
***************************************
Thus falling under the exception, the statement that hes going to kill me is not a mere opinion
without basis in fact. That doctrine only applies to witnesses, who must only testify in court to facts and not
to inferences, conclusions or opinions, and does not apply to impressions of contemporaneous events or
conditions.
Judgment Affirmed
Pomeroy, J., concurring
The court should have used the res gestae in its original sense, i.e. excited utterances. Both the elements
thereofa startling event and a spontaneous reaction theretowere present. Thus the testimony fell under
the excited utterances exception. There was no need to adapt the new present impressions exception.
Gabe.