J-S06015-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : AUDRETTE WILLIAMS : : Appellant : No. 1662 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 29, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0002483-2017
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED: APRIL 9, 2021
Audrette Williams appeals from the judgment of sentence that was
entered by the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas on June 29, 2018.
Following a bench trial, Williams was convicted of possession with intent to
deliver a controlled substance, possession of a firearm prohibited, and
firearms not to be carried without a license.1 He was sentenced to an
aggregate term of seven to fifteen years’ imprisonment. We affirm.
On December 20, 2016, Officer Jason Reilly responded to calls regarding
shots fired in the area of a residence at 1813 Foster Avenue Circle, Bristol
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Appellant was charged with additional offenses at a separate docket not at issue in this appeal. J-S06015-21
Township, Bucks County, including one call from the occupant of the
residence, Lindora Wise. See N.T., 2/12/2018, at 11, 14. After arriving at the
residence, Wise directed Officer Reilly to the master bedroom, where he
observed a hole in the screen of the window and a bullet embedded on a
pillow. See id. at 15. Officer Reilly advised the on-site supervisor, Sergeant
Thomas Gaffney about his observations.
Around the same time, a call had come in regarding a domestic
disturbance at the Quality Inn in Bristol Township. Several officers responded
to the hotel, and requested Sergeant Gaffney to respond as well. See id. at
20-21. Sergeant Gaffney assigned Officer Paul Shallcross, who was also on
scene at the residence, to respond while he finished at the residence. See id.
at 39-40. Upon arriving, Officer Shallcross learned from the clerk who made
the call that a female wearing a white coat and a male had been arguing; the
female subsequently left out the back door. See id. at 40. After stepping
outside, Officer Shallcross observed a silver Toyota Solara and the driver,
Emonee Peterson, wearing a white coat. See id. at 42. While Officer Shallcross
was speaking with Peterson, Williams drove up in a black Nissan Sentra and
Peterson stated, “That’s him.” See id. at 49.
When Sergeant Gaffney arrived at the hotel, he observed a very angry
and upset young woman, a small silver car, a black Nissan, and Williams in
the back seat of a police car. See id. at 22-23. Sergeant Gaffney determined
that Tiarra Giovannetti owned the black Nissan and the vehicle was registered
-2- J-S06015-21
to her as an occupant at the hotel. See id. at 25-26. He obtained consent to
search the car, where he found a significant amount of loose and bundled
heroin in the center console and a firearm in the trunk. See id. at 26-33.
Video camera footage obtained from the area around Ms. Wise’s
residence, pieced together an interaction between a dark sedan and a light-
colored car around the time the bullet invaded Ms. Wise’s home. The video
footage, which was shown to the trial court, includes an instance which the
testifying officer described as a visible muzzle flash from a pistol from the dark
sedan to the light-colored car. See id. at 71-72.
After he was taken into custody, Williams was transported to the police
station where he discussed potential cooperation with the police and stated
that he obtained his heroin from sources in Philadelphia and New Jersey, and
how he could obtain raw heroin. See id. at 75-76. He also stated he had
bought the firearm earlier in the day. See id. at 76.
Bucks County Detective Iran Millan, testifying as an expert in narcotics
trafficking, stated the amount, value, and packaging of the heroin was
indicative of an intent to distribute. See id. at 88-89. The amount of cash
found, the gun, and Williams’s statement to police regarding “raw” heroin,
also led him to believe that Williams possessed the drugs with an intent to
distribute. See id. at 89-90.
The Commonwealth entered a stipulated report showing that the
projectile recovered from 1813 Foster Avenue Circle matched the firearm
-3- J-S06015-21
recovered from the trunk at the hotel. See id. at 102. Williams did not have
a permit to carry a firearm and was not permitted to possess a firearm due to
three prior felony convictions. See id. at 102-103. Trajectory tracing of the
bullet was consistent with the location of the muzzle flash in the video. See
id. at 105-106.
On appeal, Williams asserts he should receive a new trial because
inadmissible hearsay identifying him as a likely perpetrator of the crime was
introduced at trial. Specifically, Williams takes issue with the court allowing
Officer Shallcross to bring in Peterson’s statement of “[t]hat’s him” during his
testimony.
When considering the admission of evidence, our standard of review is
very narrow. Our review of a trial court’s evidentiary ruling is limited to
determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. See
Commonwealth v. Dengler, 890 A.2d 372, 379 (Pa. 2005). “An abuse of
discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have
reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest
unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of
support so as to be clearly erroneous.” Id. (citation omitted). Finally, “[t]o
constitute reversible error, an evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous
but also harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party.” Commonwealth v.
Lopez, 57 A.3d 74, 81 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
-4- J-S06015-21
Williams claims the trial court erred in permitting Officer Shallcross to
testify regarding Peterson’s statement because it was hearsay. Defense
counsel objected on hearsay grounds, but the trial court overruled the
objection, allowing the testimony for “notice”. See N.T., 2/12/2018, at 49.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. The rule against admitting hearsay evidence stems from its presumed unreliability, because the declarant cannot be challenged regarding the accuracy of the statement. But it is well established that certain out-of-court statements offered to explain the course of police conduct are admissible because they are offered not for the truth of the matters asserted but rather to show the information upon which police acted. The trial court, in exercising discretion over the admission of such statements, must balance the prosecution's need for the statements against any prejudice arising therefrom.
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501, 532-33 (Pa. 2005) (internal
citations omitted).
Williams avers that the sole purpose for the presentation of the
testimony was to identify him as the perpetrator of a crime.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S06015-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : AUDRETTE WILLIAMS : : Appellant : No. 1662 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 29, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0002483-2017
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED: APRIL 9, 2021
Audrette Williams appeals from the judgment of sentence that was
entered by the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas on June 29, 2018.
Following a bench trial, Williams was convicted of possession with intent to
deliver a controlled substance, possession of a firearm prohibited, and
firearms not to be carried without a license.1 He was sentenced to an
aggregate term of seven to fifteen years’ imprisonment. We affirm.
On December 20, 2016, Officer Jason Reilly responded to calls regarding
shots fired in the area of a residence at 1813 Foster Avenue Circle, Bristol
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Appellant was charged with additional offenses at a separate docket not at issue in this appeal. J-S06015-21
Township, Bucks County, including one call from the occupant of the
residence, Lindora Wise. See N.T., 2/12/2018, at 11, 14. After arriving at the
residence, Wise directed Officer Reilly to the master bedroom, where he
observed a hole in the screen of the window and a bullet embedded on a
pillow. See id. at 15. Officer Reilly advised the on-site supervisor, Sergeant
Thomas Gaffney about his observations.
Around the same time, a call had come in regarding a domestic
disturbance at the Quality Inn in Bristol Township. Several officers responded
to the hotel, and requested Sergeant Gaffney to respond as well. See id. at
20-21. Sergeant Gaffney assigned Officer Paul Shallcross, who was also on
scene at the residence, to respond while he finished at the residence. See id.
at 39-40. Upon arriving, Officer Shallcross learned from the clerk who made
the call that a female wearing a white coat and a male had been arguing; the
female subsequently left out the back door. See id. at 40. After stepping
outside, Officer Shallcross observed a silver Toyota Solara and the driver,
Emonee Peterson, wearing a white coat. See id. at 42. While Officer Shallcross
was speaking with Peterson, Williams drove up in a black Nissan Sentra and
Peterson stated, “That’s him.” See id. at 49.
When Sergeant Gaffney arrived at the hotel, he observed a very angry
and upset young woman, a small silver car, a black Nissan, and Williams in
the back seat of a police car. See id. at 22-23. Sergeant Gaffney determined
that Tiarra Giovannetti owned the black Nissan and the vehicle was registered
-2- J-S06015-21
to her as an occupant at the hotel. See id. at 25-26. He obtained consent to
search the car, where he found a significant amount of loose and bundled
heroin in the center console and a firearm in the trunk. See id. at 26-33.
Video camera footage obtained from the area around Ms. Wise’s
residence, pieced together an interaction between a dark sedan and a light-
colored car around the time the bullet invaded Ms. Wise’s home. The video
footage, which was shown to the trial court, includes an instance which the
testifying officer described as a visible muzzle flash from a pistol from the dark
sedan to the light-colored car. See id. at 71-72.
After he was taken into custody, Williams was transported to the police
station where he discussed potential cooperation with the police and stated
that he obtained his heroin from sources in Philadelphia and New Jersey, and
how he could obtain raw heroin. See id. at 75-76. He also stated he had
bought the firearm earlier in the day. See id. at 76.
Bucks County Detective Iran Millan, testifying as an expert in narcotics
trafficking, stated the amount, value, and packaging of the heroin was
indicative of an intent to distribute. See id. at 88-89. The amount of cash
found, the gun, and Williams’s statement to police regarding “raw” heroin,
also led him to believe that Williams possessed the drugs with an intent to
distribute. See id. at 89-90.
The Commonwealth entered a stipulated report showing that the
projectile recovered from 1813 Foster Avenue Circle matched the firearm
-3- J-S06015-21
recovered from the trunk at the hotel. See id. at 102. Williams did not have
a permit to carry a firearm and was not permitted to possess a firearm due to
three prior felony convictions. See id. at 102-103. Trajectory tracing of the
bullet was consistent with the location of the muzzle flash in the video. See
id. at 105-106.
On appeal, Williams asserts he should receive a new trial because
inadmissible hearsay identifying him as a likely perpetrator of the crime was
introduced at trial. Specifically, Williams takes issue with the court allowing
Officer Shallcross to bring in Peterson’s statement of “[t]hat’s him” during his
testimony.
When considering the admission of evidence, our standard of review is
very narrow. Our review of a trial court’s evidentiary ruling is limited to
determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. See
Commonwealth v. Dengler, 890 A.2d 372, 379 (Pa. 2005). “An abuse of
discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have
reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest
unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of
support so as to be clearly erroneous.” Id. (citation omitted). Finally, “[t]o
constitute reversible error, an evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous
but also harmful or prejudicial to the complaining party.” Commonwealth v.
Lopez, 57 A.3d 74, 81 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
-4- J-S06015-21
Williams claims the trial court erred in permitting Officer Shallcross to
testify regarding Peterson’s statement because it was hearsay. Defense
counsel objected on hearsay grounds, but the trial court overruled the
objection, allowing the testimony for “notice”. See N.T., 2/12/2018, at 49.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. The rule against admitting hearsay evidence stems from its presumed unreliability, because the declarant cannot be challenged regarding the accuracy of the statement. But it is well established that certain out-of-court statements offered to explain the course of police conduct are admissible because they are offered not for the truth of the matters asserted but rather to show the information upon which police acted. The trial court, in exercising discretion over the admission of such statements, must balance the prosecution's need for the statements against any prejudice arising therefrom.
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501, 532-33 (Pa. 2005) (internal
citations omitted).
Williams avers that the sole purpose for the presentation of the
testimony was to identify him as the perpetrator of a crime.
Our Supreme Court has previously noted the need for weighing the
dangers of hearsay testimony against the need for evidence to explain why
police pursued a given course of action, and found that this balancing process
lies in the sound discretion of the trial court, which will be upheld on appeal
unless there has been an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Palsa,
555 A.2d 808, 811 (Pa. 1989).
A review of the testimony reveals that Officer Shallcross testified to
Peterson’s out of court identification of Williams at the hotel. He then
-5- J-S06015-21
recounted the steps taken in the investigation and the information that
accumulated afterwards.
Importantly, Peterson’s out of court statement did not directly implicate
Williams in the crimes which form the basis of this appeal. While the
identification led police to stop Williams, it did not tend to prove that Williams
possessed either the heroin or the firearm. Instead, the nature of the
testimony was precisely the type of evidence admissible as course of conduct
testimony because it provided a complete picture of the investigation and did
not go beyond what was reasonably necessary to explain this conduct. In fact,
the Commonwealth attempted to admit other statements made by Peterson
at the same time as the above statement as an excited utterance, and after
an extensive review, the trial court denied the request. See N.T., 2/12/2018
Transcript, at 44-49, 94-98, 110-115.
Officer Shallcross’s testimony regarding the course of the investigation
was properly admitted. We therefore find Williams’s claim is meritless.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 4/9/21
-6-