Conviction Affirmed

CONFRONTATION CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION NOT VIOLATED BY ADMISSION OF MEDICAL RECORDS OF VICTIM

Post 4908

Michael McCullough appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions for one count each of aggravated assault, person not to possess a firearm,  carrying a firearm without a license and recklessly endangering another person.

In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v.  Michael McCullough, No. 824 WDA 2022, No. J-A18038-24, 2024 PA Super 221, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (September 24, 2024) McCullough challenged his conviction on constitutional ground claiming he was unable to confront a witness against him.

FACTS - 10-20 YEARS IN JAIL

On March 4, 2019, authorities responded to a shooting in downtown Pittsburgh. The victim, Lawrence Toombs, was encountered laying on the sidewalk near the intersection of Liberty Avenue and Seventh Street with two bullet wounds in the left, upper chest.  The jury was shown video footage of the shooting, still photographs of the shooting and video footage of the suspect's flight from the scene. Gunshot testing  of McCullough's right hand was positive for gunshot residue.

Following his conviction of the above-mentioned charges, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years of incarceration followed by a 2-year period of probation.

CLAIMS ON APPEAL

Appellant raises the following two claims in this appeal:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred by allowing the medical records and certification that the medical records were the victim's medical records when the certification was testimonial and in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment?
Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred by allowing redacted medical records into evidence when redacted medical records are not permitted to be entered into evidence under the medical records exception to the hearsay rule when the records were not a true and complete reproduction?

Appellant first argued that his rights to confrontation were violated when the Commonwealth failed to produce a witness at his trial who could testify that the copy of the victim's medical records that were admitted at trial were true and accurate.

Issues related to whether the admission of evidence violated an accused's rights under the Confrontation Clause are questions of law. The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause generally prohibits the admission of hearsay statements that are "testimonial" in nature. Stated differently, testimonial evidence has a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.

If a statement is not intended to be used to prove an element of a crime, the statement may be non-testimonial. Examples of this would include calibration and accuracy certificates for Breathalyzers or other devices that test the alcohol content of someone's breath. These certificates merely certify the reliability of the device.

Looking at the purpose served by the evidence the court noted that the records in question are medical records relating to treatment given to the non-testifying victim for injuries suffered in the shooting. Because the victim did not testify, the prosecutor sought to introduce the victim's medical records and accompanying certification to establish the victim's injuries. As objective information, the records are not testimonial for the Court of Appeals’ purposes.

Since a medical records certificate does not vouch for the substance of those records but merely certifies that the hospital furnished accurate copies of records, the certificate was not testimonial. Accordingly, there was no Confrontation Clause violation.

The victim's personal identifying information contained in the medical records was irrelevant at Appellant's trial. The only purpose served by the medical records was to show that the victim in this case suffered a serious bodily injury. The jury did not need to know the victim's address, birthdate, social security number, or who his insurance company was.

The information about the victim's injuries was not limited to the medical records in question. Video evidence of the incident showed Appellant raise his arm while holding a firearm and shoot twice directly at the victim. The victim was also found lying in a pool of blood, and Detective Corey Adelsberger testified to inspecting the victim and discovering two gunshot wounds.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the Appellant suffered no prejudice and is not entitled to relief on his claims so the judgment of sentence affirmed.

ZALMA OPINION

The US Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to confront witnesses against him. McCullough tried to defeat his conviction by claiming he was not allowed to confront the custodian of records of the hospital that treated the victim he shot twice. Since all the custodian attested to was that the copy prepared was an accurate copy of the victims records. There was no testimony and the records established that the victim suffered serious injuries which, when added to the testimony of the police officer who found him in a pool of blood with two bullet wounds to the chest who was available to confront. A serious criminal seeking appellate relief for his obvious guilt.

(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkMichael McCullough appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions for one count each of aggravated assault, person not to possess a firearm,  carrying a firearm without a license and recklessly endangering another person.

In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v.  Michael McCullough, No. 824 WDA 2022, No. J-A18038-24, 2024 PA Super 221, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (September 24, 2024) McCullough challenged his conviction on constitutional ground claiming he was unable to confront a witness against him.

FACTS - 10-20 YEARS IN JAIL

On March 4, 2019, authorities responded to a shooting in downtown Pittsburgh. The victim, Lawrence Toombs, was encountered laying on the sidewalk near the intersection of Liberty Avenue and Seventh Street with two bullet wounds in the left, upper chest.  The jury was shown video footage of the shooting, still photographs of the shooting and video footage of the suspect's flight from the scene. Gunshot testing  of McCullough's right hand was positive for gunshot residue.

Following his conviction of the above-mentioned charges, Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years of incarceration followed by a 2-year period of probation.

CLAIMS ON APPEAL

Appellant raises the following two claims in this appeal:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred by allowing the medical records and certification that the medical records were the victim's medical records when the certification was testimonial and in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment?
Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred by allowing redacted medical records into evidence when redacted medical records are not permitted to be entered into evidence under the medical records exception to the hearsay rule when the records were not a true and complete reproduction?

Appellant first argued that his rights to confrontation were violated when the Commonwealth failed to produce a witness at his trial who could testify that the copy of the victim's medical records that were admitted at trial were true and accurate.

Issues related to whether the admission of evidence violated an accused's rights under the Confrontation Clause are questions of law. The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause generally prohibits the admission of hearsay statements that are "testimonial" in nature. Stated differently, testimonial evidence has a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.

If a statement is not intended to be used to prove an element of a crime, the statement may be non-testimonial. Examples of this would include calibration and accuracy certificates for Breathalyzers or other devices that test the alcohol content of someone's breath. These certificates merely certify the reliability of the device.

Looking at the purpose served by the evidence the court noted that the records in question are medical records relating to treatment given to the non-testifying victim for injuries suffered in the shooting. Because the victim did not testify, the prosecutor sought to introduce the victim's medical records and accompanying certification to establish the victim's injuries. As objective information, the records are not testimonial for the Court of Appeals’ purposes.

Since a medical records certificate does not vouch for the substance of those records but merely certifies that the hospital furnished accurate copies of records, the certificate was not testimonial. Accordingly, there was no Confrontation Clause violation.

The victim's personal identifying information contained in the medical records was irrelevant at Appellant's trial. The only purpose served by the medical records was to show that the victim in this case suffered a serious bodily injury. The jury did not need to know the victim's address, birthdate, social security number, or who his insurance company was.

The information about the victim's injuries was not limited to the medical records in question. Video evidence of the incident showed Appellant raise his arm while holding a firearm and shoot twice directly at the victim. The victim was also found lying in a pool of blood, and Detective Corey Adelsberger testified to inspecting the victim and discovering two gunshot wounds.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the Appellant suffered no prejudice and is not entitled to relief on his claims so the judgment of sentence affirmed.

ZALMA OPINION

The US Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to confront witnesses against him. McCullough tried to defeat his conviction by claiming he was not allowed to confront the custodian of records of the hospital that treated the victim he shot twice. Since all the custodian attested to was that the copy prepared was an accurate copy of the victims records. There was no testimony and the records established that the victim suffered serious injuries which, when added to the testimony of the police officer who found him in a pool of blood with two bullet wounds to the chest who was available to confront. A serious criminal seeking appellate relief for his obvious guilt.

(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk