Com. v. Cuffy, N. ( 2023 )

J-S11022-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
NATHANIEL CUFFY :
:
Appellant : No. 2194 EDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 1, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0002979-2020
BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.
MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED AUGUST 03, 2023
Nathaniel Cuffy appeals the judgment of sentence following his
convictions for simple assault and harassment.1 He challenges the admission
of evidence. We affirm.
Cuffy’s convictions stem from an argument between him and the victim.
After receiving a radio call for a person screaming, police officers arrived on
the scene and observed Cuffy on top of the victim with “his hands around the
shoulder [and] neck area” of the victim. See N.T., Trial, 4/23/21, at 11, 27.
Both officers were wearing body cameras at the time. Id. at 13, 32. After
speaking with the victim, the officers arrested Cuffy. The Commonwealth
charged Cuffy with numerous crimes including those mentioned above.
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2701(a) and 2709(a)(1), respectively.
J-S11022-23
Cuffy filed a motion in limine to exclude as hearsay any statements from
the victim that the Commonwealth wished to introduce by way of the body
camera footage. At the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth introduced
the body camera footage of one officer. It offered that the statements made
by the victim were admissible under the hearsay exception for present sense
impressions. N.T., Motion to Suppress Hearing, 4/23/21, at 6. It also told the
court that it was not arguing that the statements were admissible under the
excited utterance exception. Id. After reviewing the video, the court
determined that the victim’s statements were not covered by the excited
utterance exception but were covered by the present sense impression
exception. Id. at 27.
The trial court conducted a bench trial the same day. The court found
Cuffy guilty of the above-referenced crimes and sentenced him to 18 months’
reporting probation. This timely appeal followed.
Cuffy raises the following issue: “Did not the [] lower court err and abuse
its discretion by improperly allowing the introduction of hearsay evidence on
a recording of a police officer’s body worn camera that was not an excited
utterance?” Cuffy’s Br. at 3.
Cuffy challenges the admission of evidence, which we review for an
abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Luster, 234 A.3d 836, 838
(Pa.Super. 2020). Hearsay is an out of court statement offered into evidence
to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Pa.R.E. 801(c). Hearsay is not
admissible unless an exception applies. Pa.R.E. 802. One such exception is an
-2-
J-S11022-23
excited utterance, which is “[a] statement relating to a startling event or
condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that
it caused.” Pa.R.E. 803(2).
Cuffy maintains that the court abused its discretion when it denied his
motion in limine to preclude the admission of the victim’s statements. He
states that the court denied the motion and concluded that the statements
were admissible under the excited utterance exception to hearsay. He makes
no argument that the court erred in finding the statements admissible under
the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.
Cuffy’s challenge is meritless. Cuffy’s sole argument on appeal is that
the court erred in finding the statements admissible under the excited
utterance exception. However, the court admitted the statements under the
present sense impression exception to hearsay. Cuffy does not challenge this
finding on appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.2
____________________________________________
2 In his Rule 1925(b) statement, Cuffy claimed that the court’s admittance of
the victim’s statements violated his right to confrontation. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) Statement, filed 4/21/22. However, he has abandoned this claim by
failing to argue it in his brief.
-3-
J-S11022-23
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/3/2023
-4-