Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; April 19, 1995; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
William Harris appeals his life imprisonment sentence following his conviction for first-degree murder, related to the stabbing death of Claritha Granberry. Granberry was found dead in her Philadelphia home by her common-law husband, James Gill, after he returned from work at 2:00 A.M. on July 1, 1987. Gill discovered the front door open upon his arrival. Harris, who was living with Granberry's sister, Deborah Cole, was implicated based on testimony from Janice Cuff of Sicklerville, New Jersey. Cuff, who had known Granberry for 40 years, testified about a phone call with Granberry on June 30, during which Granberry indicated someone was at her door, referring to him as her "so-called brother-in-law." Cuff noted a change in Granberry's demeanor during the call, as she returned whispering after briefly leaving to check the door. Granberry expressed uncertainty about the visitor's intentions and identified him as "Gig," a name Cuff had not heard before the call. The testimony was crucial to the prosecution's case and forms the basis of Harris's appeal.
Witness Cuff testified that during a phone call with the victim, Claritha, she expressed her intent to find directions and indicated she would call back before the call ended at approximately 10:30 PM. Claritha did not return the call, nor did Cuff attempt to call her back. The testimony identified the appellant, referred to as Gig, as being present at the victim's residence around 10:00 PM on the night of the murder. This testimony was admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule based on "state of mind," "res gestae," and "spontaneous declaration." Although there was disagreement with the trial court's terminology, the admission was upheld as it fit the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. Citing precedents, including Commonwealth v. Peterkin, the court recognized that Claritha's identification of Gig during the conversation constituted a contemporaneous observation. The court also referenced related cases reinforcing the understanding of this exception, clarifying that the requirement for the recipient to be present at the scene is not controlling. Ultimately, the court affirmed the admission of Cuff's testimony and upheld the judgment of sentence, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments.
