Commonwealth v. Harrington

262 A.3d 639

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Lisa Danea HARRINGTON, Appellant

No. 318 WDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted August 2, 2021

Filed: September 29, 2021

Adam Gorzelsky, Greensburg, for appellant.

James T. Lazar, Westmoreland County District Attorney's Office, Greensburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.^*

OPINION BY DUBOW, J.:

Appellant, Lisa Danea Harrington, appeals from the September 24, 2020 Judgments of Sentence entered in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas¹ following her conviction of four counts of Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution and one count each of Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License and Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence.² Appellant challenges two evidentiary rulings by the trial court. After careful review, we affirm.

Appellant's charges arose from her involvement with her cousin, Rahmael Holt, and others after Holt killed a police officer. We, thus, provide the following background, together with the facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal. Shortly after 8:00 PM on November 17, 2017, Holt shot and killed New Kensington Police Patrolman Brian Shaw.³ Police recovered video surveillance footage that tracked the interaction between Patrolman Shaw and Holt from the time they initially encountered each other through Patrolman Shaw's foot pursuit of Holt, which culminated in Holt shooting Patrolman Shaw. The video further captured Holt fleeing in the direction of 1206 Victoria Avenue, New Kensington after the shooting, and other officers responding and tending to the fallen officer.⁴

Within minutes of Patrolman Shaw's murder, Holt arrived at 1206 Victoria Avenue, a residence approximately 165 yards south-east of the location where Holt murdered Patrolman Shaw. Holt was flustered and bleeding from his hand. Holt's associates, Taylor Mitchell, Lakita Cain, Antoinette Strong, Michael Luffey, and Holly Clemons, resided at 1206 Victoria Avenue.⁵ Mitchell, Cain, and Strong were at home at the time and had heard gunshots outside.⁶ Upon Holt's arrival at the residence, he went directly into the basement and remained there for a short time before going upstairs to Lakita Cain's bedroom. Cell phone records showed calls from Cain's phone to Appellant's phone at 8:15 PM, 8:21 PM, and 8:23 PM, and a call from Appellant's phone to Cain's phone at 8:28 PM. Holt left the 1206 Victoria Avenue residence sometime shortly thereafter.

At 8:34 PM, Appellant called Holt's girlfriend, Vanessa Portis, and asked Portis if Portis had seen Holt. Fifteen minutes later, Holt, using Appellant's phone, called Portis and informed Portis that he had lost his phone. Holt asked Portis, to whom the line was registered, to disconnect the lost phone. Police later recovered Holt's phone on the property next to 1206 Victoria Avenue.

At 9:02 PM, Portis received another call from Appellant's phone. Around that same time, Appellant dropped Holt off at Portis’ residence. Portis, unaccompanied by Appellant, then drove Holt to the home of Holt's mother in nearby Homewood.

Text message records indicate that, after Appellant dropped Holt off with Portis, Appellant communicated with her nephew about selling a gun that evening. Text messages also show that Appellant informed her mother-in-law that Appellant had been in the area of the shooting and was aware that a manhunt for Holt was underway.

Just before midnight on November 17, 2017, Appellant spoke on the phone for almost 14 minutes with Lakita Cain. They spoke again three times between 1:00 AM and 3:05 AM, and at 11:47 AM on November 18, 2017.

On November 18, 2017, Appellant arrived at the 1206 Victoria Avenue residence with her children. Appellant first went upstairs to Cain's bedroom. She then went downstairs to the basement where she retrieved something, emerging from the basement carrying a purse and a paper bag. She then carried the purse and bag to her minivan and left without her children. She returned approximately 20 minutes later, collected her children, and left the residence.

Over the course of the weekend following Patrolman Shaw's murder, numerous law enforcement investigators visited and questioned the residents of 1206 Victoria Street; none of the residents were candid and truthful with investigators, at least initially.⁷ Lakita Cain and Taylor Mitchell repeatedly failed to disclose that Holt had visited shortly after Patrolman Shaw's murder and misled investigators about the nature and extent of their relationship with Holt. In addition, Cain and Mitchell sent a text message to Michael Luffey on the cell phone that he shared with Holly Clemons, instructing him to deny to police that Holt had come to the residence after the shooting.

Ultimately, Cain admitted that Holt had come to 1206 Victoria Avenue immediately after the residents heard gunshots on November 17, 2017. She also admitted that she had permitted Holt to use her phone that night because he had lost his. Cain also admitted that she had spoken with Appellant over the course of the ensuing days, and that Appellant had come to 1206 Victoria Avenue on November 18, 2017, to retrieve something from the basement and then informed Cain that "it was handled."⁸

Following Holt's apprehension by police, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with the above crimes, alleging that Appellant had communicated with and provided transportation to Holt after he murdered Patrolman Shaw and that Appellant disposed of the firearm that Holt had used in the shooting.

Prior to trial, Appellant filed a pretrial Motion in Limine to preclude as hearsay the testimony of the Commonwealth's witness, Holly Clemons. The Commonwealth intended to offer testimony from Clemons that Lakita Cain told Clemons that Appellant had come to their residence after the shooting to retrieve the firearm that Holt had used. The Commonwealth argued that, because Clemons conspired with Cain and the other residents of 1206 Victoria Avenue to hinder the apprehension and prosecution of Holt, her testimony was admissible as an exception to the rule prohibiting hearsay testimony. The trial court agreed and denied Appellant's Motion in Limine .

The jury trial proceeded with the Commonwealth presenting the testimony of numerous witnesses to establish the above facts. Relevant to the instant appeal, Appellant objected to the Commonwealth's playing the approximately eleven-minute surveillance video recording, with synchronized audio obtained from recordings of Patrolman Shaw's calls to police dispatchers, of Patrolman Shaw's murder. Appellant argued that the video recording was irrelevant, and, even if relevant, the substantial prejudice it would cause outweighed any potential probative value. Appellant offered to stipulate to the fact of the shooting and the time and location in which it took place.

The Commonwealth argued that the video recording was relevant to establish the underlying crime for which Appellant hindered apprehension or prosecution. The Commonwealth also argued that the video recording was relevant to prove that Holt fled in the direction of 1206 Victoria Avenue, which is the location where Holt hid the murder weapon, and adjoins the property where Holt dropped his cell phone. The court overruled Appellant's objection to this evidence, issued a cautionary instruction to the jury, and permitted the Commonwealth to play the video recording.

On March 5, 2020, the jury convicted Appellant of the above charges. On September 24, 2020, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 3 to 7 years’ incarceration.

Appellant filed a timely Post-Sentence Motion, which the court denied on February 23, 2021. This appeal followed. Appellant complied with the court's Order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement and the trial court relied on its Opinion and Order denying Appellant's Post-Sentence Motion.

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:

[1.] Did the [c]ourt err in admitting into evidence and allowing the Commonwealth to present to the jury video and audio of the murder of [Patrolman] Shaw and subsequent emergency response[ ] when the minimal relevance of the video could have been cured with simple stipulations that would not have led to the high likelihood of unfair prejudice to [Appellant]?

[2.] Did the [c]ourt err in admitting testimony from Holly Clemons that Lakita Cain told her that [Appellant] came to Cain's residence to remove the gun that Rahmael Holt used to shoot [Patrolman] Shaw[ ] when said testimony is inadmissible hearsay that does not fall within the co-conspirator exception to the rule against hearsay?

Appellant's Brief at 4 (suggested answers omitted).

Appellant's issues challenge two of the trial court's evidentiary rulings allowing the admission of certain evidence. The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Woodard , 634 Pa. 162, 129 A.3d 480, 494 (2015). "An abuse of discretion will not be found based on a mere error of judgment, but rather occurs where the court has reached a conclusion that overrides or misapplies the law, or where the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will." Id. An abuse of discretion by the trial court, and a showing of resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error. Commonwealth v. Glass , 50 A.3d 720, 724-25 (Pa. Super. 2012).

Video Recording of Patrolman Shaw's Murder

In her first issue, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to play for the jury the video recording of Patrolman Shaw's shooting and his communications with police dispatchers prior to his death. Appellant's Brief at 8. She argues that the recording was of minimal relevance compared to the prejudice it caused and was not necessary to establish any fact at issue, particularly because the parties could stipulate to the facts in the recording. Id. at 10. She concludes that the recording caused an ...