Commonwealth v. Weeden

304 A.3d 333

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Angelo WEEDEN, Appellant

No. 19 WAP 2022

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: April 18, 2023

Decided: November 16, 2023

Cheryl Ann Brooks, Esq., Defender Association of Philadelphia, Patrick Aloysius Casey, Esq., Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP, Jules Epstein, Esq., Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin, LLP, for Amicus Curiae Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Benjamin Garrett Minegar, Esq., Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, for Amicus Curiae Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General.

Nyssa E. Taylor, Esq., for Amicus Curiae ACLU of Pennsylvania and The Innocence Project, Inc.

Donna Ann Walsh, Esq., Myers, Brier & Kelly, LLP, for Amicus Curiae Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Justin Thomas Romano, Esq., Jubelirer, Pass & Intrieri, P.C., for Appellant.

Francesco Lino Nepa, Esq., Ronald Michael Wabby Jr., Esq., Allegheny County District Attorney's Office, for Appellee.

TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ.

OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE TODD

In this appeal by allowance, we consider whether a printed summary created by a computerized system, "ShotSpotter," which contemporaneously collects data regarding potential gunshots and transmits the same to the subscribing police force, falls within the purview of the Confrontation Clause when used as evidence in the course of a criminal prosecution. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that, under the circumstances presented, the admission of the document did not run afoul of Appellant Angelo Weeden's rights under the Confrontation Clause. Accordingly, we affirm.

I. Background

At approximately 5:30 p.m. on December 15, 2018, Alyssa Houston, Heather Lamb, and Lamb's eight-year-old daughter exited Lamb's house and departed in Lamb's vehicle to go shopping. Houston noticed that Appellant was following directly behind Lamb's vehicle in his Volkswagen Jetta, tailing them down a narrow street. ¹ When Lamb drove off of the main road to enter a residential area in the North Side neighborhood of the City of Pittsburgh (the "City"), Appellant pulled around the driver's side of her vehicle and blocked its forward movement. Appellant then exited his vehicle and approached the passenger side of Lamb's car, prompting Houston, who was sitting in the passenger-side front seat, to lock the car door. As Appellant aggressively attempted to pull the passenger-side front door open, Lamb's daughter yelled "gun," and Lamb quickly placed her car in reverse, backed around Appellant's vehicle, and began to drive away. Simultaneously, the occupants of Lamb's vehicle heard four gunshots, two of which struck Lamb's vehicle on the rear passenger side. Consequently, Lamb drove to the police station, and she and Houston reported the incident.

The following day, Appellant was arrested, and the Commonwealth charged him with one count each of aggravated assault, person not to possess a firearm, carrying a firearm without a license, and propulsion of missiles into an occupied vehicle, and three counts of recklessly endangering another person. ² The case subsequently proceeded to a jury trial, at which Houston and Lamb testified consistently with the foregoing. Additionally, and relevant to the instant appeal, Detective Richard Baumgart, a 19-year veteran with the City's Bureau of Police (the "Bureau"), testified as a witness for the Commonwealth, detailing the Bureau's use of a gunfire detection program, "ShotSpotter."

More specifically, Detective Baumgart testified that "ShotSpotter is a gun detection program that is contracted through an outside party, by the [C]ity[,] through a company, ShotSpotter," noting that the ShotSpotter program covers certain areas within the City's limits with the aim of detecting, triangulating, and pinpointing the location of any loud "bang, boom[,] or pop" noises via scientific algorithms. N.T., 12/4/19, at 92. Detective Baumgart explained that, when ShotSpotter detects such a sound, the program automatically documents the data and sends it, "[w]ithin seconds," to a human operator in California, who then reviews the noise to discern whether it was a gunshot. Id. at 95. According to Detective Baumgart, "these operators have gone through ... hundreds of hours of training through ShotSpotter to be able to recognize the difference between the pattern and the sound that they would hear with a fire cracker pattern and the sound that they would ... hear with a gunshot." Id. The detective further expounded that, if a human operator believes that a sound captured by the ShotSpotter program was a gunshot, the operator will send the information back to the Bureau, which then dispatches officers to the vicinity of the shots fired. Detective Baumgart related that, typically, this process happens quickly, such that the Bureau receives notification of a shot within a minute after the program initially detects a gunshot and dispatches its officers shortly thereafter. Notably, Detective Baumgart acknowledged that ShotSpotter is "not completely foolproof," conceding that misidentifications may occur when a human operator errs in determining whether a sound is a gunshot. Id. at 96. Indeed, Detective Baumgart stated that, at times, "officers have been dispatched to gunshots where there weren't gunshots, and vice versa." Id. Nevertheless, Detective Baumgart opined that the ShotSpotter system is "very accurate" in detecting the presence of gunfire. Id. at 118.

Pertinent herein, the Commonwealth proffered into evidence, via Detective Baumgart, a "ShotSpotter Investigative Lead Summary" (the "ShotSpotter Summary" or the "Summary") related to the underlying incident in this case, ³ over the defense's objection that admitting the Summary into evidence violated Appellant's rights under the Confrontation Clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, ⁴ each of which provides that an accused in a criminal prosecution has the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." See U.S. Const. amend. VI ; Pa. Const. art. 1, § 9. With respect to the Summary, Detective Baumgart explained that, when ShotSpotter detects a relevant sound, the program automatically generates a written summary which provides the date, time, and location of the suspected gunshot. He noted that, after the summary is automatically generated, updates may be added by the ShotSpotter operators to depict information obtained by the responding police officers.

Turning to the specifics of this case, ⁵ Detective Baumgart testified that the Summary showed that officers were dispatched to 3400 Shadeland Avenue on the City's North Side, at approximately 7:43 p.m. on December 15, 2018, after ShotSpotter detected two possible gunshots fired at that location. On cross-examination, Detective Baumgart acknowledged that, despite his training with the program, he had not been certified by ShotSpotter and was not involved in preparing the Summary in this case. Detective Baumgart further admitted that he was unsure whether the dataset contained in the ShotSpotter Summary was ever reviewed by any human ShotSpotter operator, while noting that a human review component typically occurs in the ShotSpotter process.

Notably, although the date of the shooting incident was December 15, 2018, the Summary was not created until July 3, 2019, upon request by a ShotSpotter employee, identified by company email address " [email protected]." See ShotSpotter Summary at 1 (Appendix D to Appellant's Brief). In addition to providing the time, date, and location of the possible gunfire and a map of the same, the Summary includes a general description of the ShotSpotter program. ⁶ The Summary also explains that the "shot count, times, and locations" contained therein "were automatically calculated by the ShotSpotter system at the time of detection," cautioning that those values "are approximate and should be deemed as such," and that "[t]he number of individual shots [depicted] may not match the round count reported" on the first page of the document "if an Incident Reviewer adjusted the round count during incident review prior to publication." ⁷ Id. at 2.

The Commonwealth procured additional testimony surrounding the details of the December 15, 2018 shooting incident via another member of the Bureau, Officer Jacob Botzenhart, who was on duty when the Bureau received the relevant ShotSpotter notification at approximately 7:43 p.m. on that date. Officer Botzenhart explained that, while he was not one of the officers sent to investigate the possible gunshots recorded by the ShotSpotter system, he eventually became the lead officer in charge of the investigation, as, two minutes after the officers responded to the ShotSpotter report, Houston and Lamb arrived at the police station and reported the shooting incident which had occurred minutes earlier. According to Officer Botzenhart, Houston and Lamb informed him that they had heard gunshots as they attempted to drive away from Appellant in the vicinity of Shadeland Avenue. Officer Botzenhart related that, upon subsequently searching the location at which the shots were allegedly fired, he and other officers found no physical evidence of gunfire. Officer Botzenhart likewise conceded that searches of Appellant's home and vehicle yielded no physical evidence. However, Detective James Sherer testified that he observed damage to Lamb's car, which he believed was caused by bullets striking the vehicle, and the Commonwealth introduced photographs taken by Detective Sherer of that damage into evidence, without objection from the defense.

For his part, Appellant proffered evidence indicating that he supported Houston financially during their relationship, that she was unemployed in December 2018, and that multiple people were supporting her financially at that time. Appellant also presented testimony from two witnesses who attested that, on the evening of the shooting incident, Appel...