Com. v. Wallace, J.
244 A.3d 1261, 2021 Pa. Super. 4 (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Automatically generated data from a GPS device is not a "statement" by a "person" under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 801. Therefore, such data does not constitute hearsay and is admissible as evidence.
Facts:
- On April 6, 2018, Jamal Wallace and his co-defendant, Mason Clary, were together for several hours at and around a business called Pub Deli.
- During this time, Wallace retrieved a firearm from a vehicle, racked the chamber, and placed the loaded weapon in the waistband of his pants.
- Clary, observing that the firearm was visible, motioned to Wallace to pull his shirt down to conceal it.
- Wallace and Clary then met a minor, C.S., and the three walked to the intersection of Spruce and Willow Streets.
- At the intersection, the trio confronted a pedestrian, Kamal Dutton, who was walking past them.
- The three men surrounded Dutton and initiated a physical altercation.
- As Dutton attempted to flee, Wallace chased him, fired multiple shots, and struck Dutton in the head.
- Throughout these events, Clary was wearing a court-ordered Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring device on his ankle, which recorded his location.
Procedural Posture:
- The Norristown Police Department filed a criminal complaint charging Jamal Wallace with multiple offenses in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County.
- The trial court consolidated Wallace's case with that of his co-defendant, Mason Clary.
- A jury found Wallace guilty of aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, and two firearms offenses.
- The trial court sentenced Wallace to an aggregate term of thirty-two to sixty-five years’ imprisonment.
- Wallace filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied.
- Wallace, as Appellant, filed a timely notice of appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the state's intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does automatically generated data from a co-defendant's GPS monitoring device constitute inadmissible hearsay under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 801?
Opinions:
Majority - Lazarus, J.
No. Automatically generated data from a GPS monitoring device is not inadmissible hearsay because it is not a "statement" as defined by the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and Rule 801(a) defines a "statement" as a "person's oral [or] written assertion." The court determined, as an issue of first impression in Pennsylvania, that data generated by a machine without human intervention or assertion is not a statement from a "person." This aligns Pennsylvania with federal courts and other state jurisdictions which have found that because a machine, not a person, makes the relevant assertion, the output is not hearsay. The court distinguished a contrary Florida case by noting that Florida's evidence code lacks the critical limitation that a statement must be from a "person."
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in Pennsylvania by formally classifying purely machine-generated data, like GPS records, as non-hearsay. By focusing on the source of the assertion—a machine versus a person—the ruling provides clear guidance for the admission of a wide range of modern digital evidence. This decision aligns Pennsylvania with the prevailing view in federal and other state courts, thereby simplifying the evidentiary foundation required for prosecutors to introduce automated electronic records in criminal trials. Consequently, the admissibility of evidence such as cell tower location data, computer logs, and other forms of automated tracking is now more firmly established in the Commonwealth.
