PA Superior Court: Improper Admission of Hearsay Statement that Defendant Managed House of Prostitution Requires New Trial
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Lu, holding that the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to introduce a hearsay statement that the defendant, who was charged with promoting, managing, or supervising a house of prostitution, was the manager of the brothel. This case is important because it highlights the difference between inadmissible hearsay and statements which should not be admitted because they would violate a defendant’s right to confront his or her accusers under the confrontation clause.
The facts of Lu
In Lu, the defendant was charged with promoting, managing, or supervising a house of prostitution business under 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 5902(b)(1) and criminal conspiracy. Police testified that they received a complaint from the FBI regarding certain Back Page postings that suggested that underage girls may be involved in prostitution. After conducting some investigation, a Philadelphia Police Officer called the number advertised on the Back Page posting. An Asian female voice answered the phone and arranged for a meeting with the officer at a certain address on Rhawn Street. The officer was told that the business would not open until 2 am. He was also told by text that there were four young girls and that he could do whatever he wanted for certain prices.
Later that night, the officer went to the address in plainclothes and rang the doorbell. The defendant opened the door and waved the officer into the foyer. The defendant spoke with the officer in English and led the officer into a room where three Asian women in lingerie were sitting on a sofa. The defendant then walked the officer closer to the girls and motioned with an open hand as if he were presenting them to the officer. The officer asked, “wow, I pick?” to which the girls laughed, but the defendant remained silent. The officer chose one of the women and went with her to the third floor of the building. The woman escorted him to a bedroom, put a bag of condoms and lubricant on the night table, and counted the money that the officer had brought with him. The woman explicitly agreed to have oral or vaginal sex with the officer for money, and the officer then asked who the defendant was. The woman told the officer that the defendant was the manager.
The officer then called for the arrest team. They entered the building, arrested the defendant, recovered various phones, and also found $2,900. The officer then identified himself as a police officer for the first time.
The criminal trial
The defendant was arrested and charged with the above defenses. Prior to trial, his defense attorney filed a motion in limine in the trial court asking the court to preclude the statement that the defendant was the manager because the woman who made the statement was not present in court to testify. The court found that the statement was admissible pursuant to a hearsay exception for statements made by the defendant’s co-conspirators during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, although the defense objected on confrontation grounds as well, the court did not provide any analysis for how the statement could be admissible under the confrontation clause. The defendant was convicted at trial and sentenced to 3-6 months’ incarceration. He appealed to the Superior Court.
The Appeal
On appeal, the defendant argued not only that the statement was hearsay, but also that its admission violated his right to confront the witnesses against him. The Superior Court ultimately agreed with the defendant that the statement should not have been admitted because the defendant did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the woman who made the statement. Whether or not the admission of a statement violates the Confrontation Clause generally depends on whether the statement is “testimonial.” Various appellate courts have held that statements are not testimonial when they are made to police or the first responders in order to obtain aid during an ongoing emergency. For this reason, the admission of 911 calls often does not violate the confrontation clause depending on the statement. However, when the statement is made not in response to an ongoing emergency but because police are simply investigating a potential crime, then the statement is typically considered testimonial and would be inadmissible at trial without the actual witness testifying. This is true even if the statement satisfies some exception to the rule against hearsay. Thus, a statement be admissible as non-hearsay or as a hearsay exception but still inadmissible under the confrontation clause.
The Superior Court reversed the defendant’s conviction. It found that the statement established that the defendant was the manager and that it was not made in response to any kind of ongoing emergency. Therefore, the statement was testimonial, and it should not have been admitted without the witness having to testify. Accordingly, the defendant will receive a new trial.
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
