# Commonwealth v. Carpenter

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 26, 1999 · 555 Pa. 434

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638886

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. James Henry CARPENTER, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 26, 1999
- **Citations:** 555 Pa. 434; 725 A.2d 154; 1999 Pa. LEXIS 183
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nigro
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 126 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638886

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that absent proof that defense counsel had no reasonable basis for conduct or reasonable probability that outcome of trial would have been different, counsel could not be ineffective for statements made during closing
- finding counsel was not ineffective for failing to call as alibi witness a witness who would have contradicted defense strategy

## Opinion text

*467 NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion, but write separately to address Appellant’s claim that Ms. Enriquez’s testimony regarding statements made by Ms. Emmil were inadmissible hearsay.
During the prosecutor’s examination of Ms. Enriquez, he asked her what Ms. Emmil had said to her on the evening of the killing. Ms. Enriquez responded: “She [Ms. Emmil] said she seen [Appellant] go in his pocket and do something with the knife and clean it off and throw it over the fence.” N.T. 1/18/84 p. 74. I agree with the majority’s holding in footnote 8 that Ms. Enriquez’s response did not violate the Confrontation Clause since Ms. Emmil testified and was cross-examined by Appellant at his trial. Likewise, since Ms. Emmil testified at trial, I would suggest that Ms. Enriquez’s testimony as to Ms. Emmil’s out of court statement was properly admitted into evidence, regardless of whether it meets an exception to the hearsay rule.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9638886. Public record. Not legal advice.