# Commonwealth v. Robins

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 18, 2002 · 571 Pa. 248

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737276

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. John Wayne ROBINS, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 18, 2002
- **Citations:** 571 Pa. 248; 812 A.2d 514; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2698
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Eakin
- **Judges:** Cappy, Cappy1, Castille, Eakin, Newman, Nigro, Saylor, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 22 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/9737276

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that extrajudicial declarations within firmly-rooted hearsay exceptions are deemed sufficiently reliable to satisfy Confrontation Clause requirements, without the need for further inquiry into their reliability
- rejecting as untrustworthy statements of non-testifying alleged accomplice made to cellmate and during sting operation tying defendant to burglary; statements made one year after crime and in settings where declarant may have been trying to enhance his image before other crimi…

## Opinion text

Justice EAKIN,
dissenting.
I must disagree with the conclusion of my colleagues, as I find the statement at issue to be corroborated by the circumstances and sufficiently reliable; finding the trial court abused its discretion by admitting it is inappropriate, in my judgment.
The Commonwealth’s reasoning arguing corroboration is logical; I find appellant’s less so. For example, the year’s time for “reflection” simply means the crime was stale or forgotten in the minds of anyone unconnected to it-only the perpetrators would still be thinking of such a burglary after that much time. Who is going to impress other prisoners with a year old offense, whether it was publicized at the time or not? The size of the take was worth bragging about, but who knew that but the perpetrators? Were one to pick a boast-worthy crime to falsely associate with, one would not be likely *289 to pick this one; logically, the decision to brag about this crime suggests actual involvement, not deceitfulness.
The involvement of the police in recording the hotel conversation is a red herring. Unless Auman knew about that involvement, or was somehow coerced during the conversation, this has absolutely nothing to do with reliability or admissibility. Mantra-like finger pointing does little to show why police involvement affected the statement or its reliability. Governmental involvement may make one look at the circumstances with a watchful eye, but unless that eye sees something, police involvement in and of itself is no reason to label anything unreliable. Indeed, the recording limits the prospects of inaccurate recollections that come when authorities are not involved.
The final suggestion, Auman’s purported narcotic use, was found to be a factual non-starter, and we cannot reconsider findings of fact. Consequently, finding no reason to question the reliability of Auman’s statements, I would affirm the sentence.
NEWMAN joins this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737276. Public record. Not legal advice.