co-conspirator exception in Pennsylvania

2025As our Supreme Court noted, “the out-of-court declarations of one co-conspirator can be admitted against another co-conspirator provided that the declarations were made during the conspiracy and in furtherance of the common design.” Commonwealth v. Coccioletti, 425 A.2d 387, 392 (Pa. 1981); see also -8- J-S10042-25 Commonwealth v. Davis, 268 A.3d 428 (Pa. Super. 2021) (unpublished memorandum at *8).6 Soto does not address the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule and thus does not dispute J.

2003See United States v. Lara, 181 F.3d 183, 196 (1st Cir.1999) ("Subject to relevancy and similar considerations, out-of-court statements of a declarant coconspirator, if made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy, are admissible for the truth of the matter asserted, regardless of whether the conspiracy furthered is charged or uncharged, and regardless of whether it is identical to or different from the crime that the statements are offered to prove[.]" (citations omitted)); cf. Coccioletti, 493 Pa. at 113 , 425 A.2d at 392 ("This Court has extended the co-conspirator exception to admit decla

2000Moreover, a conspiracy, for purposes of the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule may be inferentially established by showing the relation, conduct or circumstances of the parties, [citing] Commonwealth v. Roux, 465 Pa. 482 , 350 A.2d 867 (1976).” 493 Pa. at 475 , 426 A.2d at 1115 . (citation omitted) (emphasis added) In that the Supreme Court does not distinguish between proof of the conspiracy for civil or criminal purposes as a predicate to admission of the hearsay statements, the defendants’ plea for a new trial on this ground will be denied.

2000Moreover, a conspiracy, for purposes of the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule may be inferentially established by showing the relation, conduct or circumstances of the parties, [citing] Commonwealth v. Roux, 465 Pa. 482 , 350 A.2d 867 (1976).” 493 Pa. at 475 , 426 A.2d at 1115 . (citation omitted) (emphasis added) In that the Supreme Court does not distinguish between proof of the conspiracy for civil or criminal purposes as a predicate to admission of the hearsay statements, the defendants’ plea for a new trial on this ground will be denied.

2018See Commonwealth v. Pinkins, 525 A.2d 1189, 1191 (Pa. 1987) ("[A]conspiracy, for purposes of the co-conspirator exception, may be inferentially established by showing the relation, conduct or circumstances of the parties.").

2016Commonwealth v. Pinkins, 525 A.2d 1189, 1191 (Pa. 1987). "[A]conspiracy, for purposes of the co-conspirator exception, may be inferentially established by showing the relation, conduct or circumstances of the parties." Id.

2016Pa.RE. 803(25)(E) (statement offered against party that was made by co-conspirator of party during course of conspiracy and in furtherance of it is not excluded by hearsay rule); Commonwealth v. Zdrale, 608 A.2d 1037, 1039 (Pa. 1992) ("The co-conspirator exception allows the introduction of statements made by a co-conspirator, if they were made during the conspiracy, in furtherance thereof, and where there is other evidence of the existence of the conspiracy.").

1994“The co-conspirator exception allows the introduction of statements made by a co-conspirator, if they were made during the conspiracy, in furtherance thereof, and where there is other evidence of the existence of the conspiracy.” Commonwealth v. Zdrale, 530 Pa. 313, 317 , 608 A.2d 1037, 1039 (1992).

2013Commonwealth v. Chester, 587 A.2d 1367, 1374-1375 (Pa. 1991)(Statements made after murder to third parties were properly admitted under the co-conspirator exception to hearsay rule); see also Commonwealth v. Lambert, 603 A.2d 568, 575 (Pa. 1992) (Statement falls within co-conspirator exception because it was part of the conspiracy dealing with flight from the scene). 69 For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of sentence should be affirmed.

2012Commonwealth v. Chester, 526 Pa. 578, 593-594 , 587 A.2d 1367, 1374-1375 (1991)(Statements made after murder to third parties were properly admitted under the co-conspirator exception to hearsay rule); see also Commonwealth v. Lambert, 529 Pa. 320, 335 , 603 A.2d 568, 575 (1992)(Statement falls within co-conspirator exception because it was part of the conspiracy dealing with flight from the scene). 57 For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of sentence should be affirmed.

1985Compare Commonwealth v. Porter, 449 Pa. 153 , 295 A.2d 311 (1972) (statements of co-conspirators made after initial assault on the victim but before final assault were held to be within the co-conspirator exception; the conspiracy was not complete.) with Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 409 Pa. 505 , 187 A.2d 640 (1963) (statements of co-conspirators made after robbery, which resulted in murder and division of the stolen money were not within the co-conspirator exception because the conspiracy ceased upon division of the booty.) This strategy, which was reasonably related to acquitting appellee, cou

1985Compare Commonwealth v. Porter, 449 Pa. 153 , 295 A.2d 311 (1972) (statements of co-conspirators made after initial assault on the victim but before final assault were held to be within the co-conspirator exception; the conspiracy was not complete.) with Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 409 Pa. 505 , 187 A.2d 640 (1963) (statements of co-conspirators made after robbery, which resulted in murder and division of the stolen money were not within the co-conspirator exception because the conspiracy ceased upon division of the booty.) This strategy, which was reasonably related to acquitting appellee, cou

1985That Court said: “[although the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule has not been applied when the declarations are made after arrest and termination of the conspiracy, Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 409 Pa. 505 , 187 A.2d 640 (1963), the appellant’s declarations in this case were made prior to their arrest while the conspiracy was still in progress.” Coccioletti, 493 Pa. 103, at 113 , 425 A.2d 387, at 392 .

1985That Court said: “[although the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule has not been applied when the declarations are made after arrest and termination of the conspiracy, Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 409 Pa. 505 , 187 A.2d 640 (1963), the appellant’s declarations in this case were made prior to their arrest while the conspiracy was still in progress.” Coccioletti, 493 Pa. 103, at 113 , 425 A.2d 387, at 392 .

2006Id., at 293 , 639 A.2d at 432 .

2006Id., at 293 , 639 A.2d at 432 .

2018Rule 803(25)(E) allows a hearsay statement to be admitted where it is made by a defendant's co-conspirator "during and in furtherance of the conspiracy." The Gribble Court further noted that "the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court had recognized that statements admitted under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule do not violate the Sixth Amendment." Gribble, 580 Pa. at 664 , 863 A.2d at 465 ; see also United States v. Bourjaily, 483 U.S. 171, 183-184 , 107 S. Ct. 2775, 2783 , 97 L.

2018Rule 803(25)(E) allows a hearsay statement to be admitted where it is made by a defendant's co-conspirator "during and in furtherance of the conspiracy." The Gribble Court further noted that "the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court had recognized that statements admitted under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule do not violate the Sixth Amendment." Gribble, 580 Pa. at 664 , 863 A.2d at 465 ; see also United States v. Bourjaily, 483 U.S. 171, 183-184 , 107 S. Ct. 2775, 2783 , 97 L.

2013Commonwealth v. Chester, 587 A.2d 1367, 1374-1375 (Pa. 1991)(Statements made after murder to third parties were properly admitted under the co-conspirator exception to hearsay rule); see also Commonwealth v. Lambert, 603 A.2d 568, 575 (Pa. 1992) (Statement falls within co-conspirator exception because it was part of the conspiracy dealing with flight from the scene). 69 For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of sentence should be affirmed.

2012Commonwealth v. Chester, 526 Pa. 578, 593-594 , 587 A.2d 1367, 1374-1375 (1991)(Statements made after murder to third parties were properly admitted under the co-conspirator exception to hearsay rule); see also Commonwealth v. Lambert, 529 Pa. 320, 335 , 603 A.2d 568, 575 (1992)(Statement falls within co-conspirator exception because it was part of the conspiracy dealing with flight from the scene). 57 For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of sentence should be affirmed.

1996Commonwealth v. Moyers, 391 Pa.Super. 262, 269 , 570 A.2d 1323, 1326-27 (1990).

1996Commonwealth v. Moyers, 391 Pa.Super. 262, 269 , 570 A.2d 1323, 1326-27 (1990).

1994See Commonwealth v. Cherpes, 360 Pa.Super. 246 , 520 A.2d 439 (1987), alloc. den., 515 Pa. 612 , 530 A.2d 866 . *194 In our present case, the other evidence at trial which establishes the existence of a conspiracy for purposes of the co-conspirator exception was that John Stivala and Appellant were overheard by Fazekas, one of John Stivala’s employees, complaining about the property as a bad investment.

1994See Commonwealth v. Cherpes, 360 Pa.Super. 246 , 520 A.2d 439 (1987), alloc. den., 515 Pa. 612 , 530 A.2d 866 . *194 In our present case, the other evidence at trial which establishes the existence of a conspiracy for purposes of the co-conspirator exception was that John Stivala and Appellant were overheard by Fazekas, one of John Stivala’s employees, complaining about the property as a bad investment.

1992Therein we adopted the following passage from United States v. Hickey, 360 F.2d 127, 141 (7th Cir.1966) cert. denied, 385 U.S. 928 , 87 S.Ct. 284 , 17 L.Ed.2d 210 (1966), which interpreted the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 , 77 S.Ct. 963 , 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957): “The duration of a conspiracy depends upon the facts of the particular case, that is, it depends upon the scope of the agreement entered into by its members.

1990Next, in determining whether a statement was made in the course of a conspiracy we refer to our supreme court’s statement in Evans, supra, 489 Pa. at 92 , 413 A.2d 1025 , quoting, U.S. v. Hickey, 360 F.2d 127, 141 (7th Cir.1966): The duration of a conspiracy depends upon the facts of the particular case, that is it depends upon the scope of the agreement entered into by its members.

1987See Commonwealth v. Hirsch, 225 Pa.Super. 494 , 311 A.2d 679 (1973).

1987See Commonwealth v. Hirsch, 225 Pa.Super. 494 , 311 A.2d 679 (1973).

2020In addition, there must be evidence other than the statement of the co-conspirator to prove that a conspiracy existed.” Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19, 27 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (citation omitted).

2015Id. at 26-27 .

1990Next, in determining whether a statement was made in the course of a conspiracy we refer to our supreme court’s statement in Evans, supra, 489 Pa. at 92 , 413 A.2d 1025 , quoting, U.S. v. Hickey, 360 F.2d 127, 141 (7th Cir.1966): The duration of a conspiracy depends upon the facts of the particular case, that is it depends upon the scope of the agreement entered into by its members.

1990Next, in determining whether a statement was made in the course of a conspiracy we refer to our supreme court’s statement in Evans, supra, 489 Pa. at 92 , 413 A.2d 1025 , quoting, U.S. v. Hickey, 360 F.2d 127, 141 (7th Cir.1966): The duration of a conspiracy depends upon the facts of the particular case, that is it depends upon the scope of the agreement entered into by its members.

2020Common- wealth v. Lambert, supra, 795 A.2d at 1016 -1017 {quoting Commonwealth v. Galindes, 786 A.2d 1004, 1011 (Pa.Super.2001)).

2016See Grant, supra. -9- J-S34027-16 substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.

2016See generally, Commonwealth v. Lambe1i, 603 A.2d 568, 575 (Pa. 1992) ("inculpatory statements made by co-conspirators in their own presence following a crime have a strong indicia of spontaneity and reliability so as to comport with confrontation requirements") (citation omitted); Conunonwealth v. Timer, 609 A.2d 572, 575 (Pa. Super. 1992) ("During the course of a conspiracy, each conspirator is considered the agent of the other, and thus a statement by one is an admission by all.").