Commonwealth v. Brown

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018 · Evidence

646 Pa. 396 (2018)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseAutopsy reportsExpert testimonyHarmless errorSixth Amendmenttestimonial evidenceprimary purpose test

Facts

The victim was shot four times and died, and Dr. Marlon Osbourne performed the autopsy and prepared a report concluding the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds and the manner of death was homicide. At trial, Dr. Osbourne did not testify, but his autopsy report was admitted into evidence. The Commonwealth instead called Dr. Albert Chu, who had not participated in the autopsy, but who reviewed the autopsy report and autopsy photographs and testified that, in his independent expert opinion, the victim died from multiple gunshot wounds. Brown objected that admitting the report and allowing Dr. Chu to testify from it violated the Confrontation Clause.

Issue

Whether an autopsy report prepared in connection with a sudden, violent, or suspicious death is testimonial such that admitting it without the author's testimony violates the Confrontation Clause. Also, whether any such error required reversal where another medical examiner gave an independent opinion on cause of death and was available for cross-examination.

Rule

When Pennsylvania law requires an autopsy report for a sudden, violent, suspicious, or other-than-natural death, and the report is designed to determine whether the death resulted from a criminal act, the report's primary purpose is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution; it is therefore testimonial. A testimonial report is admissible without its author only if the author is unavailable and the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine that author. But a testifying expert's own independent opinion does not violate the Confrontation Clause if the expert actually formed that opinion independently and is subject to cross-examination; any improper disclosure of the non-testifying examiner's same conclusion may be harmless if cumulative of the properly admitted independent opinion.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Pittsburgh, a county medical examiner performed an autopsy after a man was found stabbed in an alley. State law required an autopsy because the death was sudden, violent, and suspicious, and the examiner prepared a report concluding the cause of death was multiple stab wounds. At the murder trial, the prosecution offers the report itself, but the examiner has retired to Arizona and never testified earlier in the case.

If the defendant objects under the Confrontation Clause, how should the court rule?

Explanation. When an autopsy report is prepared in connection with a sudden, violent, suspicious, or other-than-natural death, and the governing scheme contemplates determining whether the death resulted from criminal conduct, the report's primary purpose is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later prosecution. It is therefore testimonial. A testimonial report may be admitted without its author only if the author is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. Retirement alone is not enough, and the absence of a named suspect does not make the report non-testimonial.