Comm. v. Robins, Aplt (Dissenting Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-67-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : Appellee : : : v. : : : JOHN WAYNE ROBINS, : : Appellant : : No. 48 WAP 2000 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered on December 22, 1999 at No. 856PGH1997, affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, entered on March 26, 1997, at No. CC 9609239. Re-Submitted: January 24, 2002 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: DECEMBER 18, 2002 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 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. Madame Newman joins this dissenting opinion. [J-67-2002] - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
