## Facts

- Marlo (Mario) DiGiacomo was tried in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County for the shooting death of tavern owner Raymond Anderson.
- On October 28, 1974, DiGiacomo and his friend John Hruska went to Anderson’s tavern in Allegheny County.
- During the evening, a fight broke out between Hruska and Anderson.
- In the sequence of events that followed, DiGiacomo fired the shots that killed Anderson; at trial he admitted causing Anderson’s death.
- DiGiacomo claimed the killing was justified because he shot to protect Hruska from serious bodily injury during the fight.
- DiGiacomo contended the Commonwealth improperly prevented Hruska, an eyewitness, from testifying at trial.
- To support the justification claim, DiGiacomo sought to introduce Hruska’s hospital records as proof of Hruska’s medical diagnosis and the extent of his injuries.
- The trial court excluded the hospital records for diagnosis and extent-of-injury purposes because the doctor who made the diagnosis was unavailable to testify, but allowed the records to show that Hruska was hospitalized and the length of his stay.
- The jury convicted DiGiacomo of murder in the second degree, and he took a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commonwealth denied DiGiacomo his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process by improperly preventing eyewitness John Hruska from testifying.
2. Whether the trial court erred by limiting the admissibility of Hruska’s hospital records to show only hospitalization and duration of stay, and excluding them as proof of diagnosis and extent of injuries when the diagnosing physician was unavailable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence.
- The court held there was no denial of compulsory process because the defense knew of Hruska, his role as an eyewitness, and his whereabouts, and the Commonwealth was not required to call him as a prosecution witness.
- The court held the trial court did not commit reversible error in restricting the use of the hospital records, given the absence of the diagnosing doctor and the limits on using such records to prove medical diagnosis and the extent of injury.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant has a constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to present the defense’s version of events to the factfinder.
- The Commonwealth must identify known eyewitnesses to the defense and make them available if possible, but it has no duty to call an eyewitness as a prosecution witness.
- No compulsory-process violation occurs where the defense knows the witness’s identity, expected knowledge, and location, and can seek the witness’s testimony through its own process.
- Hospital records may be admissible as business records for certain non-opinion matters (such as hospitalization and length of stay), but using them to prove diagnosis or the nature and extent of injuries may require testimony from the medical professional who made the diagnostic determinations.
- Limits on the admission of evidence are reviewed for prejudicial error; a conviction is not reversed absent a showing that the ruling likely affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed DiGiacomo’s second-degree murder conviction, concluding that the Commonwealth did not deny compulsory process because the defense knew of Hruska and could have sought his testimony, and that the trial court permissibly limited Hruska’s hospital records to proof of hospitalization and duration rather than diagnosis and injury severity in the absence of the diagnosing physician.


Commonwealth v. DiGiacomo, 345 A.2d 605 (1975)