## Facts

- An armed robbery occurred at Dave’s Tavern in Philadelphia on October 14, 1975, around 8:00 p.m.
- A gunman entered, ordered patrons to the floor, and, with another man, took money from the cash register and patrons before fleeing.
- The tavern proprietor identified Emanuel F. Farris as the gunman but saw the gunman’s face only for seconds.
- An off-duty police officer saw two armed men run from the tavern and enter a car; he identified Farris as one of them but saw the suspect’s face for only about three seconds and mostly observed the man’s back.
- The officer recorded the car’s license plate and obtained a full-face view of the driver, later identified as Gary Moore; he was unsure how many men were in the car.
- The bartender could not identify the robbers; evidence also referenced guns recovered from a car associated with Moore.
- At trial, Detective Robert Aiken testified that one of his first investigative steps was interrogating Moore; after Aiken said Moore made a statement, the prosecutor asked what Aiken did “as a result of what Gary Moore told” him, and Aiken answered that he arrested Farris.
- Moore did not testify, and his statement was not introduced directly; the trial court admitted Aiken’s testimony as permissible background describing investigative steps.
- The jury acquitted Farris of robbery but convicted him of conspiracy; the court sentenced him to 18 months to 3 years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether a detective may testify that he arrested the defendant “as a result of” what a non-testifying suspect told him, when the testimony necessarily implies an out-of-court accusation against the defendant.
2. Whether admitting such implied-accusation testimony as “course of investigation” evidence constitutes prejudicial error in a case where identification is the central disputed issue.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the judgment of sentence and awarded a new trial on the conspiracy conviction.
- The court held it was error to admit the detective’s testimony because it effectively conveyed to the jury that Moore implicated Farris, despite Moore’s absence from trial.
- The court concluded the error was prejudicial given the weakness and brevity of the eyewitness identifications and the importance of identity to the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- Testimony offered as “course of investigation” evidence is inadmissible when it necessarily communicates the substance of a non-testifying third party’s accusation against the defendant.
- An officer may not present implied hearsay that invites the jury to accept an out-of-court statement for its truth, particularly when the statement goes to a central contested issue such as identification.
- When the Commonwealth’s proof of identity is not strong, implied-accusation testimony from a non-testifying declarant is likely to have substantial influence on the jury and is not harmless.

## Conclusion

Because the detective’s explanation for arresting Farris effectively told the jury that a non-testifying participant had identified Farris as involved in the crime, the testimony functioned as hearsay and improperly bolstered weak identification evidence; the conviction was reversed and a new trial was required.


Commonwealth v. Farris, 380 A.2d 486 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977)