J-S11027-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RICHARD HACK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1273 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0003075-2020

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RICHARD HACK 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1274 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 28, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-51-CR-0003106-2020

BEFORE: OLSON, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED JUNE 14, 2023

Richard Hack appeals from the judgment of sentence entered after a 

jury found him guilty of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree 

murder, persons not to possess a firearm, firearms not to be carried without 
J-S11027-23

- 2 -

a license, and carrying firearms on public streets in Philadelphia.

1 Hack

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and evidentiary rulings. We affirm.

The trial court sets forth the following facts:

In April of 2020, [Hack] sold drugs on the corner of Chew 

and East Locust Avenue outside of Sijo Deli Grocery at 5660 

Chew Avenue in Philadelphia. On April 14, 2020, at 

approximately 9:28 a.m., surveillance footage shows [Hack]

and Yassiyn Brown (“Brown”) standing outside of Sijo Deli. 

Two minutes later, [Hack] left the corner and three minutes 

later, returned with Abdul Ross (“Ross”). At approximately 

9:34 a.m., the decedent, Sean Washington, walked up to 

the entrance. Immediately, Ross and the decedent walked 

west on East Locust Avenue until they were outside the view 

of the surveillance cameras.

After seeing the decedent approach the entrance of Sijo 

Deli, [Hack] and Brown immediately went into Sijo Deli and 

approximately fifteen seconds later, left Sijo Deli together.

Brown walked over to his grey Kia Soul parked on East 

Locust Avenue, roughly five yards from the entrance of Sijo 

Deli, and retrieved a firearm from the hood of the car, gave 

it to [Hack], and then walked back to the entrance of Sijo 

Deli on Chew Avenue. 

[Hack] walked west on East Locust Avenue towards the 

decedent until he was out of camera view, only to return to 

Brown’s car roughly fifteen seconds later. Brown returned to 

his car, gave gloves to [Hack], and then walked west on 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 903(a), 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1), and 6108, 

respectively.

The jury convictions are docketed at CP-51-CR-0003075-2020 (“murder 

docket”). At docket CP-51-CR-0003106 (“PWID docket”), Hack entered a 

negotiated guilty plea to possession with intent to deliver a controlled 

substance, 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), and was sentenced to two to four years’ 

imprisonment. The sentencing at both dockets occurred on the same day.

Hack filed a timely notice of appeal at both dockets, but filed a Rule 1925(b) 

statement at only the murder docket. On appeal, he does not raise any issues 

related to the PWID docket.
J-S11027-23

- 3 -

East Locust Avenue in the same direction as the decedent. 

[Hack] put the gloves on then once more walked out of

camera view towards the decedent. Approximately fifty-five 

seconds later, at 9:36:50 a.m., the surveillance footage 

shows two unknown individuals, who were previously 

standing outside the entrance of Sijo Grocery, suddenly run 

north on Chew Avenue away from Sijo Deli. Ten seconds

later, Brown and Ross walk back into camera view and are 

shown getting into Brown’s car together before driving 

away. 

After they heard gunshots, nearby police officers responded 

to the scene two minutes later and found the decedent at 

the intersection of East Locust Avenue and Crowson Street, 

about three row homes away from Sijo Deli. Police officers 

transported the decedent to the hospital, where he was 

declared dead. 

Police officers attempted to interview individuals at the 

scene about the shooting and one woman, who initially 

refused to speak with police and identified only as Paula, 

stated that people were “selling drugs out on Chew and 

Locust.”

From the scene, the Crime Scene officers recovered one 

projectile approximately eleven feet from the decedent’s 

body and the decedent’s pink semi-automatic firearm. Police 

officers recovered surveillance footage from Sijo Deli’s three 

cameras. The cameras show the side of Sijo Deli on East 

Locust Avenue and Chew Avenue and the inside of the store. 

The day of the incident, [Hack], Brown, and Ross were 

identified by Police Officers Raheem Williams and [Gabriel 

Soto] from the surveillance footage. At 5:40 p.m., Officer 

Williams arrested [Hack] walking west on East Locust 

Avenue, about twenty feet away from the intersection, 

wearing the same clothes in the video. When [Hack] was

arrested, police recovered [Hack’s] cell phone and clothing. 

[Hack’s] clothing later tested positive for gunshot residue. 

After he was given his Miranda rights, [Hack] acknowledged 

he was familiar with the area, knew the limitations of the 

surveillance cameras, and admitted that he sells marijuana 

at that intersection every day. While he admitted that Brown 

gave him a firearm, [Hack] claimed that he saw the 
J-S11027-23

- 4 -

decedent get into an argument with an unknown male and

only retrieved the firearm to intervene in the argument. 

The police prepared a search warrant for [Hack’s] cellphone 

and [Hack] provided the passcode to the police. At 10:24 

a.m., less than an hour after the shooting, [Hack] read a 

text message from a contact listed as “Stanka Da Wife”

which said “I’m glad you’re okay, but you always getting 

your hands dirty for them. Why they can’t put in they own

work?” [Hack] responded with two text messages that said 

“Stank, the situation was too fast” and “I’m sorry. But I’m 

not gone get in no trouble.”

At 11:55 a.m. and 1:19 p.m., [Hack] sent unknown 

individuals a screenshot of an article about the shooting 

posted to the Instagram page “unsolvedmurdersinphilly.”

The Instagram article was titled “Man, 38, fatally shot in 

broad daylight in East Germantown” and contained a 

photograph of the crime scene showing two officers standing 

over the decedent’s firearm. [Hack’s] phone contained three 

edited versions of the screenshot of the article that were 

edited the day of the incident at 5:10 p.m. The first photo 

cropped the screenshot to only include the officers and a 

portion of the article title. The second photo added markings 

to the photo by circling the decedent’s firearm on the 

ground. The third photo zoomed into the handgun further 

and cropped out the top half of the officers. 

The Medical Examiner determined that the cause of death 

was multiple gunshot wounds, and the manner of death was 

a homicide. The decedent was shot three times in the lower 

back and once in the upper thigh. The Medical Examiner 

recovered three .38 and .357 caliber projectiles from the 

decedent’s body.2

2 When the decedent received treatment at the 

hospital, a doctor made a thoracotomy incision which 

could have cut through an exit wound or caused a 

fourth projectile to be lost. 

At the time of the incident, [Hack] did not have a license to 

carry a firearm.
J-S11027-23

- 5 -

Trial Court Opinion, filed Aug. 24, 2022, at 2-5 (internal citations to record 

omitted).

Relevant to this appeal, Officer Williams and Officer Soto testified that 

when they observed the video from the surveillance cameras, they recognized 

Hack. N.T., Apr. 20, 2022, at 119, 127. Hack did not object to this testimony.

Id.

Further, Detective Thorsten Lucke testified that from the raw 

surveillance video, he prepared a compilation video, which he narrated for the 

jury. Id. at 185. His testimony included describing the area where the incident 

occurred, pointing out individuals and items they carried or wore, identifying 

the individuals in the video, putting still photos on top of the video, and 

“drawing attention to the mannerisms” and hands of the individuals. Id. at 

187-195.

Prior to trial, Hack filed a motion in limine to preclude narration of any 

video. He argued police had insufficient personal knowledge of Hack and his 

appearance from which they could make a reliable identification, and no 

independent testimony established the events depicted in the video. Motion in 

Limine, filed Jan. 31, 2022, at ¶¶ 6-7. Further, partway through Lucke’s 

testimony, Hack objected to the indicators included in the commentary and

twice objected to “anymore commentary.” The court overruled the objections. 

N.T. at 188, 193, 195. 

Detective Lucke also testified about the text messages sent between 

“Stanka da Wife” and Hack. Hack objected to the admission of the message 
J-S11027-23

- 6 -

from “Stanka da Wife” as hearsay. Id. at 209. The court admitted the text

message but informed the jury it was not “offered for the truth of the matter, 

but in order to understand the context with which it is alleged that the 

defendant responded to the message.” Id. It instructed the members of the 

jury that they “ha[d] to see or hear the message itself so you understand what 

the response is. But, again, it is not for the truth of the matter.” Id.

The jury found Hack guilty as set forth above, and the trial court 

sentenced Hack to life without parole for the first-degree murder conviction

and 91⁄2 to 19 years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy conviction, with no 

further penalty for the firearm convictions. Hack did not file a post-sentence 

motion. He filed a timely notice of appeal.

Hack raises the following issues:

1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in allowing Detective Lucke to 

narrate a video and identify Hack in it?

2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in allowing Detective Lucke to 

read in front of the jury texts between “Stanka Da Wife” and 

Hack?

3. Was the evidence insufficient to prove the identity of the 

shooter beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore the 

conviction for all charges should be vacated?

Hack’s Br. at 3-4 (suggested answers omitted).

We will first address Hack’s claim that the Commonwealth failed to 

present sufficient evidence to prove the identity of the shooter. He points out 

that there were no eyewitnesses and claims that “a prosecution based 

substantially upon surveillance footage should be found insufficient.” Hack’s 
J-S11027-23

- 7 -

Br. at 14. He notes that Officers Soto and Williams did not explain how they 

knew the person in the video was Hack and that no firearm was recovered. 

He argues that the medical examiner testified the victim was shot with two 

different types of bullets, such that he likely was shot by two separate people, 

but the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that one of those 

shooters was Hack.

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we “must 

determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all reasonable 

inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the conviction beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Commonwealth v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19, 23 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en 

banc) (citation omitted)). “Where there is sufficient evidence to enable the 

trier of fact to find every element of the crime has been established beyond a 

reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of the evidence claim must fail.” Id. (citation 

omitted). This standard applies equally where the Commonwealth’s evidence 

is circumstantial. Commonwealth v. Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217, 1229 

(Pa.Super. 2018).

“To sustain a conviction for first-degree murder, the Commonwealth 

must prove that: (1) a human being was unlawfully killed; (2) the accused 

was responsible for the killing; and (3) the accused acted with malice and a 

specific intent to kill.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 176 A.3d 298, 306-07 

(Pa.Super. 2017) (citing Commonwealth v. Ballard, 80 A.3d 380, 390 (Pa. 

2013)). 
J-S11027-23

- 8 -

Here, the Commonwealth presented video of Hack near the scene of the 

crime, wherein he obtained a firearm and gloves before the shooting occurred. 

Hack was identified from the video by two police officers. Although he denied 

being one of the shooters, Hack admitted that he was at the scene of the crime

and that Brown gave him a firearm. Moreover, Hack had gunshot residue on 

his clothing, had edited pictures of an article about the shooting on his phone, 

and his text messages to Stanka Da Wife suggested that he had done 

something but would not get in trouble. This evidence was sufficient to support 

a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Hack shot the victim. 

In his remaining two issues, Hack challenges the trial court’s evidentiary 

rulings. This Court will reverse an evidentiary ruling only if the trial court 

abused its discretion. Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 230 A.3d 480, 489

(Pa.Super. 2020) (citation omitted). An abuse of discretion is “not merely an 

error of judgment, but is rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or 

the exercise of judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, 

prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record.” 

Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 749 (Pa.Super. 2014) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182, 1188-89 (Pa.Super. 2009)).

First, Hack argues this Court should grant a new trial because Detective 

Lucke’s testimony “included an argumentative commentary overtop of a 

manipulated and persuasive-style presentation of the video evidence.” Hack’s 

Br. at 8. He claims the testimony deprived him of a fair trial, under the Sixth

and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Hack argues 
J-S11027-23

- 9 -

Detective Lucke lacked personal knowledge of the shooting incident, such that 

his narration of the video was “mere commentary.” Id. at 9. He argues the 

testimony was not harmless because without it the jury may have reached a 

different verdict. He claims the trial court misapplied Commonwealth v. 

Cole, 135 A.3d 191 (Pa.Super. 2016), reasoning that here the testimony was 

not a mere explanation but rather “a prejudicial presentation that included 

still-photos overtop the video for ‘comparison.’” Hack’s Br. at 10. He argues 

the testimony was designed to persuade the jury that Hack was the person in 

the video and “impermissibly suggested to the jury that Hack was pictured 

with a gun,” noting that Detective Lucke drew attention to the person’s 

mannerisms and their hands. Id. at 10. 

He distinguishes the testimony here from the detective’s testimony in 

Cole. He further attempts to distinguish Cole by stating that in Cole multiple 

eyewitnesses had placed the defendant at the scene, whereas here no 

eyewitnesses testified. Hack further argues that the Pennsylvania Rules of 

Evidence require an underlying basis and background for a declarant to 

identify a person in a piece of media, and Officers Soto and Williams had 

insufficient personal knowledge of Hack and his appearance from which the 

police could make an identification, and their testimony does not explain their 

personal knowledge of Hack. Hack also distinguishes Commonwealth v. 

Brown, 134 A.3d 1097, 1106 (Pa.Super. 2018), arguing Brown also had 

eyewitness testimony, and Commonwealth v. Palmer, 192 A.3d 85 
J-S11027-23

- 10 -

(Pa.Super. 2018), noting that in that case DNA evidence confirmed the 

defendant’s presence at the scene. 

The admission of videotaped evidence “depends on relevance and 

probative value.” Cole, 135 A.3d at 194. “Evidence is relevant if it logically 

tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact more or 

less probable, or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a 

material fact.” Id. at 194-95 (citation omitted).

In Cole, a police detective narrated video footage from security cameras 

that showed three individuals leave an apartment and walk out of view, the 

victim then staggering and falling to the ground, and the same three 

individuals running away and fleeing in a vehicle. Id. at 192. The detective 

pointed out the time stamp at various points in the video; 

he described the location of the cameras to the scene, the 

physical relationships between people and buildings, and 

the movements of a vehicle; he identified three men leaving 

an apartment and running along the fence line and the 

victim staggering and falling down. Using measurements he 

and his colleague took, the video footage, and the time 

stamps, [the detective] calculated the direction, distance, 

and time covered by the three individuals.

Id. at 196 (internal citations to record omitted). 

On appeal, the defendant claimed the court erred in allowing the 

detective to narrate the video while it played, claiming the testimony was 

based on speculation, not personal knowledge, it contained improper lay 

opinion, and the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed the narration’s 

probative value. Id. at 195. We concluded the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in admitting the narration. We reasoned the testimony was based 
J-S11027-23

- 11 -

on the detective’s experience, perceptions, and his personal knowledge of the 

scene, the testimony was relevant to the jury’s understanding of the timing, 

the actors, and the location of the events depicted. We further concluded that

his testimony did not cause unfair prejudice or undue delay, confuse the 

issues, mislead the jury, or needlessly present cumulative evidence. Id. at 

196.; see also Brown, 134 A.3d at 1106 (finding court did not err in allowing 

detective to describe images in video and call attention to specific portions of 

video); Palmer , 192 A.3d at 101 (court did not abuse its discretion in 

admitting detective’s identification of shooter from video, which was based on 

his perception of the video and placed his action in context, and noting the 

jury watched the video and was free to reach a different conclusion).

Here, the trial court explained that precedents permit a witness to 

narrate a compilation of surveillance videos to aid the jury in understanding 

the timing, actors, and location. Tr.Ct.Op. at 7 (citing Cole, 135 A.3d at 106).

It noted that it instructed the jury that it is their recollections, not the 

detective’s narration, that controls. Id. The court found the detective 

described where people were in relation to the events and described the 

events as they unfolded, but noted that the jury was free to reach a different 

conclusion if it disagreed with Detective Lucke. Id. The court pointed out that 

in its final instructions, it again instructed the jury that it is the jury’s 

recollection that controls, not Detective Lucke’s narration.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Detective Lucke 

to narrate the video. As in Cole, the narration was relevant, as it helped the 
J-S11027-23

- 12 -

jury, and its prejudicial impact did not outweigh its probative value. Further, 

again as in Cole, the testimony was not the only evidence to identify Hack. 

Rather, two witnesses identified Hack as at the scene and Hack told the police 

officers that he was there and that Brown gave him a firearm. To the extent 

Hack challenges on appeal the identifications made by Officers Williams and 

Soto, he waived this challenge by failing to object at the trial. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) 

(“Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the 

first time on appeal”). Further, the court instructed the jury that it was their 

recollection that controlled, and the jury is presumed to follow the court’s 

instruction. See Commonwealth v. Hairston, 249 A.3d 1046, 1068 (Pa. 

2021). We cannot find the court abused its discretion.

In his next issue, Hack argues the introduction of the text message that 

was sent by his purported wife violated his right to confront witnesses and his 

right to a fair trial. He claims that the text message from “Stanka Da Wife” 

that Detective Lucke read to the jury was inadmissible hearsay. He points out 

the text was not from a co-conspirator (and thus admissible) and claims the

text messages do not show his state of mind. He attempts to distinguish 

Commonwealth v. Williams, 241 A.3d 1094, 1101 (Pa.Super. 2020), 

because there, the text was between the defendant and the victim. Hack 

points out that the writer of the text (i.e., “Stanka Da Wife”) did not testify at 

trial. He maintains that the text was offered to prove the truth of the matter 

asserted, not the context of Hack’s response, as argued by the 

Commonwealth. He argues his response was not a direct response or reply to 
J-S11027-23

- 13 -

the text message, and the messages stand alone, with no context needed. He 

claims the text about “dirty work” was offered to prove he “did something 

dirty.” Hack’s Br. at 14.

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered “to prove the truth of the 

matter asserted in the statement.” Pa.R.E. 801(c). “Hearsay statements are 

generally inadmissible unless they fall under an enumerated exception.” 

Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35, 68 (Pa. 2012); Pa.R.E. 802. “An 

out-of-court statement is not hearsay when it has a purpose other than to 

convince the fact finder of the truth of the statement.” Busanet, 54 A.3d at 

68.

Further, “an erroneous ruling by a trial court on an evidentiary issue 

does not require us to grant relief where the error was harmless.” 

Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501, 521 (Pa. 2005). An error is 

harmless “only if the appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt 

that the error is harmless.” Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick, 255 A.3d 452, 

483 (Pa. 2021) (quoting Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155, 162 (Pa. 

1978)). The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving that the error was 

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Harmless error exists where: “(1) 

the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; (2) 

the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted 

evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted 

evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt 

was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant 
J-S11027-23

- 14 -

by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Id.

(quoting Chmiel, 889 A.2d at 521).

Here, the trial court concluded the text message from “Stanka Da Wife” 

was not hearsay because it was not offered for the truth of the matter 

asserted. Tr.Ct.Op. at 8. It reasoned the message was admitted to show the 

context of the response. Id. (citing Williams, 241 A.3d at 1103-04). The 

court further pointed out that to “prevent any possible prejudice to [Hack], 

[the c]ourt instructed the jury that the statement was not offered for the truth 

of the matter asserted and was only admitted . . . to understand the context 

in which [Hack] responded to the message.” Id.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the message from 

“Stanka Da Wife,” as it was not admitted for its truth. Rather, it was offered 

to provide context for Hack’s response, which was admissible as the statement 

of a party opponent. See Pa.R.Evid. 801, 803(25). Furthermore, any error in 

admitting it was harmless, as any prejudice was de minimis and the text 

message would not have contributed to the outcome. See Chmiel, 889 A.2d 

at 529 (concluding improper line of question was harmless because it did not 

prejudice appellant or any prejudice was de minimis); Commonwealth v. 

Fransen, 42 A.3d 1100, 1115 (Pa.Super. 2012) (en banc) (finding evidentiary 

error harmless where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt). Moreover, 

the court issued a limiting instruction that the statement was not offered for 

the truth of the matter asserted but only to provide context for Hack’s 
J-S11027-23

- 15 -

response, and juries are presumed to following the court’s instructions. See 

Hairston, 249 A.3d at 1068.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/14/2023