### J

- S01025

- 21

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JOSEPH SENTORE COLEMAN, JR.

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 710 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 13, 2020

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

No(s): CP

- 41

- CR

- 0000352

- 2019

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *



### MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED APRIL 23, 2021

Joseph Sentore Coleman, Jr. (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of

sentence imposed February 13, 2020

, in the Lycoming County Court of

Common Pleas. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of life

imprisonment, following his jury convictions of first

- degree murder, robbery

, 1



### and related offenses , for the August 2016 shooting death of Christopher

Wilkins. On appeal, Appellant challenges both the sufficiency and weight of

the evidence supporting his convictions, the admission of inflammatory photos

of the deceased, the court’s refusal to provide a missing witness instruction,

and the court’s refusal to permit the testimony of a defense witness that

another person admitted to committing the crime. We affirm.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* 

### Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 

### 18 Pa.C.S. § § 2502(a), 3701(a)(1)(iii).

### J

- S01025

- 21

- 2

-

The testimony presented during Appellant’s jury trial is summarized by

the trial court as follows :

On August 30, 2016, Appellant approached Jamal Brown

regarding a drug debt Brown owed him. Appellant told Brown that

he wanted to commit a robbery at 505 Park Avenue because a guy

from Philadelphia sold drugs out of that residence. Appellant told

Brown that he would consider the debt paid if Brown helped him.

He asked Brown to describe the layout of 505 Park Avenue, wh ich

Brown did, and then Appellant left.

* * *

Appellant returned and said, “It’s a go.” Brown got into the

vehicle with Appellant[ and Appellant’s girlfriend, Ariel Harlan,

who was driving. Harlan] drove them to a house near Washington

Boulevard . Harlan went inside the house and came back to the

vehicle with a bag. Then they drove to Timberland Apartments,

picked up James Calvin Rooks, and drove back t o the area of 505

Park Avenue.

Appellant pulled a small revolver out of a bag and gave it to

Rooks and he gave Rooks something to put over his face.

Appellant pulled out a bigger revolver for himself. Brown saw

Appellant and Rooks go inside 505 Park Avenue. About an hour

later, Brown saw Appellant at the Shamrock bar in different,

lighter

- color ed clothing.

[ ] Harlan testified that Appellant, Brown and Rooks were in

her vehicle, a black Dodge Dart, on August 30, 2016. She parked

the vehicle on Cherry Street. Brown got out of the vehicle and

went around the corner toward 505 Park Avenue. Brow n returned

a few minutes later. Appellant and Rooks got out of the vehicle

and had a “pow wow” meeting with Brown on the sidewalk. Brown

walked away. Appellant and Rooks walked toward 505 Park

Avenue. A few minutes later, Harlan heard a gunshot and the n

saw Appellant and Rooks turning the corner coming back to her

vehicle. She saw Appellant “shove a cloth thin g and a gun in his

waistband.” They jumped in the vehicle and Appellant screamed

for her to drive. Appellant threw the cloth out of the car on the

way to Turkey Hill. It was a mask.

### J

- S01025

- 21

- 3

- Tyrone “Tyke” Small testified that he was sitting in the living

area in 505 Park Avenue. Two “dudes” ran in and said, “This is a

robbery.” One of them slapped him on the back of his shoulder

with a gun and he fell to the floor. They [let] him up and walked

him over to the Victim’s bedroom. They opened the bedroom door

and made him get down on the ground. The person with the gun

pointed it at the Victim and asked him where the “stuff” was. The

Victim said he did not know. The person asked again and the

Victim said he did not know what the person was talking about

and then one of them shot the Victim. Both people were wearing

masks, but Small could see their skin and knew they were Black.

The Victim fell to the floor and one of the people, the smaller one, 5



### went through the Victim’s pockets.

__________

5 

### Appellant is smaller than Rooks.

__________

[ ] Rooks testified that Appellant ca me to his residence [and]

said he needed him for something, but he did not t ell him what.

Appellant had a weapon on his waist and said, “Ain’t going to be

no problem.” Roo k s did not want anything to happen to his kids

or his kids’ mom so he got in the vehicle. Harlan was driving.

They drove up to a person, Appellant spoke to h im, and then the

person got in the vehicle. Appellant tried to give Rooks a weapon

but he did not want it.

Appellant and Rooks went to the back of the house at 505

Park Avenue. Appellant gave Rooks a pant leg or something to

put over his face. Appellan t was wearing a ski mask and grey hat.

They went inside the residence. Appellant told the Victim to “give

it up.” The Victim said he didn’t have anything. There was

another individual in there who Appellant hit with his gun and he

was down on the floor . Appellant pointed his gun at the Victim.

The Victim was holding Appellant’s arm a little bit. Appellant

pointed the gun at the Victim and shot the gun at him.

Trial Ct. Op., 9/2/20, at 1, 6

- 8 ( citations to trial transcript omitted)

.

During the inve stigation at the scene of the shooting, police recovered

a gray baseball cap and “black scarf or sleeve.” Trial Ct. Op. at 8. Subsequent

testing revealed “DNA mixtures of at least 3 people” on the black sleeve and

### J

- S01025

- 21

- 4

-

baseball cap. Id. at 9. However, “Appe llant’s DNA was the major component

of . . . DNA samples” taken from those two items. Id. at 9

- 10.

During the course of investigating an unrelated double homicide, 2



### Williamsport Police gathered evidence implicating Appellant in the Park

Avenue robbery a nd shooting. He was arrested in February of 2019. 3 

### A

criminal information was filed on April 1, 2019, charging him with criminal

homicide, robbery (three counts), criminal conspiracy to commit robbery,

possessing an instrument of crime, and burglary. 4



### The case proceeded to a jury trial commencing on February 10, 2020.

On February 13 th , the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all charges

,

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

2 

### On February 19, 2019, Appellant was convicted of two counts of second

degre e murder and related offenses for an unrelated gunpoint robbery that

occurred on October 31, 2016. His direct appeal from that conviction is

pending before this Court. See Commonwealth v. Coleman , 672 MDA

2020.

3 

### Rooks was also arrested and charged wi th criminal homicide and related

offenses. On July 30, 2020, he entered a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy

to commit robbery and was sentenced to a term of nine months’ to four years’

imprisonment. See Commonwealth v. Rooks , CP

- 41

- CR

- 0000353

- 2019.

4 

### 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2201(a), 3701(a)(1)(i)

- (iii), 903(a)(1), 907(b), 3502(a)(1).

Appellant was also charged with conspiracy to commit homicide,

persons not to possess firearms and firearms not to be carried without a

license. See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6105(c)(2 ), 6106. The trial court granted

Appellant’s pretrial motion to sever the firearms offenses, and the

Commonwealth subsequently nolle prossed those charges after the jury’s

verdict. See Order, 10/22/19, at 1; Order, 4/15/20. The Commonwealth also

withdre w the second count of conspiracy. See Order, 2/13/20.

### J

- S01025

- 21

- 5

-

specifically finding Appellant guilty of both first

- and second

- degree murder.

The trial court immediately procee ded to sentencing, whereupon it imposed

the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole. 5



### Appellant filed a timely post

- sentence motion challenging the weight of

the evidence supporting his convictions, and asserting the trial court

improperly charged the jury. See Appellant’s Post Sentence Motion, 2/24/20,

at 3

- 5. On May 6, 2020, the trial court entered an order and opinion denying

Appellant relief. This timely appeal follows. 6



### Appellant raises the five issues for our review:

I. Whether the verdicts of guilty were based on insufficient

evidence[?]

II. Whether the verdicts of guilt were against the weight of the

evidence[?]

III. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by permitting the jury

to have inflammatory and overly prejudicial photos in its

possession during deliberations?

IV. Did the trial court err in failing to charge the jury with a

failure to call potential witness instruction even though the

Commonwealth failed to call three of the eyewitnesses who

were at t he scene of the crime s ?

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

5 

### The court imposed concurrent sentences on the remaining offenses, but

directed that the life sentence run consecutively to any other sentences

Appellant was then serving. See Order, 2/13/20, at 1

- 5 (unpaginated). As

noted supra, Appellant was convicted of two counts of second

- degree murder

a year earlier. See Commonwealth v. Coleman , 672 MDA 2020.

6 

### Appellant complied with the trial court’s directive to file a concise statement

of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On

September 2, 2020, the trial court filed a comprehensive, 28

- page opinion.

### J

- S01025

- 21

- 6

-

V. Did the trial court err by precluding the exculpatory

testimony of Leon Hall who would have testified that one of

the eyewitnesses who testified against [Appellant] admitted

to committing the crimes[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 7.

Preli minarily, we set forth the relevant law and standards of review

concerning the claims raised by Appellant on appeal. Challenges to the

sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting a conviction are discrete

inquiries:

A claim challenging the suffici ency of the evidence is a

question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the

verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime

charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a

reasonable doubt.

. . . When reviewing a sufficiency claim the

court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable

to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all

reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.

A motion for new trial [,] on the grounds that t he verdict is

contrary to the weight of the evidence, concedes that there is

sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Thus, the trial court is

under no obligation to view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the verdict winner. An allegation th at the verdict is

against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion

of the trial court.

. . .

Com monwealth v. Widmer , 744 A.2d 745, 751

– 52 ( Pa. 2000) (citations

omitted) . Thus, when considering a weight claim,

an appellate court must r eview the trial court’s exercise of

discretion. . . . We do not contemplate the underlying question of

whether the verdict actually was against the weight of the

evidence. Rather, we evaluate the trial court’s decision of that

issue, and we do so under a n abuse of discretion standard.

Commonwealth v. Clemons , 200 A.3d 441, 463

– 64 (Pa. 2019) (citation

omitted), cert. denied , 140 S. Ct. 176 (2019). “In order for a defendant to

### J

- S01025

- 21

- 7

-

prevail on a challenge to the weight of the evidence, ‘the evidence must be so

tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the

court.’” Commonwealth v. Talbert , 129 A.3d 536, 546 (Pa. Super. 2015).

Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence are within the

discretion of the trial court, and “only a showing of an abuse of that discretion,

and resulting prejudice, constitutes reversible error.” Commonwealth v.

Sanchez , 36 A.3d 24, 48 (Pa. 2011) (citations omitted). Photographic

evidence may be deemed inflammatory and inadmissible following a two

- step

analysis:

“First, the court must decide whether a photograph is

inflammatory by its very nature. If the photograph is deemed

inflammatory, the court must determine whether the essential

evidentiary value of the photograph outweighs the likelihood that

the photograph will improperly inflame the minds and passions of

the jury.” The availability of alternate testimonial ev idence does

not preclude the admission of allegedly inflammatory evidence.

Id. at 49 (citations omitted). Further, the trial court has the discretion to

determine what evidence or exhibits the jury may view during deliberations.

See Pa.R.Crim.P. 646(A) (“Upon retiring, the jury may take with it such

exhibits as the trial judge deems proper[.]”); Commonwealth v. Haney , 131

A.3d 24, 38

- 39 (Pa. 2015).

A trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction does not

constitute reversible error unless t he defendant was prejudiced by the court’s

refusal. Commonwealth v. Miller , 172 A.3d 632, 645 (Pa. Super. 2017).

“When evaluating the propriety of jury instructions, this Court will

look to the instructions as a whole, and not simply isolated

portions, to determine if the instructions were improper.” A trial

### J

- S01025

- 21

- 8

-

court has “broad discretion in phrasing its instructions, and may

choose its own wording so long as the law is clearly, adequately,

and accurately presented to the jury for its consideration.” “Only

where there is an abuse of discretion or an inaccurate statement

of the law is there reversible error.”

Id. (citations omitted).

Hearsay statements, though generally precluded, may be admissible if

a defendant establishes, inter alia , “the declarant is unavailable as a witness”

and the statement is against the declarant’s interest. Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3). The

Rule defines a statement against interest as one that:

(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have

made only if the person believed it to be true because, when

made, it . . . had so great a tendency . . . to expose the declarant

to civil or criminal liability; and

(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly

indicate its trustworthiness, if it is of fered in a criminal case as

one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.

Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3)(A)

- (B). As with any evidentiary claim, the determination

of whether a statement meets the exception to the hearsay requirement lies

within t he disc retion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Benson , 10 A.3d

1268, 1274

- 74 (Pa. Super. 2010).

Appellant first argues the evidence was insufficient to support his

convictions. He contends the Commonwealth’s only eyewitness who identified

Appellant as the s hooter

— Rooks

— was not credible because he was also

charged with the crime. Appellant’s Brief at 14. Appellant also maintains

Rooks’ testimony was contrary to the physical evidence, i.e.

, where Rooks

claimed he wore the sleeve over his head, his DNA wa s not found on the item.

See id. at 14

- 15, 18. Further, Appellant asserts Small, the only eyewitness

### J

- S01025

- 21

- 9

-

to the shooting who was not charged, testified that he heard Rooks’ voice in

prison sometime after the incident and “did not recognize it as one of the

shooters who forced him to the ground.” Id. at 15

- 16. Appellant also

emphasizes that another witness who was in the house at the time of the

shooting, Lewis Martin, testified that neither of the culprits was Appellant,

whom he had known for more than 12 years and would have recognized. See

id. at 16. Martin also stated that neither of the robbers had dreadlocks, yet

Rooks testified he had dreadlocks at the time of the shooting. See id. at 19.

Lastly, Appellant points to the testimony that he was wearing a baseball hat

that time of the shooting, but the hat recovered from the crime scene had no

blood on it. Id. at 20.

Appellant relies on th ese same argument s in his second iss ue, asserting

the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence. 7 

### See Appellant’s Brief

at 21. He further contends the benefit Rooks received from the prosecution

for his testimony

, “in addition to his uncorroborated testimony regarding his

dreadlocks as well as the lack of DNA on a mask that he is alleged to have

worn, makes [Rooks’] testimony unreliable and not credible.” Id. Appellant

also emphasizes the Commonwealth did not call Lewis Martin as a witness,

when Martin told police on the day of the shooting that Appellant was not

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

7 

### We note Appellant properly pr eserved his weight of the evidence claim by

raising it in a timely post

- sentence motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(3);

Appellant’s Post Sentence Motion, 2/24/20, at 3

- 5.

### J

- S01025

- 21

- 10

-

involved. See id. at 22. Thus, Appellant maintains the jury’s verdict was

speculative and against the weight of the evidence. Id. at 23.

In his third issue, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion

when it “permitted the jury to view inflammatory photographs even though

[Appellant] was not disputing that the decedent was shot to death.”

Appellant’s Brief at 23. He insists that photographs were not relevant, and

the court failed to explain “ how the photo s were not inflammatory and

prejudicial to the jury[.]” Id. at 26. Appellant also claims “the photos should

not have been illuminated in the dark to further emphasize . . . their shocking

nature to the jury.” Id.

Next, Appellant insists the trial court erred when if failed to instruct the

jury to draw an unfavorable inference from the fact that the Commonwealth

failed to call two witnesses

— Jeffrey Green and Jerry Green. See Appellant’s

Brief at 26, 29; see also Pa. SSJI (Crim), § 3.21A (Failure to Call Potential

Witness). He maintains the witnesses were “material,” he was not able to

locate them, but the Commonwealth was “aware as to [their] location.” Id.

at 29.

Lastly, Appellant argues the trial court abus ed its discretion when it

excluded, as hearsay, testimony that another person admitted to shooting the

victim. Appellant’s Brief at 30. He claims Leon Hall would have testified that

“shortly after the shooting” he spoke to Jamal Brown, and that Brown adm itted

he was the shooter. Id. Appellant contends Hall’s proposed testimony was

### J

- S01025

- 21

- 11

-

relevant, and admissible as a statement against interest pursuant to Pa.R.E.

804(b)(3).

Upon our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant

statutory and ca se law, we conclude the trial court’s September 2, 2020,

opinion thoroughly addresses and properly disposes of Appellant’s claims on

appeal. Accordingly, we rest on its well

- reasoned bases

. See Trial Ct. Op. at

3

- 10 (evidence was sufficient to prove beyo nd a reasonable doubt that

Appellant “while wearing a mask and armed with a firearm” entered the

residence intending to rob the victim, and during the course of the robbery,

fatally shot the victim in the head); 10

- 19 ( the verdict “was not so contrary

to t he evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice[;]” the testimony did not

establish there would have been blood on the hat had Appellant worn it during

the shooting; Martin admitted under cross

- examination “he could not see

either of [the robbers’] faces” b ecause one was wearing a ski mask and the

other had his face partially covered; Rooks testified he had no agreement with

the Commonwealth in exchange for his testimony; Small testified that when

he heard Rooks’ voice in prison he did not connect it to the shooting because

he “wasn’t thinking about it”); 19

- 22 (photographs of the victim’s body were

not inflammatory or unduly prejudicial, but instead relevant to show

“stippling,” in order to estimate firing distance); 8 

### 22

- 25 ( Appellant not entitled

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

8 

### We note Appellant’s argument in his brief differs from that in his Rule

1925(b) conci se statement, where he challenged only the trial court’s decision

### J

- S01025

- 21

- 12

-

to failure to call witness instruction because the witnesses were equally

available to both parties, and proposed testimony would have been irrelevant

or cumulative); 25

- 28 (Hall’s proposed testimony

— that Brown admitted he

was the shooter

— was hearsay and did not meet the exception as a statement

against interest because Brown was not unavailable to testify, his purported

admission was “very vague,” and it was not made under circumstances

indicating its trustworthiness).

Judgment of sentence affirmed. We direct that a copy of the trial court’s

September 2, 2020 , opinion be filed along with this memorandum and

attached to any future filings in this case.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 04/23/2021

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______



### to allow the jury to have the photographs in its possession during

deliberations. See Appellant’s Concise Statement of Matters Complained of

on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 1925(B) Order, 6/12/2 0. For that reason, we

could consider this claim waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) (4)(vii) (“ Issues not

included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions

of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived. ”).**Ff r—** **. Received** **12/14/2020 1:332:20P•l0ii•** **r6A0W2,pii94l rpm** **12/14/2020 1•32•0'** **P(•1 erior** **Court Middles** **Dis trict** **710 M** **DA 2020** 

## SEP**0**

## 3**ma**

# 11**11R IN** **THE COURT** **OF COMMON** **PLEAS OF** **L**

# COMIN**GCOT NTY** **P**

### ATT**, .** **LVANIA COMMONWEALTH** **VS. No.** **CP-41-CR-0000352-2019 CRIMINAL** **DIVISION JOSEPH** **SENTORE COLEMAN,** **JR., r,** **_ Appellant** **: 1925(a)** **Opinion r_** **•►= M** **r. y.** **OPINION IN** **SUPPORT OF** **ORDER IN** **COMPLIANCE WITH** **RULE 1925(a)** **OF o=** **THE RULES** **OF APPELLATE** **PROCEDURR•, •** **L N** **This Opinion** **is written** **in support** **of the** **trial court's** **judgment of** **sentence entered** **on February** **13, 2020,** **which became** **final on** **May 6,** **2020 when** **the trial** **court issued** **its opinion** **and order** **denying Appellant's** **post sentence** **motion. This** **case arose** **out of** **a shooting** **that occurred** **at 505** **Park Avenue** **in Williamsport,** **Pennsylvania. On** **August 30,** **2016, Appellant** **approached Jamal** **Brown regarding** **a drug** **debt Brown** **owed him.** **Appellant told** **Brown that** **he wanted** **to commit** **a robbery** **at 505** **Park Avenue** **because a** **guy from** **Philadelphia sold** **drugs out** **of that** **residence. Appellant** **told Brown** **that he** **would consider** **the debt** **paid if** **Brown helped** **him. He** **asked Brown** **to describe** **the layout** **of 505** **Park Avenue,** **which Brown** **did, and** **then Appellant** **left. Appellant** **returned later** **and said,** **"it's a** **go." Brown** **got into** **a vehicle** **with Appeflant** **and his** **then-girlfriend, Ariel** **Harlan, who** **was driving.** **They drove** **to a** **residence and** **picked up** **James "Calvin"** **Rooks. Then** **they drove** **back to** **the area** **of 505** **Park Avenue.** **1 Harlan** **parked the** **vehicle on** **Cherry Street.** **Appellant pulled** **a small** **revolver out** **of a** **bag and** **gave it,** **as well** **as a** **mask made** **out of** **a dark-colored** **sleeve or** **pant leg,** **to Rooks.** **Appellant pulled** **out a** **bigger, black** **revolver and** **a ski** **mask for** **himself. Brown** **got out** **of the** **vehicle and** **walked toward** **505 Park** **Avenue to** **make sure** **that the** **door was** **unlocked. He** **returned to** **the vehicle,** **met with** **Appellant and** **Rooks, told** **them that** **the door** **was unlocked,** **and then** **walked away.** **Appellant and** **Rooks entered** **505 Park** **Avenue. Tyrone** **Small was** **in the** **living area** **just inside** **the door.** **Appellant hit** **Small on** **the back** **of his** **right shoulder** **with a** **gun, knocking** **him down.** **He got** **him up,** **opened the** **door to** **the adjoining** **bedroom of** **Christopher Wilkins'** **(hereinafter "Victim"),** **and put** **Small on** **the ground** **inside the** **bedroom. Appellant** **pointed his** **firearm at** **the Victim** **and asked** **him where** **the "stuff'** **was. When** **the Victim** **said he** **didn't know** **or he** **didn't have** **anything, Appellant** **shot him.** **One of** **them rifled** **through the** **Victim's pockets** **and then** **they ran** **out of** **the door.** **As they** **ran out** **of, the** **residence, they** **dropped the** **sleeve mask** **and a** **baseball hat** **on the** **porch. They** **ran back** **to the** **vehicle, and** **Appellant yelled** **for Harlan** **to drive** **away. The** **Commonwealth charged** **Appellant with** **criminal homicide,** **conspiracy to** **commit criminal** **homicide, three** **counts of** **robbery, conspiracy** **to commit** **robbery, burglary,** **possession of** **instruments of** **crime (weapon),** **person not** **to possess** **firearm, and** **firearm not** **to be** **carried without** **a license.** **The trial** **court severed** **the two** **firearms charges** **for trial** **'Due to** **an inadvertent** **dictation error,** **Victim's name** **is incorrectly** **stated as** **Christopher Williams** **in the** **opinion and** **order denying** **Appellant's post** **sentence motion.** **2**

### purposes.**A jury** **trial was** **held February** **10-13, 2020** **on all** **of-the charges** **except the** **severed firearms** **charges. At** **trial, the** **Commonwealth withdrew** **the charge** **of conspiracy** **to commit** **criminal homicide.** **On February** **13, 2020,** **the jury** **found Appellant** **guilty of** **first degree** **murder, second-degree** **murder, burglary,** **possessing instruments** **of crime,** **and three** **counts of** **robbery. The** **trial court** **sentenced Appellant** **to life** **in prison** **without the** **possibility of** **parole for** **first-degree murder** **to be** **served consecutive** **to any** **and all** **sentences that** **Appellant was** **serving. On** **February 24,** **2020, Appellant** **filed a** 

### post**sentence motion** **in which** **he asserted** **that the** **verdict was** **against the** **weight of** **the evidence** **and that** **the jury** **was improperly** **charged that** **it could** **find Appellant** **guilty of** **first, second** **and third** **degree murder.** **In an** **opinion and** **order entered** **on May** **6, 2020,** **the trial** **court denied** **Appellant's post** **sentence motion.** **Appellant filed** **a timely** **notice of** **appeal. Appellant** **filed a** **concise statement** **of matters** **complained of** **on appeal** **in which** **he raised** **five issues.** **Appellant first** **asserts that** **the verdicts** **of guilt** **were based** **on insufficient** **evidence. Although** **the jury** **convicted Appellant** **of numerous** **offenses, Appellant** **has not** **specified either** **the offense** **or the** **element or** **elements upon** **which the** **evidence was** **insufficient. Therefore,** **Appellant has** **waived this** **issue. Commonwealth** **v. Corr,** **227 A.3d** **11, 18** **(Pa. Super..2020)(If** **an appellant** **wants to** **preserve a** **claim that** **the evidence** **was Ultimately,** **the Commonwealth** **nolle prossed** **the severed** **firearms charges.** **The court** **imposed concurrent** **sentences for** **the remaining** **charges, except** **for one** **count of** **robbery that** **merged with** **second-degree murder.** **3 insufficient,** **then the** **Rule 1925(b)** **statement needs** **to specify** **the element** **or elements** **upon which** **the evidence** **was insufficient);** **Commonwealth v.** **Ellison, 213** **A.3d 312,** **320-321 (Pa.** **Super. 2019)(In** **order to** **preserve a** **challenge to** **the sufficiency** **of the** **evidence on** **appeal, an** **appellant's [Pa-R.A.P.]** **1925(b) statement** **must state** **with specificity** **the element** **or elements** **upon which** **the appellant** **alleges that** **the evidence** **was insufficient,** **particularly where** **the appellant** **is convicted** **of multiple** **crimes each** **of which** **contains numerous** **elements that** **the Commonwealth** **must prove** **beyond a** **reasonable doubt);** **Commonwealth v.** **Hoffman, 198** **A.3d 1112,** **1125 (Pa.** **Super. 2018)(same);** **Commonwealth v.** **Tyack, 128** **A.3d 254,260** **(Pa. Super.** **2015)(Where a** **1925(b) statement** **does not** **specify the** **allegedly unproven** **elements, the** **sufficiency claim** **is waived** **on appeal).** **Even if** **Appellant has** **not waived** **this issue,** **Appellant's claim** **lacks merit.** **Based on** **Appellant's post** **sentence motion** **regarding the** **weight of** **the evidence,** **the trial** **court believes** **Appellant is** **asserting that** **the evidence** **was insufficient** **to establish** **that Appellant** **committed the** **crimes or** **that he** **committed an** **intentional killing.** **When reviewing** **a sufficiency** **claim, the** **court considers** **whether the** **evidence introduced** **at trial** **and all** **reasonable inferences** **derived therefrom,** **viewed in** **the light** **most favorable** **to the** **Commonwealth as** **verdict winner,** **are sufficient** **to establish** **the elements** **of the** **offense beyond** **a reasonable** **doubt. Commonwealth** **v. Smith,** **2020 WL** **4146845,*****3 (Pa.,** **July 21,** **2020); Commonwealth** **v. Sanchez,** **36 A.3d** **24, 37** **(Pa. 2011).** **"Furthermore, the** **Commonwealth may** **sustain its** **burden by** **wholly circumstantial** **evidence and** **the jury** **is free** **i to** **believe all,** **part, or** **none of** **the evidence"** **Commonwealth v.** **Thomas, 215** **A.3d 36,** **40 (Pa.** **2019). 4** **"A criminal** **homicide constitutes** **murder of** **the first** **degree when** **it is** **committed by** **an intentional** **killing." 18** **Pa. C.S.** **§2502(a). "To** **obtain a** **first-degree murder** **conviction, the** **Commonwealth must** **demonstrate_that a** **human being** **was unlawfully** **killed, the** **Appellant perpetrated** **the killing,** **and the** **Appellant acted** **with malice** **and a** **specific intent** **to kill."** **Commonwealth v.** **Mattison, 623** **Pa. 174,** **82 A.3d** **386, 392** **(2013). Both** **the specific** **intent to** **kill and** **malice may** **be inferred** **from the** **use of** **a deadly** **weapon on** **a vital** **part of** **the victim's** **body. Commonwealth** **v. Hicks,** **638 Pa.** **444, 156** **A.3d 1114,** **1124 (2017).** **The forensic** **pathologist, Dr.** **Barbara Bollinger,** **testified that** **the Victim** **had a** **gunshot wound** **to the** **left ear** **and that** **the projectile** **went into** **his skull.** **The projectile** **fractured his** **skull and** **created hemorrhages** **within his** **brain and** **the uppermost** **portion of** **his spinal** **cord. The** **gunshot would** **have killed** **the Victim** **within seconds.** **Dr. Bollinger** **also testified** **that there** **was stippling** **around the** **gunshot entrance** **wound. Stippling** **represents an** **intermediate range** **of fire** **from about** **12 inches** **to 3** **feet. Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **12, 2020,** **at 16-20.** **Jamal Brown** **testified that** **Appellant gave** **him $1000** **of crack** **cocaine. Brown** **was supposed** **to sell** **the cocaine** **and give** **Appellant $700.** **However, he** **only gave** **Appellant $400;** **he was** **short by** **$300. Appellant** **asked Brown** **about the** **money. Brown** **asked for** **more time.** **Appellant asked** **Brown if** **he would** **like to** **clear the** **debt by** **explaining what** **goes on** **at 505** **Park Avenue.** **Brown said** **he would** **like to** **do that.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 11,** **2020, at** **20-21. Appellant** **then told** **Brown that** **he wanted** **to rob** **505 Park** **Avenue because** **'Stippling is** **abrasions or** **cuts of** **the skin** **that occur** **from unburned** **powder and** **other debris** **that may** **be present** **in the** **barrel of** **a gun** **when it** **is discharged.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2020, at** **18. 5** **"guys from** **Philadelphia were** **selling drugs** **out of** **that house."** **Appellant asked** **Brown about** **the layout** **of the** **house and** **if it** **was easy** **to get** **in. Brown** **told Appellant** **that there** **was no** **lock on** **the door** **and the** **guys did** **not have** **any weapons** **or anything.** **Appellant left** **but said** **he would** **be back.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 11,** **2020, at** **21. Appellant** **returned and** **said, "It's** **a go."** **Brown got** **into the** **vehicle with** **Appellant. Appellant's** **girlfriend, Ariel** **Harlan, drove** **them to** **a house** **near Washington** **Boulevard. Harlan** **went inside** **the house** **and came** **back to** **the vehicle** **with a** **bag. Then** **they drove** **to Timberland** **Apartments, picked** **up James** **Calvin Rooks,** **and drove** **back to** **the area** **of 505** **Park Avenue.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 11,** **2 02** **0, at** **22-23. Appellant** **pulled a** **small revolver** **out of** **a bag** **and gave** **it to** **Rooks and** **he gave** **Rooks something** **to put** **over his** **face. Appellant** **pulled out** **a bigger** **revolver for** **himself. Brown** **saw Appellant** **and Rooks** **go inside** **505 Park** **Avenue. About** **an hour** **later, Brown** **saw Appellant** **at the** **Shamrock bar** **in different,** **lighter-colored clothing.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 11,** **2020, at** **23-24,26-28. Ariel** **Harlan testified** **that Appellant,** **Brown and** **Rooks were** **in her** **vehicle, a** **black Dodge** **Dart, on** **August 30,** **2016. She** **parked the** **vehicle on** **Cherry Street.** **Brown got** **out of** **the vehicle** **and went** **around the** **corner toward** **505 Park** **Avenue. Brown** **returned a** **few minutes** **later. Appellant** **and Rooks** **got out** **the vehicle** **and had** **a "pow** **wow" meeting** **with Brown** **on the** **sidewalk. Brown** **walked away.** **Appellant and** **Rooks walked** **toward 505** **Park Avenue.** **A few** **minutes later,** **Harlan heard** **a gunshot** **and then** **saw Appellant** **and Rooks** **turning the** **corner coming** **back to** **her vehicle.** **She saw** **Appellant "shove** **a cloth** **thing and** **a gun** **in his** **waistband." They** **jumped in** **the vehicle** **and Appellant** **screamed for** **her to** **6 drive.** **Appellant threw** **the cloth** **out of** **the car** **on the** **way.to Turkey** **Hill. It** **was a** **mask. Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **11, 2020,** **at 10-12.** **Tyrone "Tyke"** **Small testified** **that he** **was sitting** **in the** **living area** **in 505** **Park Avenue.** **Two "dudes"** **ran in** **and said,** **"This is.a** **robbery." One** **of them** **slapped him** **on the** **back of** **his shoulder** **with a** **gun and** **he fell** **to the** **floor. They** **left him** **up and** **walked him** **over to** **the Victim's** **bedroom. They** **opened the** **bedroom door** **and made** **him get** **down on** **the ground.** **The person** **with the** **gun pointed** **it at** **the. Victim** **and asked** **where the** **"stuff' was.** **The Victim** **said he** **did not** **know. The** **person asked** **again and** **the Victim** **said he** **did not** **know what** **the person** **was talking** **about and** **then one** **of them** **shot the** **Victim. Both** **people were** **wearing masks,** **but Small** **could see** **their skin** **and knew** **they were** **Black. The** **Victim fell** **to the** **floor and** **one of** **the people,** **the smaller** **one, went** **through the** **Victim's pockets.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 11,** **2020, at** **91-93, 101.** **Calvin Rooks** **testified that** **Appellant came** **to his** **residence at** **Timberland Apartments.** **Appellant said** **he needed** **him for** **something, but** **he did** **not tell** **him what.** **Appellant had** **a weapon** **on his** **waist and** **said, "Ain't** **going to** **be no** **problem." Rooks** **did not** **want anything** **to happen** **to his** **kids or** **his kids'** **mom so** **he got** **in the** **vehicle. Harlan** **was driving.** **They drove** **up to** **a person,** **Appellant spoke** **to him,** **and then** **the person** **got in** **the vehicle.** **Appellant tried** **to give** **Rooks a** **weapon but** **he did** **not want** **it. Appellant** **and Rooks** **went to** **the back** **of the** **house at** **505 Park** **Avenue. Appellant** **gave Rooks** **a pant** **leg or** **something to** **put over** **his face.** **Appellant was** **wearing a** **ski mask** **and a** **gray hat.** **They went** **inside the** **residence. Appellant** **told the** **Victim to** **"give -'Appellant** **is smaller** **than Rooks.** **7 it** **up." The** **Victim said** **he didn't** **have anything.** **There was** **another individual** **in there** **who Appellant** **hit with** **his gun** **and he** **was down** **on the** **floor. Appellant** **pointed his** **gun at** **the Victim.** **The Victim** **was holding** **Appellant's arm** **a little** **bit. Appellant** **pointed the** **gun at** **the Victim** **and shot** **the gun** **at him.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 11,** **2020, at** **105-113, 124,** **130. Sergeant** **Brian McGee** **of the** **Williamsport Bureau** **of Police** **testified that** **the police** **were dispatched** **to 505** **Park Avenue** **for a** **shooting. The** **police cleared** **the residence** **and proceeded** **to establish** **a perimeter** **with crime** **scene tape.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 10,** **2020, at** **39-43. Detective** **Trent Peacock** **testified that** **there was** **a gray** **ball cap** **and a** **black scarf** **or sleeve** **laying on** **the back** **porch. The** **items were** **photographed, and** **the police** **obtained a** **search warrant** **for the** **residence. Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **10, 2020** **at 96-97.** **Trooper William** **Jones was** **called to** **assist the** **Williamsport police** **with the** **crime scene.** **He photographed** **a black** **cloth and** **a gray** **hat on** **the back** **deck. Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **10, 2020** **at 110-111.** **Trooper Russell** **Ramin collected** **the black** **cloth and** **gray hat** **from the** **crime scene** **and released** **them to** **Officer Joseph** **Ananea of** **the Williamsport** **Police. Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **10, 2020** **at 119.** **Officer Ananea** **took custody** **of those** **items from** **Trooper Ramin** **and locked** **them in** **an evidence** **locker at** **the Williamsport** **police station.** **Detective Trent** **Peacock sent** **the black** **cloth or** **sleeve and** **the gray** **baseball hat** **to the** **Pennsylvania State** **Police (PSP)** **Wyoming lab.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2020, at** **59-60. 8** **Brunee Coolbaugh** **of the** **PSP Wyoming** **lab received** **a Bode** **DNA buccal** **swab of** **Appellant from** **Detective Peacock** **and sent** **it to** **the PSP** **DNA lab.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2020 at** **66-67. Kelsey** **Gober of** **the PSP** **Wyoming lab** **received a** **black cut-off** **sleeve, a** **Brooklyn Dodgers** **baseball hat,** **a known** **DNA sample** **from the** **Victim, and** **a known** **DNA sample** **from Rooks.** **She took** **cuttings from** **the sleeve** **and hat** **and sent** **them to** **the DNA** **lab, along** **with the** **known DNA** **samples from** **the Victim** **and Rooks.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2002 at** **71-78, 84.** **Regina Kozer,** **a forensic** **DNA analyst** **at the** **PSP DNA** **lab in** **Greensburg extracted** **DNA from** **the Appellant's** **known DNA** **sample and** **created a** **DNA profile.** **She provided** **the data** **from her** **analysis to** **a private** **lab for** **additional analysis.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2020, at** **29. Britney** **Lenig, a** **forensic DNA** **scientist for** **the PSP** **received the** **known blood** **sample card** **from the** **Victim (K1),** **a cutting** **from a** **black sleeve** **(Q1), a** **cutting from** **a Brooklyn** **Dodgers ball** **cap (Q2),** **and the** **known sample** **from Rooks** **(K2). Q1** **and Q2** **contained DNA** **mixtures of** **at least** **3 people.** **Ms. Lenig** **could not** **obtain an** **interpretable DNA** **profile from** **these questioned** **samples and** **therefore could** **not make** **a comparison** **to any** **known reference** **samples. Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **12, at** **40-46. She** **also conducted** **Y chromosome** **testing. The** **interpretable part** **of Q1** **matched the** **known reference** **sample of** **Appellant with** **a match** **statistic of** **approximately one** **in every** **8696 individuals.** **Id. at** **57. Jennifer** **Bracamontes is** **a DNA** **analyst at** **Cybergenetics. She** **received the** **DNA data** **and profiles** **from the** **PSP lab.** **She determined** **that Appellant's** **DNA was** **the 9** **major component** **of the** **DNA samples** **from Q1,** **the black** **sleeve, and** **Q2, the** **ball hat.** **Appellant's DNA** **on Ql** **was 468** **octillion times** **more probable** **than a** **coincidental match** **to an** **unrelated African** **American. 468** **octillion is** **468 followed** **by 29** **zeroes. Appellant's** **DNA on** **Q2 was** **4.3 septillion** **times more** **probable than** **a coincidental** **match to** **an unrelated** **African American.** **4.3 septillion** **is 43** **followed by** **24 zeroes.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2020, at** **63, 83-86.** **The evidence** **presented at** **trial established** **that Appellant** **unlawfully killed** **the Victim.** **Appellant, while** **wearing a** **mask and** **armed with** **a firearm,** **entered 505** **Park Avenue** **with the** **intent to** **commit a** **robbery. He** **demanded items** **from the** **Victim. When** **the Victim** **said he** **did not** **know what** **Appellant was** **talking about** **or that** **he did** **not have** **anything, Appellant** **pointed his** **firearm at** **the Victim** **and shot** **the Victim** **in the** **head from** **a distance** **of 12** **inches to** **3 feet.** **The projectile** **went through** **the Victim's** **left earlobe** **and into** **his skull,** **causing hemorrhaging** **in his** **brain and** **spinal cord** **and killing** **him within** **seconds. Since** **the head** **is a** **vital part** **of the** **human body,** **the jury** **could infer** **that Appellant** **committed the** **killing with** **the specific** **intent to** **kill and** **with malice** **aforethought. Appellant** **avers that** **the verdicts** **of guilty** **were against** **the weight** **of the** **evidence. The** **court addressed** **this issue** **in its** **opinion and** **order entered** **on May** **6, 2020.** **For the** **benefit of** **the appellate** **courts and** **the parties,** **the court** **will reprint** **the relevant** **portion of** **the opinion** **with some** **minor additions** **and corrections.** **[Appellant] in** **his [post** **sentence] motion** **asserts that** **only three** **witnesses testified** **that [Appellant]** **committed the** **crimes, that** **all three** **witnesses had** **criminal,charges pending** **and were** **receiving a** **benefit for** **their testimony,** **that no** **forensic evidence** **implicated [Appellant's]** **accomplice, that** **there was** **no blood** **on the** **hat that** **[Appellant] wore,** **that there** **was no** **blood on** **the cutoff** **mask that** **was worn** **by the** **accomplice, that** **10 the** **Commonwealth failed** **to submit** **"referenced samples** **to the** **lab" for** **analysis to** **determine the** **identity of** **other individuals,** **that an** **eyewitness to** **the shooting** **indicated that** **neither of** **the assailants** **wore dreadlocks** **or twisties** **in their** **hair, that** **the only** **physical evidence** **was [Appellant's]** **DNA on** **items recovered** **at the** **scene along** **with the** **DNA of** **at least** **three other** **individuals and** **that [Appellant's]** **accomplice testified** **that [Appellant]** **and the** **decedent were** **"tussling and** **the gun** **went off."** **(Post-Sentence Motion,** **Paragraphs 8** **through 34).** **Further, during** **the argument** **in this** **matter, [Appellant's]** **counsel argued** **that "the** **main problem"** **was that** **the one** **"actual eyewitness",** **Lewis Martin[,]** **testified that** **[Appellant] was** **not one** **of the** **two individuals** **that he** **saw there.** **(Post-Sentence Motion** **Transcript, p.** **4). [Appellant's]** **counsel further** **argued that** **the other** **eyewitness, "Tyke"** **(Tyrone Small)** **served time** **at the** **prerelease facility** **with accomplice** **"Rooks" but** **didn't recognize** **him from** **his voice.** **(Post-Sentence Motion** **Transcript, p.** **4). [Appellant's]** **counsel further** **argued that** **accomplice Rooks** **testified that** **he was** **wearing a** **mask that** **covered his** **entire face** **yet the** **mask was** **tested and** **only [Appellant's]** **DNA was** **found on** **the mask.** **(Post-Sentence Motion** **Transcript, p.** **5). [Appellant's]** **counsel argued** **as well** **that despite** **[Appellant] allegedly** **being in** **close proximity** **when the** **shot was** **fired, there** **was no** **blood splatter** **on his** **hat although** **"there was** **blood splatter** **all across** **the room."** **(Post-Sentence Motion** **Transcript, p.** **5). "The** **weight of** **the evidence** **is a** **matter exclusively** **for the** **finder of** **fact, who** **is free** **to believe** **all, part,** **or none** **of the** **evidence and** **to determine** **the credibility** **of the** **witnesses." Commonwealth** **v. Gonzalez,** **109 A.3d** **711, 723** **(Pa. Super.** **2015). A** **trial court** **may only** **grant a** **new trial** **on a** **weight claim** **"when the** **jury's verdict** **is so** **contrary to** **the evidence** **as to** **shock one's** **sense of** **justice and** **the award** **of a** **new trial** **is imperative** **so that** **right may** **be given** **another opportunity** **to prevail."** **Commonwealth v.** **Clay, 64** **A.3 d** **1049, 1055** **(Pa. 2013).** **A trial** **court should** **not grant** **a new** **trial because** **of a** **mere conflict** **in the** **testimony. Id.** **"Rather, to** **grant a** **new trial,** **the trial** **court must** **determine that** **notwithstanding all** **the facts,** **certain facts** **are so** **clearly of** **greater weight** **that to** **ignore them** **or to** **give them** **equal weight** **with all** **the facts,** **is to** **deny justice."** **Id., quoting** **Commonwealth v.** **Widmer, 744** **A.2d 745,** **752 (Pa.** **2000). As** **well, the** **court may** **not reweigh** **the evidence** **and substitute** **its judgment** **for the** **factfinder. Commonwealth** **v. Troy,** **832 A.2d** **1089, 1092** **(Pa. Super.** **2003). Finally,** **a verdict** **is contrary** **to the** **evidence such** **that it** **shocks one's** **sense of** **justice when** **"the figure** **of justice** **totters on** **her pedestal,** **or when** **the jury's** **verdict, at** **the time** **of its** **rendition, causes** **the trial** **judge to** **lose his** **breath, temporarily,** **and causes** **him to** **almost fall** **from the** **bench, then** **it is** **truly shocking** **to the** **judicial conscience."** **Commonwealth v.** **Cruz, 919** **A.2d 279,** **282 (Pa.** **Super. 2007).** **The verdict** **in this** **case was** **not so** **contrary to** **the evidence** **11 as** **to shock** **one's sense** **of justice.** **Notwithstanding all** **the facts,** **certain facts** **were not** **so clearly** **of greater** **weight that** **to ignore** **them or** **to give** **them equal** **weight with** **all the** **facts, would** **be to** **deny justice.** **Obviously, during** **its deliberations,** **the jury** **had the** **opportunity to** **weigh the** **credibility of** **all of** **the witnesses** **and the** **evidence presented** **at trial** **and determined** **which evidence** **it found** **most compelling.** **The court** **will first** **address those** **facts which** **[Appellant] alleges** **are so** **clearly of** **greater weight** **that to** **ignore them** **would be** **to deny** **justice. While** **certainly, [Appellant's]** **counsel has** **an obligation** **to zealously** **represent [Appellant],** **many of** **the alleged** **facts are** **embellished in** **favor of** **[Appellant]. The** **testimony did** **not establish** **that there** **was blood** **splattered all** **across the** **room where** **the decedent** **was shot.** **Janiece Green,** **a neighbor** **who contacted** **911 and** **who found** **the decedent** **was asked** **whether there** **was a** **lot of** **blood in** **the room.** **She answered** **that there** **was a** **lot of** **blood around** **him. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **63-64). When** **asked whether** **there was** **blood everywhere** **in the** **room, she** **answered "no."** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 63).** **Detective Trent** **Peacock who** **responded to** **the scene** **testified that** **while the** **decedent was** **face down** **in a** **pool of** **his own** **blood, there** **was blood** **on the** **front of** **a washing** **machine and** **on a** **sock found** **on the** **washing machine.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 100-101).** **Trooper William** **Jones of** **the Pennsylvania** **State Police** **was called** **to the** **scene to** **help with** **the processing** **by taking** **photos. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **109-110). It** **was his** **responsibility to** **document the** **crime scene** **by taking** **photographs as** **well as** **a video.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 121).** **He testified** **regarding a** **photograph that** **he took** **of the** **scene depicting** **the washer** **and "some** **blood marks** **on the** **washer." (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **113). He** **testified as** **well that** **there was** **"blood associated** **on" a** **"rag ...** **on the** **face of** **the washer."** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 113).** **Detective Peacock** **also testified** **as to** **a photograph** **depicting the** **decedent laying** **on the** **ground and** **there being** **a bloody** **sock on** **the front** **of the** **washing machine** **and a** **blood smear** **on the** **front of** **the washing** **machine. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **100-101). In** **fact, and** **contrary to** **what is** **alleged by** **[Appellant], no** **witness testified** **that there** **was "blood** **splatter all** **across the** **room." As** **for James** **Rooks, prior** **to entering** **the residence,** **[Appellant] gave** **him a** **"little mask** **thing" for** **his face.** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 110).** **He described** **it as** **"like something** **like a** **pant leg"** **that he** **"put—over [his]** **face or** **whatever." (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **110). [Appellant]** **had a** **ski mask** **with "two** **holes in** **it and** **the mouth."** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 111).** **After the** **shooting, he** **took the** **mask off** **of his** **face and** **threw it** **on the** **ground. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **129). He** **took it** **off by** **pulling it** **over his** **head. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **129-130). 12** **As for** **Lewis Martin,** **he testified** **that he** **was in** **the residence** **when the** **assailants entered.** **(February 12,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 131-132).** **Both individuals** **were wearing** **masks and** **one had** **a hat** **on. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **141). The** **one with** **a hat** **on had** **a mask** **that covered** **his entire** **face. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **145). While** **he did** **testify that** **neither one** **had dreadlocks** **(February 12,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 132,** **134), he** **later admitted** **that he** **could not** **see their** **hair. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **147). Further,** **while he** **testified that** **[Appellant] was** **not one** **of the** **two individuals** **(February 12,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 133),** **he later** **admitted that** **he could** **not see** **either of** **their faces.** **(February 12,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 147).** **He said** **the one** **individual had** **a full** **ski mask** **and the** **other individual** **had his** **face partially** **covered where** **all he** **could see** **was the** **"eyes up".** **(February 12,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 146).** **As for** **[Appellant's] claim** **that all** **three of** **the Commonwealth** **witnesses who** **testified regarding** **what occurred** **that day,** **had criminal** **charges pending** **and "were** **receiving a** **benefit for** **their testimony",** **such is** **simply not** **true. Ariel** **Harlan testified** **that charges** **were pending** **and that** **she was** **hoping to** **get favorable** **treatment although** **she was** **not advised** **or offered** **any benefit** **whatsoever. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **16). Jamal** **Brown testified** **that he** **was charged** **with first** **degree murder** **but didn't** **know if** **he would** **be given** **any benefit** **from his** **testimony. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **43-44). Finally,** **James Rooks** **testified that** **he had** **no agreement** **with the** **prosecutors in** **exchange for** **him testifying.** **(February 112020** **Transcript, p.** **126). As** **for Mr.** **Rooks, he** **testified that** **upon entering** **the decedent's** **room, [Appellant]** **pointed a** **gun at** **[the decedent].** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 113).** **He testified** **that [Appellant]** **shot "the** **other dude."** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 113).** **Immediately following** **the gunshot,** **[Appellant] "ran** **out of** **the room."** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 114).** **In explaining** **what happened** **after [Appellant]** **pointed the** **gun at** **the decedent,** **Rooks testified** **that "they** **started tussling** **and from** **there and** **he shot-shot** **the gun** **off." (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **113). In** **further explaining** **what he** **meant by** **"tussling", Rooks** **explained that** **[Appellant] was** **holding the** **decedent's arm** **and the** **decedent was** **holding Appellant** **"a little** **bit" while** **Appellant had** **the gun** **pointed at** **him. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **124). The** **whole incident** **"happened fast."** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 124).** **The facts** **argued by** **[Appellant] and** **as actually** **reflected in** **the testimony** **of the** **witnesses, are** **far from** **greater weight** **than all** **of the** **other facts** **as presented** **at trial.** **Sergeant Brian** **McGee was** **on duty** **on August** **30, 2016** **working for** **the Williamsport** **Bureau of** **Police and** **responded to** **505 Park** **Avenue for** **a reported** **shooting. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **39-40). He** **entered the** **residence and** **in a** **room to** **the right** **he found** **the decedent** **13 laying** **face down** **on the** **ground with** **a pool** **of blood** **surrounding his** **head. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **41, 42).** **Janiece Green** **was living** **across the** **street on** **August 30,** **2016 at** **504 Park** **Avenue. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **52-53). She** **was at** **her home** **when Savoy** **Jennings came** **knocking on** **her window,** **hysterical, saying** **"something happened** **to his** **friend Chris."** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 55).** **As she** **was leaving** **her house** **to go** **over to** **505 Park** **Avenue, she** **saw a** **person turning** **the corner** **off of** **Park Avenue.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 64).** **She went** **to 505** **Park Avenue** **and entered** **where she** **saw the** **victim in** **one room** **and her** **Uncle Jeff** **in another** **room. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **55, 56,** **61). He** **was asleep.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 61).** **She woke** **him and** **he began** **getting into** **his wheelchair.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 55,** **56, 61).** **She immediately** **called 911.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 56).** **Savoy Jennings** **was friends** **with the** **decedent and** **was living** **with him** **at 505** **Park Avenue** **on August** **30, 2016.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 68).** **At the** **time, Janiece** **Green was** **his girlfriend.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 69).** **Earlier in** **the day,** **between approximately** **9:00 a.m.** **and 12:00** **noon, he** **was at** **the decedent's** **house sitting** **in his** **room with** **him and** **smoking. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **69). He** **left briefly** **to go** **across the** **street to** **see Janiece** **but soon** **returned to** **505 Park** **Avenue to** **get a** **lighter. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **70). While** **crossing the** **street to** **return, he** **saw two** **black males** **turning the** **corner at** **Cherry and** **Park Streets.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 70).** **The one** **was tall** **and slender** **while the** **other was** **heavy set** **with dreadlocks.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 71).** **Upon his** **return to** **505 Park** **Avenue, he** **saw the** **back door** **open and** **a hat** **on the** **back patio.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 70,** **77). He** **went into** **the decedent's** **room and** **saw him** **laying on** **the floor** **in a** **puddle of** **blood with** **a bullet** **wound to** **the side** **of his** **head. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **71). On** **August 30,** **2016, Trent** **Peacock was** **working as** **an agent** **for the** **Williamsport Bureau** **of Police** **investigating violent** **crimes. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **95). He** **responded to** **the shooting** **scene at** **505 Park** **Avenue..(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 96).** **Upon arrival,** **he noticed** **a gray** **ball cap** **and a** **black scarf** **or sleeve** **type item** **both laying** **on the** **back porch.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 96).** **He became** **the lead** **investigator in** **the case.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 102).** **His investigation** **determined that** **five people** **had been** **at the** **scene at** **or around** **the shooting** **including Savoy** **Jennings, Tyrone** **Small, Lewis** **Martin, Janiece** **Green and** **Jeff Green.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 103).** **On September** **27, 2016,** **he submitted** **the following** **items to** **14 the** **lab for** **DNA testing:** **the decedent's** **DNA profile;** **the black** **cutoff sleeve** **found on** **the back** **porch; the** **gray ball** **cap found** **on the** **back porch;** **and white** **socks. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **59). He** **also sent** **to the** **lab [Appellant's]** **DNA sample** **and the** **DNA sample** **of Mr.** **Rooks. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **60-61). Trooper** **William Jones** **was employed** **by the** **Pennsylvania State** **Police at** **Troop F** **in Montoursville,** **PA on** **August 30,** **2016. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **109). He** **was called** **to the** **crime scene** **to assist** **as indicated** **above by** **taking photographs** **and a** **video. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **109, 110).** **Trooper Russell** **Ramin was** **employed by** **the Pennsylvania** **State Police** **in August** **of 2016** **and was** **called to** **assist with** **the crime** **scene. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **117). He** **collected two** **items depicted** **in Commonwealth** **Exhibit 26** **(the ball** **cap and** **the cloth/sleeve)** **and released** **them to** **Williamsport police** **officer Joseph** **Ananea. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **119). Joseph** **Ananea was** **employed by** **the Williamsport** **Bureau of** **Police and** **assigned to** **the Forensic** **Services Unit.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 120).** **On August** **30, 2016,** **he was** **called to** **the crime** **scene. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **122). He** **took a** **photograph of** **the ball** **cap and** **the cloth/sleeve** **on the** **back porch** **which was** **introduced and** **marked as** **Exhibit 37.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 123).** **In the** **room where** **the decedent's** **body was** **found, he** **collected a** **bloody sock** **"draped over** **the ...** **washing machine** **... next** **to the** **body." (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **125). He** **took the** **custody of** **the ball** **cap and** **"sleeve" from** **Trooper Ramin.** **(February 10,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 126).** **The ball** **cap was** **described as** **a Brooklyn** **Dodgers ball** **cap (Commonwealth** **Exhibit 39)** **and the** **sleeve was** **described as** **a black** **cut off** **sleeve. (Commonwealth** **Exhibit 40).** **He was** **present for** **the autopsy** **of the** **decedent, Chris** **[Wilkins], and** **took custody** **of the** **projectile and** **jacket taken** **from the** **body as** **well as** **a DNA** **sample. (February** **10, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **127-128; Commonwealth** **Exhibit 42).** **Ariel Harlan** **testified that** **on August** **30, 2016** **she was** **driving her** **vehicle on** **Cherry Street** **in Williamsport,** **PA with** **Appellant as** **the front** **seat passenger.** **[Appellant] was** **wearing a** **Superman t-shirt** **and black** **sweatpants. She** **was driving** **a black** **Dodge Dart** **and Calvin** **Rooks was** **in the** **back passenger** **seat and** **Jamal Brown** **in the** **back driver** **seat. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **6, 7,** **8, 14,** **17). She** **was parked** **on Cherry** **Street when** **Brown got** **out and** **walked toward** **505 Park** **Avenue. After** **a few** **minutes, he** **returned. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **10, 11).** **After Brown** **returned, [Appellant]** **and Calvin** **Rooks got** **out of** **the car** **and met** **with Brown.** **15 [Appellant]** **and Rooks** **then started** **walking toward** **505 Park** **Avenue. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **11). After** **a few** **minutes, she** **heard a** **loud noise,** **then saw** **them running** **around the** **corner. As** **they were** **running around** **the corner** **to her** **car, she** **saw [Appellant]** **shoving a** **gun and** **cloth type** **thing in** **his waistband.** **[Appellant] jumped** **in her** **car, screamed** **for her** **to drive** **away and** **she did** **so. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **11, 12,** **13). As** **she drove** **away, [Appellant]** **threw a** **"cloth thing"** **out of** **the car.** **Later she** **returned to** **where he** **threw it** **and saw** **that it** **was a** **mask. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **12,15). Jamal** **Brown testified** **that on** **August 30,** **2016, he** **encountered [Appellant]** **on Park** **Avenue and** **[Appellant] asked** **him about** **the $300.00** **that Brown** **owed him** **for [Appellant]** **fronting him** **some crack** **cocaine. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **20, 21).** **[Appellant] told** **him that** **he wanted** **to "rob"** **505'Park Avenue** **because "guys** **from Philadelphia"** **sold drugs** **out of** **there. He** **asked Brown** **to describe** **the layout.** **After Brown** **described the** **layout, [Appellant]** **left. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **21). Later,** **[Appellant] encountered** **Brown again** **and told** **Brown it** **was "a** **go." Brown** **got in** **the car** **with [Appellant]** **and Ms.** **Harlan. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **22). All** **three then** **drove to** **the Timberland** **Apartments where** **they picked** **up Calvin** **Rooks who** **was described** **by Brown** **as black,** **heavy set** **with dreadlocks.** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 22,** **23). They** **then drove** **back to** **Park Avenue.** **Ms. Harlan** **parked the** **car on** **Cherry Street.** **Once they** **arrived, [Appellant]** **pulled a** **small revolver** **gun out** **of a** **bag and** **gave it** **to Mr.** **Rooks. [Appellant]** **pulled a** **bigger revolver,** **believed to** **be black,** **out of** **the bag** **for himself.** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 23,** **24, 50).** **After [Appellant]** **went across** **the street** **to speak** **with "Jerry",** **he came** **back to** **the car.** **Rooks got** **out, they** **both went** **around the** **corner up** **to the** **handicap ramp** **and yelled** **to Brown,** **who could** **see them** **from his** **vantage point,** **that the** **door was** **locked. Brown** **replied that** **it was** **not locked.** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 24,** **25, 27,** **29, 49).** **As indicated,** **Brown could** **see the** **back of** **505 from** **where he** **was located** **and saw** **both [Appellant]** **and Rooks** **go inside** **the back** **door. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **26-27). As** **he was** **walking away** **from the** **scene, he** **heard a** **loud bang.** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 28).** **Steven Schmit** **was employed** **by the** **Pennsylvania State** **Police and** **was called** **to the** **scene on** **August 30,** **2016 to** **"document and** **forensically map** **the scene** **and evidence."** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 52,53).** **Tyrone Small** **was inside** **505 Park** **Avenue on** **August 30,** **2016. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **89-90). He** **was in** **the living** **room 16** **while the** **decedent and** **Savoy Jennings** **also known** **as "Vortex"** **were in** **the decedent's** **room. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **44, 91).** **Vortex then** **left. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **91). Mr.** **Small then** **saw two** **individuals "run"** **into the** **residence. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **91). One** **of the** **"dudes" who** **came in** **hit Mr.** **Small on** **the back** **of his** **right shoulder** **with a** **gun knocking** **him down.** **(February 11,** **2020, Transcript,** **pp. 91,** **92). They** **got him** **up, opened** **the decedent's** **door, put** **Small back** **on the** **ground and** **one of** **the assailants** **pointed a** **gun at** **the decedent** **asking him** **where the** **stuff was.(February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **92). When** **the decedent** **indicated he** **didn't know,** **"one of** **them shot** **him." (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **92, 101).** **Immediately after** **the shooting,** **the smaller** **assailant went** **through the** **decedent's pockets.** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 101).** **He could** **not identify** **the assailants,** **they both** **had masks** **on, other** **than noting** **that they** **were "black."** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 92,** **93). When** **he was** **locked up** **at the** **PRC, he** **met Calvin** **Rooks and** **talked with** **him. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **102, 103).** **He definitely** **knew his** **voice. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **103). However,** **he did** **not know** **whether it** **was similar** **to what** **he heard** **during the** **incident because** **he wasn't** **thinking about** **it. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **103). James** **Rooks, who** **goes by** **Calvin, was** **at 505** **Park Avenue** **with [Appellant]** **on August** **30, 2016.** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 105).** **Earlier in** **the day,** **[Appellant] came** **to Rooks'** **girlfriend's house** **and said** **he needed** **Mr. Rooks;** **so Mr.** **Rooks went** **with him.** **They both** **got into** **Ariel Harlan's** **car. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **106, 107,** **108). They** **drove toward** **Park Street** **but parked** **on a** **"side street."** **[Appellant] tried** **to give** **him a** **gun. [Appellant]** **gave him** **a face** **mask "like** **a pant** **leg." [Appellant]** **had a** **similar mask** **with his** **gray hat** **on. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **109, 110,** **111). They** **went through** **the back** **door at** **505 Park** **Avenue and** **[Appellant] had** **a gun** **in his** **hand. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **111, 112).** **While Rooks** **was in** **the hallway** **looking in,** **[Appellant] went** **into the** **decedent's room,** **hit another** **dude with** **a gun** **knocking him** **down to** **the floor,** **asking the** **"boy to** **give it** **up", they** **started tussling,** **and [Appellant]** **shot him.** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 113,** **114, 124).** **They then** **left, [Appellant]** **took the** **mask off** **and Rooks** **threw his** **mask on** **the porch.** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 114,** **118, 129,** **130). Rooks** **identified the** **picture of** **the Brooklyn** **Dodgers ball** **cap as** **the hat** **[Appellant] was** **wearing. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **117, 118).** **At the** **time of** **the incident,** **Rooks had** **small twisty** **hair like** **17 dreads** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 118).** **The mask** **found on** **the back** **porch was** **the one** **that Rooks** **was wearing.** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 121).** **The Commonwealth** **presented the** **testimony of** **six expert** **witnesses to** **address chain** **of custody** **and DNA** **evidence. Brunee** **Coolbaugh testified** **as an** **expert in** **the field** **of serological** **analysis and** **was employed** **by a** **forensic scientist** **for the** **Pennsylvania State** **Police. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **64). Kelsey** **Gober, was** **employed by** **the Pennsylvania** **State Police** **as a** **Forensic Scientist** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 69,** **70) and** **testified as** **an expert** **in the** **field of** **serology. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **70, 71).** **She tested** **various items** **to determine** **if there** **was any** **biological material** **on them** **noting that** **there were** **no visible** **stains on** **the ball** **cap. (February** **11, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **86). Barbara** **Bollinger, M.D.** **is employed** **by Forensic** **Pathology Associates** **and was** **admitted as** **an expert** **in the** **field of** **forensic pathology.** **(February 11,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 12,** **13). She** **performed the** **autopsy on** **the decedent** **and testified** **that he** **sustained a** **gunshot wound** **to his** **head causing** **him to** **die. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **15, 16,** **17, 18,** **20). She** **also testified** **that stippling** **was observed** **at the** **wound entrance** **site indicating** **that the** **gunshot was** **somewhere between** **one and** **three feet** **away. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **19, 20,** **21, 22).** **Regina Kozero** **was employed** **as a** **Forensic Scientist** **and was** **admitted as** **an expert** **in the** **field of** **DNA analysis.** **(February 12,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 24,** **25). She** **prepared a** **DNA profile** **of [Appellant].** **(February 12,** **2020 Transcript,** **p. 29).** **Britney Lenig** **was employed** **as a** **Forensic Scientist** **for the** **Pennsylvania State** **Police and** **was admitted** **as an** **expert in** **the field** **of DNA** **analysis. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **34, 35).** **She received** **and processed** **five items** **for analysis** **including the** **blood sample** **card from** **the decedent,** **a cutting** **from inside** **the Brooklyn** **Dodgers ball** **cap, two** **cuttings from** **the sock** **found on** **the washer** **in the** **decedent's bedroom,** **a DNA** **profile for** **[Appellant] and** **a cutting** **from the** **black cutoff** **sleeve found** **on the** **back porch.** **(February 12,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 40,** **41). She** **also received** **three known** **reference samples** **from the** **decedent, Rooks** **and [Appellant].** **(February 12,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 50,** **51). She** **testified that** **the maj** **or DNA** **contributor to** **both the** **sleeve and** **the hat** **was a** **match to** **[Appellant]. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **57, 59).** **The Commonwealth's** **final witness** **was Jennifer** **Horoyak-Bracamontes. She** **is a** **DNA Analyst** **for a** **company called** **Cybergenetics. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **63). She** **testified as** **an expert** **in the** **field of** **DNA evidence** **interpretation. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **67). 18** **Using a** **"super computer"** **program called** **True Allele** **which was** **first developed** **in the** **early 2000's** **but updated** **in 2009,** **she analyzed** **data from** **the black** **cutoff sleeve,** **the Brooklyn** **Dodgers baseball** **hat and** **the two** **cuttings from** **the sock,** **and compared** **those with** **known samples** **from the** **decedent and** **[Appellant]. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **79, 80,** **81, 82).** **Based upon** **the computer's** **analysis and** **results, there** **was a** **very high** **statistical DNA** **match between** **both the** **sleeve and** **the hat** **and [Appellant].** **(February 12,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 83,** **90). With** **respect to** **the sleeve,** **there were** **five DNA** **contributors and** **with respect** **to the** **hat, there** **were three.** **[Appellant], however,** **contributed most** **of the** **DNA to** **both samples.** **(February 12,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 86,** **88, 91,** **92). The** **remaining testimony** **and evidence** **presented to** **the jury** **was presented** **as part** **of [Appellant's]** **case in** **chief. Eric** **Armstead was** **employed as** **a property** **manager for** **the Lycoming** **County Housing** **Authority. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **77). Jonathan** **Green testified** **that the** **[Appellant] was** **previously at** **505 Park** **Avenue and** **knew the** **layout. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, p.** **109). He** **also testified** **that he** **previously saw** **Jamal Brown** **wearing a** **Brooklyn Dodgers** **gray hat.** **(February 12,** **2020 Transcript,** **pp. 109,** **110). In** **addition to** **the testimony** **by Lewis** **Martin indicated** **above, he** **testified that** **he works** **as a** **personal care** **assistant and** **was at** **505 Park** **Avenue when** **the shooting** **occurred. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **128-129). The** **previous night** **he was** **hanging out,** **playing cards** **and "doing** **drugs" including** **marijuana and** **heroin. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **129, 138).** **He was** **asleep in** **a chair** **in Jeffrey** **Green's room** **and heard** **"I ain't** **got nothing"** **repeated three** **times and** **then he** **heard a** **"pop." (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **130, 131).** **He saw** **two individuals** **come out** **of the** **decedent's room.** **One was** **short, slim** **and muscular** **and the** **other was** **a little** **taller with** **really dark** **skin. (February** **12, 2020** **Transcript, pp.** **131, 132,** **133, 140,** **141). Based** **on all** **of this** **evidence, when** **the jury** **rendered its** **verdict, this** **judge did** **not temporarily** **lose his** **breath. The** **verdict did** **not cause** **this judge** **to almost** **fall from** **the bench.** **The verdict** **was not** **truly shocking** **to the** **judicial conscience** **of the** **court or** **in other** **words, did** **not shock** **this judge's** **sense of** **justice. Opinion** **and Order,** **5/6/20. Appellant** **next avers** **that the** **trial court** **abused its** **discretion by** **permitting the** **19 jury** **to have** **in its** **possession during** **its deliberations** **inflammatory and** **overly prejudicial** **photos. The** **trial court** **cannot agree.** **Subject to** **certain exceptions** **not applicable** **here, Rule** **646 of** **the Pennsylvania** **Rules of** **Criminal Procedure** **permits the** **jury, upon** **retiring to** **deliberate, to** **"take with** **it such** **exhibits as** **the trial** **judge deems** **proper." Pa.** **R. Crim.** **P. 646(A).** **The Pennsylvania** **Supreme Court** **has "interpreted** **this Rule** **as committing** **the determination** **of what** **objects may** **be viewed** **by the** **jury during** **its deliberations** **to the** **sound discretion** **of the** **trial court"** **which will** **not be** **reversed absent** **an abuse** **of discretion.** **Commonwealth v.** **Haney, 131** **A.3d 24,** **38 (Pa.** **2015). "An** **abuse of** **discretion is** **not merely** **an error** **of judgment,** **but if** **in reaching** **a conclusion** **the law** **is overridden** **or misapplied,** **or the** **judgment exercised** **is manifestly** **unreasonable, or** **the result** **of partiality,** **prejudice, bias** **or ill** **will, as** **shown by** **the evidence** **of record,** **discretion is** **abused." Id.** **at 39.** **There is** **nothing in** **the record** **to show** **that the** **trial court** **misapplied or** **overrode the** **law, exercised** **manifestly unreasonable** **judgment, or** **made its** **decision based** **on partiality,** **prejudice, bias** **or ill** **will. Rather,** **prior to** **its admission** **into evidence,** **the trial** **court viewed** **the photographs** **and considered** **the arguments** **of the** **parties. See** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2020, at** **2-10. The** **trial court** **found that** **the photographs** **were not** **inflammatory or** **unduly prejudicial.** **Instead, the** **trial court** **agreed with** **the Commonwealth's** **argument that** **the photographs** **were relevant** **and admissible,** **particularly with** **respect to** **the intent** **to kill.** **s While** **the court** **and counsel** **were discussing** **the items** **of evidence** **the court** **would permit** **the jury** **to possess** **during its** **deliberations outside** **of the** **presence of** **the jury,** **Appellant's counsel** **objected to** **the jury** **possessing Commonwealth's** **Exhibits 51,** **52 and** **53. Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **13, 2020,** **at 105.** **20 The** **Commonwealth utilized** **these exhibits** **during the** **testimony of** **the forensic** **pathologist, Dr.** **Barbara Bollinger.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2020, at** **18-19. Commonwealth's** **Exhibit 51** **depicted the** **gunshot wound** **in the** **Victim's left** **earlobe as** **well as** **a portion** **of his** **head and** **neck around** **the left** **ear so** **that the** **jury could** **see the** **stippling around** **the gunshot** **wound. Commonwealth's** **Exhibit 52** **depicted a** **close-up of** **the Victim's** **left ear** **so that** **the jury** **could better** **observe the** **stippling. Commonwealth's** **Exhibit 53** **depicted a** **gloved hand** **lifting the** **left earlobe** **to show** **where the** **bullet entered** **the Victim's** **scalp. Dr.** **Bollinger testified** **that stippling** **is useful** **in estimating** **the range** **of fire,** **that is,** **the distance** **from the** **end of** **the gun** **to the** **victim's wound.** **Dr. Bollinger** **estimated the** **range of** **fire was** **from about** **12 inches** **to 3** **feet. Id.** **at 19.** **Although the** **pathologist had** **cleaned the** **body, there** **was a** **small amount** **of blood** **around the** **gunshot wound** **and inside** **the Victim's** **ear. The** **fact that** **some blood** **was still** **visible does** **not require** **a finding** **that the** **photographs were** **inflammatory. Commonwealth** **v. Lewis,** **567 A.2d** **1376, 1382** **(Pa. 1989).** **In Commonwealth** **v. Karenbauer,** **715 A.2d** **1086 (Pa.** **1988), the** **Court stated:** **Photographs of** **a murder** **victim are** **not per** **se inadmissible.** **Rather, it** **is the** **manner in** **which the** **body of** **the victim** **is displayed** **that causes** **photographs to** **be emotionally** **charged. Concerning** **admissibility, the** **determinative inquiry** **is whether** **the photos** **have evidentiary** **value that** **outweighs the** **possibility of** **inflaming the** **minds and** **passions of** **the jurors.** **The trial** **court's decision** **in the** **matter will** **not be** **reversed absent** **an abuse** **of discretion.** **It is** **well established,** **and of** **particular importance** **to our** **analysis, that** **photographs of** **the victim's** **wounds may** **be relevant** **to show** **the assailant's** **intent to** **kill. In** **assessing the** **intent of** **the actor** **in a** **case of** **criminal homicide,** **... the** **fact finder** **who deals** **in such** **an intangible** **inquiry must** **be aided** **to every** **extent possible.** **Accordingly, the** **fact that** **a medical** **21 examiner** **can describe** **the victim's** **wounds to** **the jury** **does not** **render photographs** **of those** **wounds irrelevant.** **Id. at** **1096 (citations** **and quotation** **marks omitted).** **The manner** **in which** **the body** **was displayed** **in the** **photographs was** **focused solely** **on the** **location of** **the gunshot** **wound, and** **none of** **the photographs** **showed the** **victim's face.** **Moreover, the** **specific intent** **to kill** **was a** **contested issue** **at trial.** **Accordingly, the** **trial court** **did not** **abuse its** **discretion in** **permitting the** **jury to** **possess these** **photographs during** **its deliberations.** **Appellant asserts** **that the** **trial court** **erred in** **failing to** **charge the** **jury with** **a failure** **to call** **potential witness** **instruction even** **though the** **Commonwealth failed** **to call** **three of** **the eyewitnesses'** **at the** **scene of** **the crimes.** **Those witnesses** **allegedly were** **Jeff Green,** **Jerry Green,** **and Lou** **Martin. Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **13, 2020,** **at 12-15.** **The failure** **to call** **potential witness** **instruction states:** **1. There** **is a** **question about** **what weight,** **if any,** **you should** **give to** **the failure** **of [a** **party] [the** **Commonwealth] [the** **defendant] to** **call [a** **person] [name** **of person]** **as a** **witness. 2.** **If [however]** **three factors** **are present,** **and there** **is no** **satisfactory explanation** **for a** **party's failure** **to call** **a potential** **witness, the** **jury is** **allowed to** **draw a** **common-sense inference** **that [his]** **[her] testimony** **would have** **been unfavorable** **to that** **party. The** **three necessary** **factors are:** **First, that** **the person** **is available** **to that** **party only** **and not** **to the** **other; Second,** **that it** **appears the** **person has** **special information** **material to** **the issue;** **and Third,** **that the** **person's testimony** **would not** **be merely** **cumulative. 3.** **Therefore, if** **you find** **these three** **factors present,** **and there** **is no** **satisfactory explanation** **for the** **[party's] [Commonwealth's]** **[defendant's] "The** **trial court** **believes that** **counsel's description** **of Jeff** **Green and** **Jerry Green** **as eyewitnesses** **is a** **bit of** **a mischaracterization** **of the** **potential information** **these witnesses** **could provide.** **There is** **nothing in** **the record** **to suggest** **that either** **individual observed** **the shooting** **or any** **of the** **conduct that** **occurred inside** **the apartment.** **e It** **appears that** **the proper** **names of** **the witnesses** **were Jeffrey** **Green, Jerome** **Green, and** **Lewis Martin.** **22 failure** **to call** **[a person]** **[name of** **person] to** **testify, you** **may infer,** **if you** **choose to** **do so,** **that [his]** **[her] testimony** **would have** **been unfavorable** **to [that** **party] [the** **Commonwealth] [the** **defendant]. Pa.SSJI** **(Crim), §3.21A.** **This instruction** **clearly did** **not apply** **to Lewis** **Martin, as** **Appellant's counsel** **called Mr.** **Martin as** **a defense** **witness at** **trial. See** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2020, at** **127- 154.** **The other** **two witnesses** **were not** **available only** **to the** **Commonwealth. Rather,** **it appears** **that these** **witnesses were** **equally available** **or unavailable** **to both** **the Commonwealth** **and Appellant.** **As far** **as the** **Commonwealth knew,** **both Jeff** **Green and** **Jerry Green** **still resided** **at 505** **Park Avenue.** **The Commonwealth** **provided their** **last known** **address to** **Appellant in** **discovery. Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **13, 2020,** **at 13-14.** **Furthermore, relatives** **of these** **allegedly missing** **witnesses testified** **for each** **of the** **parties. Janiece** **Green, the** **daughter of** **Jerry Green** **and the** **niece of** **Jeff Green,** **testified for** **the Commonwealth.** **See Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **10, 2020,** **at 53.** **Jonathan Green,** **the brother** **of Jeff** **Green and** **Jerry Green,** **testified for** **Appellant. See** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2020, at** **107. Jonathan** **Green indicated** **that these** **individuals used** **to live** **at 505** **Park Avenue.'** **Neither the** **Commonwealth nor** **Appellant asked** **Jonathan Green** **or Janiece** **Green during** **their trial** **testimony where** **these individuals** **were currently** **living. Additionally,** **based on** **the testimony** **presented at** **trial, it** **does not** **appear that** **Jeff Green** **would have** **had any** **special information** **material to** **the issues** **in this** **case. The** **505 Park** **Avenue is** **a duplex** **with an** **upstairs and** **a downstairs** **apartment. Jeffrey** **Green lived** **downstairs and** **Jerry Green** **lived upstairs.** **See Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **10, 2020,** **at 53;** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2020, at** **I07. 23** **testimony presented** **at trial** **was that** **Jeff Green** **is a** **paraplegic who** **was asleep** **in bed** **in his** **bedroom at** **the time** **of the** **shooting. See** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 10,** **2020, at** **56, 61** **(Janiece Green's** **testimony); Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **12, 2020,** **at 135** **(Lewis Martin's** **testimony). He** **did not** **get out** **of his** **bed and** **into his** **wheelchair until** **his niece** **came over** **to the** **house after** **the shooting.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 10,** **2020, at** **61. One** **cannot see** **inside the** **Victim's bedroom** **from inside** **Jeff Green's** **bedroom. See** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2020, at** **139, 140** **(Lewis Martin's** **testimony). Therefore,** **Appellant was** **not entitled** **to a** **missing witness** **instruction with** **respect to** **Jeff Green.** **Case law** **provides additional** **exceptions to** **the missing** **witness instruction.** **To invoke** **the missing** **witness instruction** **against the** **Commonwealth, the** **witness must** **only be** **available to** **the Commonwealth** **and no** **other exceptions** **must apply.** **Commonwealth v.** **Culmer, 604** **A.3d 1090,** **1098 (Pa.** **Super. 1992).** **There are** **at least** **six circumstances** **or exceptions** **where a** **party is** **not entitled** **to the** **missing witness** **adverse instruction:** **1. The** **witness is** **so hostile** **or prejudiced** **against the** **party expected** **to call** **him that** **there is** **a small** **possibility of** **obtaining unbiased** **truth; 2.** **The testimony** **of such** **a witness** **is comparatively** **unimportant, cumulative,** **or inferior** **to that** **already presented;** **3. The** **uncalled witness** **is equally** **available to** **both parties;** **4. There** **is a** **satisfactory explanation** **as to** **why the** **party failed** **to call** **such a** **witness; 5.** **The witness** **is not** **available or** **not within** **the control** **of the** **party against** **whom the** **negative inference** **is desired;** **and 6.** **The testimony** **of the** **uncalled witness** **is not** **within the** **scope of** **the natural** **interest of** **the party** **failing to** **produce him.** **Commonwealth v.** **Miller, 172** **A.3d 632,** **645-46 (Pa.** **Super. 2017),** **citing Commonwealth** **v. Boyle,** **733 A.2d** **633, 638** **(Pa. Super.** **1999). In** **addition to** **being equally** **available or** **unavailable to** **the parties,** **the 24** 

## I**testimony of** **Jerry Green** **would likely** **fall within** **exceptions 1,** **2, or** **6. Jamal** **Brown testified** **at trial** **that Appellant** **walked across** **the street** **and asked** **Jerry Green** **if he** **could rob** **505 Park** **Avenue and** **Jerry told** **him yeah** **as long** **as he** **did not** **do anything** **to his** **brother, Jeff** **Green. Trial** **Transcript, Feb.** **11, 2020,** **at 24-25.** **If Jerry** **Green were** **to testify** **favorably to** **the Commonwealth,** **his testimony** **would be** **cumulative to** **the testimony** **of Jamal** **Brown and** **fall within** **exception 2.** **However, if** **Jerry Green** **would not** **admit this** **type of** **connection or** **involvement in** **the crime,** **his testimony** **would fall** **within exceptions** **1 or** **6. Therefore,** **Appellant was** **not entitled** **to a** **missing witness** **instruction with** **respect to** **Jerry Green.** **Finally, Appellant** **alleges that** **the trial** **court erred** **by precluding** **the exculpatory** **testimony of** **Leon Hall** **who would** **have testified** **that one** **of the** **witnesses who** **testified against** **Appellant admitted** **to committing** **the crimes.** **During trial,** **Appellant's counsel** **made an** **offer of** **proof that** **Leon Hall** **would testify** **to the** **following: He** **had been** **friends with** **Jamal Brown.** **On the** **day of** **the shooting,** **he was** **scared because** **he had** **heard that** **two shooters** **were coming** **after Jamal** **Brown. Jamal** **Brown did** **not want** **to discuss** **it over** **the phone** **so Leon** **Hall met** **Jamal Brown** **at the** **Shamrock, a** **local bar.** **As they** **were sitting** **at the** **Shamrock, Leon** **Hall said** **something to** **the effect** **of if** **people are** **trying to** **kill you** **maybe sitting** **in front** **of the** **Shamrock is** **not a** **good idea.** **Jamal Brown** **then said** **something to** **the effect** **of, "no,** **it's cool,"** **or "it's** **a throw** **off; it** **was me."** **Leon Hall** **took that** **to mean** **that Jamal** **Brown admitted** **to being** **the shooter** **at 505** **Park Avenue.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 12,** **2020, at** **112-121. The** **Commonwealth argued** **that Leon** **Hall's interpretation** **of the** **statement was** **a "leap"** **and Jamal** **Brown's statements** **were inadmissible** **hearsay. Appellant's** **counsel 25** **1 argued** **that the** **statements were** **a "non-party** **admission" or** **a statement** **against interest.** **The Commonwealth** **indicated that** **the statement** **did not** **satisfy the** **hearsay exception** **for statements** **against interest.** **Although there** **is a** **hearsay exception** **for an** **admission or** **statement of** **an opposing** **party, see** **Pa. R.** **E. 803(25),** **there is** **no exception** **for a** **"non-party admission."** **There is** **a hearsay** **exception for** **a statement** **against interest** **but the** **statement in** **question did** **not meet** **the requirements** **of that** **exception. Rule** **804(b)(3), which** **governs the** **admissibility of** **statements against** **interest, states:** **The following** **are not** **excluded by** **the rule** **against hearsay** **if the** **declarant is** **unavailable as** **a witness:** **(3) Statement** **Against Interest.** **A statement** **that: (A)** **a reasonable** **person in** **the declarant's** **position would** **have made** **only if** **the person** **believed it** **to be** **true because,** **when made,** **it was** **so contrary** **to the** **declarant's proprietary** **or pecuniary** **interest or** **had so** **great a** **tendency to** **invalidate the** **declarant's claim** **against someone** **else or** **to expose** **the declarant** **to civil** **or criminal** **liability; and** **(B) is** **supported by** **corroborating circumstances** **that clearly** **indicate its** **trustworthiness, if** **it is** **offered in** **a criminal** **case as** **one that** **tends to** **expose the** **declarant to** **criminal liability.** **Pa. R.** **E. 804(b)(3).** **There is** **nothing in** **the record** **to suggest** **that Jamal** **Brown was** **unavailable as** **a witness.** **To the** **contrary, Jamal** **Brown testified** **at trial** **as a** **witness for** **the Commonwealth.** **Trial Transcript,** **Feb. 11,** **2020, at** **18-51. The** **trial court** **also disagreed** **with Appellant's** **characterization of** **the statement** **as an** **admission by** **Jamal Brown** **that he** **was the** **shooter. The** **statement is** **very vague.** **Brown either** **said "it's** **cool," "it's** **a throw** **off' and/or** **"it was** **me." One** **cannot tell** **26 to** **what "it"** **refers. Rather** **than indicating** **that Brown** **was the** **shooter, Brown** **may simply** **have been** **trying to** **assure Leon** **Hall that** **he knew** **the individuals** **were not** **looking for** **him, because** **Brown assisted** **the individuals** **by providing** **information about** **the residence** **and its** **occupants in** **exchange for** **the discharge** **of his** **drug debt.** **The statement** **also was** **not supported** **by corroborating** **circumstances that** **clearly indicate** **its trustworthiness.** **Among the** **factors a** **court might** **consider in** **determining the** **reliability of** **inculpatory or** **exculpatory statements** **are: the** **circumstances under** **which the** **statements were** **uttered, including** **the custodial/non-custodial** **aspect of** **the setting** **and the** **identity of** **the listener;** **the contents** **of the** **statement, including** **whether the** **statements minimize** **the responsibility** **of the** **declarant or** **spread or** **shift the** **blame; other** **possible motivations** **of the** **declarant, including** **improper motive** **such as** **to lie,** **curry favor,** **or distort** **the truth;** **the nature** **and degree** **of the** **"against interest"** **aspect of** **the statements,** **including the** **extent to** **which the** **declarant apprehends** **that the** **making of** **the statement** **is likely** **to actually** **subject him** **to criminal** **liability; the** **circumstances or** **events that** **prompted the** **statements, including** **whether they** **were made** **with the** **encouragement or** **at the** **request of** **a listener;** **the timing** **of the** **statement in** **relation to** **events described;** **the declarant's** **relationship to** **the defendant;** **and any** **other factors** **bearing upon** **the reliability** **of the** **statement at** **issue. Commonwealth** **v. Cascardo,** **981 A.2d** **245, 258** **(Pa. Super.** **2009), quoting** **Commonwealth v.** **Robins, 812** **A.2d 514,** **525-26 (Pa.** **2002). "While** **there is** **no required** **list of** **factors for** **conducting this** **evaluation, we** **note the** **commonly referenced** **ones listed** **supra, and** **thus begin** **with a** **consideration of** **the basic** **components, of** **when and** **where the** **statements were** **made, to** **whom they** **were made** **and what** **was said."** **Cascardo, 981** **A.2d at** **258-59, quoting** **Robins, 812** **A.2d at** **526. The** **statement was** **a vague,** **apparently off-the** **cuff remark** **to a** **friend while** **at a** **bar. It** **did not** **specifically admit** **any crime.** **It was** **not made** **in a** **custodial setting.** **27 Furthermore,** **it was** **not made** **to law** **enforcement or** **"any other** **reliable persons** **of authority** **or those** **having an** **adverse inference** **to the** **declarant." See** **Commonwealth v.** **Statum, 769** **A.3d 476,** **479 (Pa.** **Super. 2001)(statement** **made to** **an attorney).** **Since Jamal** **Brown was** **available as** **a witness,** **his purported** **statement to** **Leon Hall** **was not** **definitive enough** **to subject** **him to** **criminal liability,** **and the** **statement was** **not supported** **by corroborating** **circumstances that** **clearly indicated** **its trustworthiness,** **the trial** **court did** **not err** **in finding** **that Leon** **Hall's proposed** **testimony about** **the statement** **was hearsay.** **DATE: •••'** **By Ae** **Court, Marc** **F. Lovecchio,** **Judge cc:** **Martin Wade,** **Esquire (ADA)** **Jeana Longo,** **Esquire Work** **file Gary** **Weber, Esquire** **(Lycoming Reporter)** **Superior Court** **(original &** **1) 28**