J-S32030-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

RANDY HARRY BROOMALL, JR.

Appellant No. 2362 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence imposed June 2, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County

Criminal Division at No: CP-23-CR-0006895-2015

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE, and FITZGERALD*, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JULY 18, 2017

Appellant, Randy Harry Broomall, Jr. appeals from the judgment of 

sentence imposed on June 2, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of 

Delaware County, following Appellant’s convictions of criminal conspiracy—

possession with intent to deliver; possession of a controlled substance—

Oxycodone, Alprazolam; possession of drug paraphernalia; possession with 

intent to deliver—cocaine; and possession with intent to deliver—heroin.1 

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting his guilty verdicts 

and claims trial court erred in permitting a Commonwealth drug 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A § 903; 35 P.S. §§780-113(a)16, 113(a)32, 113(a)30, and 

113(a)30, respectively.
J-S32030-17

- 2 -

investigations expert to respond to questions about fingerprinting evidence. 

Following review, we affirm. 

Appellant was charged with the above-enumerated offenses after 

drugs and drug paraphernalia were recovered during a raid on a trailer 

owned and occupied by his mother, Commonwealth witness Anna Owens 

(“Owens”). Owens explained that Appellant did not reside with her but was 

present at the trailer on a daily basis and kept some personal items there, 

including a safe that was retrieved from the trailer in response to a search 

warrant. 

The trial court aptly and thoroughly summarized both the factual 

history and procedural history of the case. Trial Court Opinion, 11/21/16, 2-

7. We hereby adopt the trial court summaries as our own and incorporate 

them herein as if fully set forth. For our purposes, it is sufficient to reiterate 

that Appellant was convicted of all the charges listed above and was 

subsequently sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 18 to 36 

years in prison, followed by four years of state probation. In this timely 

appeal from the judgment of sentence, Appellant asks us to consider three 

issues, which he phrases as declaratory statements as follows:

1. The evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of the 

jury. The evidence presented by the Commonwealth relied on 

the testimony of Anna Owens to provide inculpatory 

information about the criminal conduct of [Appellant]. Her 

testimony was not corroborated by any other witness and the 

jury needed to rely on the testimony of Anna Owens as proof 

beyond a reasonable doubt that [Appellant] conspired with 

Anna Owens to possess the controlled substances found in the 
J-S32030-17

- 3 -

home. This Commonwealth witness did not provide credible 

and believable testimony to support the jury’s finding even 

when her testimony is viewed in the light most favorable to 

the verdict winner. Owens denied that she was an accomplice 

or a co-conspirator of [Appellant]. Nothing in the record of 

the trial in this case supports the decision of the jury to find 

that [Appellant] conspired with Anna Owens to possess heroin 

or cocaine with the intent to deliver.[2]

2. The learned court erred when it allowed the Commonwealth 

to question witness Sergeant Kenneth Rutherford, Jr. as an 

expert about fingerprint evidence. The witness was qualified 

as an expert in the fields of drugs and drug investigation. By 

his own admission, Sergeant Rutherford acknowledged that 

he is not a fingerprint expert.

3. The Appellant raises one issue concerning the sentence 

imposed by the trial court. 

a. The record is devoid of any evidence the defendant 

engaged in a conspiracy with Anna Owens and the 

sentence imposed for Conspiracy to Possession with 

intent to deliver must be vacated. 

Appellant’s Brief, Statement of the Questions Involved, at 3. 

Appellant’s first and third issues challenge the sufficiency of the 

evidence to support Appellant’s convictions. After outlining the correct 

standard of review for a sufficiency challenge, the trial court explained the 

elements of conspiracy and the elements of possession with intent to deliver. 

The court then embarked upon a comprehensive review of the evidence 

presented at trial and concluded the Commonwealth offered evidence 

sufficient to enable the jury to find every material element of the crimes 

____________________________________________

2 We note that Owens entered a guilty plea to a conspiracy charge. The jury 

was apprised of that fact. See Notes of Testimony, 4/13/16, at 219-22.
J-S32030-17

- 4 -

charged and that Appellant committed those crimes. Trial Court Opinion, 

11/21/16, at 7-17, 22. Our review of the record confirms the trial court’s 

evidentiary findings and legal determinations regarding sufficiency. 

Therefore, we hereby adopt as our own and incorporate herein by reference 

the trial court’s disposition of Appellant’s first and third issues.3 

In his second issue, Appellant argues trial court error relating to 

questions asked of the Commonwealth’s drugs and drug investigations 

expert. Specifically, Appellant complains that the trial court permitted 

questioning of the expert, over objection, in the area of fingerprint evidence. 

Appellant’s argument lacks merit.

First, with regard to Appellant’s alleged “objection,” the objection was 

not timely made. The transcript reveals that Appellant first objected to 

fingerprint evidence testimony during the Commonwealth’s redirect 

examination of the expert. The record reflects the following exchange:

____________________________________________

3 We further note that the focus of the sufficiency argument in Appellant’s 

brief is the conduct of Owens rather than the conduct of Appellant. In 

essence, Appellant is challenging the credibility of Owens’ testimony, 

testimony the jury was free to believe or disbelieve. See, e.g., 

Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 282 (Pa. Super. 2009).

 

 
J-S32030-17

- 5 -

[APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: At this point, I want to object. We 

just got over him saying his role here is to say whether these 

drugs are dealt – are to deal or to not to deal. Now we’re 

getting into the points on fingerprints.

THE COURT: Well, you cross examined him on it.

[APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: I did because he offered it on direct.

THE COURT: Well, overruled.

[APPELLANT’S COUNSEL]: Okay.

THE COURT: If it’s an objection, it’s overruled.

Notes of Testimony, 4/14/16, at 158-59. As the trial court determined, 

“Appellant failed to preserve this claim for appeal as he did not object to the 

witness’ statements at trial and raises this argument for the first time on 

appeal. . . . Accordingly, this argument is waived.” Trial Court Opinion, 

11/21/16, at 18. 

Second, as the trial court concluded, the expert did not offer any 

expert opinions regarding fingerprint evidence. Rather, he simply explained 

that fingerprinting the bags of heroin in a case such as Appellant’s—involving 

more than 900 bags of drugs—was not his normal practice, that it was timeconsuming, and that it was not “really feasible.” Notes of Testimony, 

4/14/16, at 147-48. Therefore, even if not waived, Appellant’s second issue 

fails for lack of merit. We hereby adopt as our own and incorporate herein 

by reference the trial court’s disposition of Appellant’s second issue. Trial 

Court Opinion, 11/21/16, at 17-20. In the event of further proceedings, the 
J-S32030-17

- 6 -

parties shall attach a copy of the trial court’s November 21, 2016 opinion to 

their filings.

Judgment affirmed. In the event of further proceedings, the parties 

shall attach a copy of the trial court’s November 21, 2016 opinion to their 

filings.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 7/18/2017
Circulated 06/29/2017 11:14 AM