J-S17023-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JEFFREY PALMER

Appellant No. 821 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 28, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0002288-2015

BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MAY 17, 2017

Appellant, Jeffrey Palmer, appeals from the January 28, 2016 

judgment of sentence imposing life in prison without parole for first degree 

murder, and concurrent terms of ten to twenty years of incarceration for 

attempted murder, three to six years of incarceration for unlawful 

possession of a firearm, and one to two years of incarceration for possession 

of an instrument of crime.1 We affirm. 

The trial court’s opinion sets forth the pertinent facts: 

On July 19, 2014, residents of the 6000 block of North 

Beechwood Street held a block party. At around 11 p.m., while 

the party was winding down, Malik Hairston heard several men 

yelling, ‘where gray tank top at?’ Around the same, [sic] 

Octavious Thornton, also known as ‘Ta,’ wearing a gray tank top, 

____________________________________________

1

 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 901, 6106, and 907, respectively. 
J-S17023-17

- 2 -

was outside his mother’s house at [the] 6088 block of North 

Beechwood Street. While Thornton was moving tables and 

chairs from the party into the house, a group of men 

approached. One of the men said, ‘let me holler at you,’ in 

which Thornton replied, ‘I don’t know you from a can of paint.’ 

Another male in the group asked Thornton, ‘What’s up? What’s 

up?’ Then a man in a red polo shirt advised Thornton, ‘It’s just a 

yes or no question.’ As Thornton walked away and made his 

way into the house, the group of men grabbed him from the 

porch steps, and began punching him. More men soon gathered, 

and up to ten or twelve men punched Thornton and pulled him 

into the street. Thornton placed his back against a car and 

covered his body with his arms to protect himself from the 

barrage of punches. 

Thornton’s mother, sister (Daria), and Hairston, attempted 

to intervene. After Hairston struck one man, and pulled him off 

Thornton, the group of men attacked Hairston. Hairston grabbed 

a rake and swung it at some of the attacking men. After Hairston 

swung the rake, a voice among the attacking men yelled, ‘Shoot 

that n*gger.’ Immediately thereafter, gunshots rang out. To 

avoid being shot, Hairston ran into the house at [the] 6088 block 

of North Beechwood through the front door. He was the only 

person who fled into the house. After firing the shots, the 

shooter jumped into a gray vehicle and drove off. 

Thornton told police that the shooter had a revolver, and 

described him as a black male, dark skin, 25 years old, wearing 

a red polo shirt, approximately 5’ 6” to 5’ 8”, with a stocky build. 

Thornton’s sister Daria also stated that the shooter wore a red 

shirt. She further testified that no one else involved in the fight 

had a red shirt on. Following the shooting, both Thornton and 

Hairston identified [Appellant] from a photographic array as the 

male in the red polo shirt. 

Almost immediately following the shooting, at or around 

11:20 p.m., Police Officer James Butler saw a silver vehicle 

speeding southbound on Ogontz Avenue, about six to eight 

blocks from the shooting on Beechwood. Officer Butler and 

Officer Mark Austin attempted to pursue the vehicle, but lost 

sight of it. 

Not long after Officer Butler first spotted the speeding 

vehicle on Ogontz Avenue, a security guard at Albert Einstein 

Hospital—just a few blocks from Ogontz Avenue—heard tires 
J-S17023-17

- 3 -

screeching and witnessed a gray vehicle speeding up the 

hospital’s emergency entrance. After the vehicle appeared to hit 

a guardrail, the passenger side window lowered, and the vehicle 

backed up and drove off. When a security guard inspected the 

guardrail for damage, he saw a gun lying nearby in the grass. 

Roughly a minute after losing sight of the vehicle on 

Ogontz Avenue, Offices Butler and Austin responded to Einstein 

Hospital for a report of a gunshot victim, later identified as 

Thomas Fields, who had just arrived. Fields was pronounced 

dead at 11:40 p.m. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to 

the neck and the manner of death was homicide. A bullet 

entered the right side, upper back, near the neck. It traveled 

through the neck, striking the cervical spine, and perforated the 

right vertebral arteries, which provide blood to the brain. The 

bullet exited the front of the neck. 

Upon their arrival at the hospital, Officers Butler and 

Austin noticed the same vehicle that they had just observed 

speeding on Ogontz parked in front of the ER. The passenger 

door was ajar, and a large amount of blood was on the vehicle’s 

interior. The officers secured the vehicle, believing that it was a 

crime scene. Blood was subsequently found on the vehicle’s 

seat, armrest, floor, door panel, and console. The front 

passenger side wheel was also flat. 

Officer Austin then entered the hospital to locate the driver 

of the silver/gray vehicle. In the ER lobby, he found [Appellant] 

exiting the bathroom. There, [Appellant] informed the officer 

that an altercation took place at a cookout and someone there 

was shot. The police later took [Appellant] to the Homicide Unit 

for questioning. 

On July 20, 2014, [Appellant] gave a statement to police, 

in which he told detectives that he was present when a shooting 

occurred at Beechwood. He said that he saw a fight break out at 

a block party and then heard gunshots. He also said that after 

the gunshots, Fields, his friend, said to him that he could not 

breath. [Appellant] stated that Fields had asthma. He claimed 

that after he and Fields got into his car to drive to the hospital, 

Fields coughed up blood. 

Police later recovered a security video from Einstein 

Hospital. On the night of the shooting, at approximately 

11:25:28, the camera captured [Appellant’s] vehicle driving up 
J-S17023-17

- 4 -

to the hospital’s emergency room ramp. At 11:26:14, the video 

showed [Appellant’s] vehicle, both doors open, pulling up outside 

the ER. [Appellant] existed [sic] the vehicle wearing a red polo 

shirt. Roughly thirty seconds later, [Appellant] removed the

shirt, and threw it over a guardrail past where his vehicle was 

parked. A few minutes later, [Appellant] retrieved the shirt and 

tossed it into the trunk of the vehicle. 

The police later recovered the gun that was lying near the 

hospital guardrail. The gun, a revolver, held two fired cartridge 

casing (“FCCs”) and three live rounds—all of which were .38 

caliber and of the same manufacture. A total of four ballistic 

pieces were recovered from the shooting scene at 6088 North 

Beechwood Street, including two copper fragments found on the 

property, a lead fragment in the outside wall near the 

doorframe, and a projectile in the front door, five inches south of 

the doorknob. Officer Raymond Andrejczak, of the Police 

Firearms Identification Unit, concluded to a reasonable degree of 

scientific certainty that both copper fragments, the projectile, 

and both FCCs in the gun were all fired in and from the subject 

revolver. The remaining piece (the lead fragment) was 

unsuitable for microscopic comparison, but was consistent with a 

9 millimeter/.38 caliber projectile. The subject revolver was 

incapable of firing a 9 millimeter bullet. 

Trial Court Opinion, 4/18/16, at 2-5 (record citations omitted). 

On August 4, 2014, police arrested Appellant for the murder of Fields. 

After a January 28, 2016 trial, a jury found Appellant guilty of the 

aforementioned offenses. The trial court imposed sentence immediately. 

On January 29, 2016, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion challenging the 

weight and sufficiency of the evidence. The trial court denied that motion on 

February 11, 2016. This timely appeal followed. Appellant presents three 

questions for our review: 

I. Did the trial court err, abuse its discretion, and unfairly 

prejudice [Appellant] when the court overruled an 
J-S17023-17

- 5 -

objection and allowed the prosecutor to vouch for 

witnesses during closing argument? 

II. Was the evidence sufficient as a matter of law to convict 

[Appellant] of murder of the first degree? 

III. Was the verdict against the weight of the evidence? 

Appellant’s Brief at 5. 

Appellant first asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his 

objection to the prosecutor’s alleged misconduct. Appellant argues that the 

prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of the investigating police 

officers. 

It is well established that the prosecution may not inject a 

highly prejudicial personal opinion of [an] appellant’s credibility 

into evidence, thereby clearly and improperly intruding upon the 

jury’s exclusive function of evaluating the credibility of 

witnesses. However, as long as a prosecutor does not assert his 

personal opinions, he or she may, within reasonable limits, 

comment on the credibility of a Commonwealth witness. This is 

especially true when the credibility of the witness has been 

previously attacked by the defense. This stems from the general 

principle that the prosecutor is permitted to respond to the 

arguments of the defense and is free to present his or her case 

with logical force and vigor. 

Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1, 31–32 (Pa. 2008). 

Several witnesses who gave contemporaneous statements to the 

police testified at trial that the police coerced or fabricated their statements. 

During closing argument, defense counsel attacked the credibility of the 

testifying police officers. The prosecutor, during his closing argument, 

responded with sarcasm, saying that the alleged fabrications did not 

significantly advance the prosecution’s case. The prosecutor also opined 
J-S17023-17

- 6 -

that officers with a combined 150 years of experience are unlikely to 

fabricate evidence. The prosecutor did not offer a personal opinion as to any 

witnesses’ credibility. For the reasons explained on pages 5 to 8 of the trial 

court’s April 18, 2016 opinion, we conclude that Appellant’s argument lacks 

merit. 

Next, Appellant challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. 

As the trial court correctly noted, Appellant’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement 

contains only bald assertions that his convictions are against the weight and 

sufficiency of the evidence. Bald assertions are insufficient to preserve the 

issue for review. Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa. Super. 

2006), appeal denied, 919 A.2d 956 (Pa. 2007). For the reasons explained 

in the trial court’s opinion, Appellant has waived his challenges to the weight 

and sufficiency of the evidence. 

In summary, we have concluded that Appellant’s first argument lacks 

merit, and the second and third arguments are waived. We therefore affirm 

the judgment of sentence. We direct that a copy of the trial court’s opinion 

be filed along with this memorandum. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-S17023-17

- 7 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/17/2017
I Attempted Murder and Aggravated Ass11ult merged. 

and sufficiency of the evidence. On February 11, 2016, this Court denied the motion. On 

On January 29, 2016, the Defendant filed a post-sentence motion challenging the weight 

years for PIC. 

attempted murder, 1 three to six years for Firearms Not to be Carried Without License, one to two 

possibility of parole for First- Degree Murder, and concurrent terms of ten to twenty years for 

On that same date, this Court imposed a term of imprisonment of life without the 

to be Carried Without License, and PIC. 

verdicts of guilty to First-Degree Murder, Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, Firearms Not 

before this Court and elected to be tried by a jury. On January 28, 2016, the jury returned 

Possession of an Instrument of Crime ("PIC"). On January 25, 2016, the Defendant appeared 

Firearms Not to be Carried Without License, Carrying Firearms in Public in Phlladeiphia, and 

Murder, Conspiracy, Attempted Murder, Aggravated Assault, Possession of Firearm Prohibited, 

On August 4, 2014, the Defendant, Jeffrey Palmer, was arrested and charged with 

Procedural History 

Mclrermott, J. April 18, 2016 

OPINION 

JEFFREY PALMER 

v. 

FILE.D 

fl.PR 1 S 20\6 

Crimina\ App~a\~ Un\t 

r,:\rn\ Judicia\ D1s\nct ot PA 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-5l-CR-0002288-2015 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION 

Circulated 04/27/2017 05:21 Plv1 

I 
2 

Ou July 19, 2014, residents of the 6000 block of North Beechwood Street held a block 

party. Al around 11 p.m., while the party was winding down, Malik Hairston heard several men 

yelling, "where gray tank top at?" Around the same, Octavious Thornton, also known ns "Ta," 

wearing a gray tank top, was outside his mother's house at 6088 block of North Beechwood 

Street. While Thornton was moving tables and chairs from the party into the house, a grO\lP of 

men approached. One of the men said, "let me holler at you," in which Thornton replied, "I 

don't know you from a can of paint." Another male in the group asked Thornton, "What's up? 

What's up?" Then a man in a red polo shirt advised Thornton, "It's just a yes or no question." 

As Thornton walked away and made his way into the house, the group of men grabbed him from 

the porch steps, and began punching him. More men soon gathered, and up to ten or twelve men 

punched Thornton and pulled him into the street. Thornton placed his back against a car and 

covered his body with his arms to protect himself from the barrage of punches, N.T. 1/25/2016 at 

95-99; N.T. 1/26/2016 at 85-86, 102. 

Thornton's mother, sister (Daria), and Hairston, attempted to intervene. After Hairston 

struck one man, and pulled him off Thornton, the group of men attacked Hairston. Hairston 

grabbed a rake and swung it at some of the attacking men. After Hairston swung the rake, a 

February 17, 20161 the Defendant tiled a timely Notice of Appeal. On February 23, 2016, this 

Court ordered the Defendant to submit a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal 

pursnant Pn.R.A.P. l 925(b ). On March 10, 2015, the Defendant filed a Motion for Extension of 

Time to file a Statement of Matters Complained of, which this Court granted on March 14. On 

April 4, 2016, the Defendant timely filed a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on 

Appeal. 

Facts 
3 

voice among the attacking men yelled, "Shoot that n+gger." Immediately thereafter, gunshots 

rnng out. To avoid being shot, Hairston ran into the house at 6088 block of North Beechwood 

through the front door. He was the only person who fled into the house. After firing the shots, 

the shooter jumped into a gray vehicle and drove off. N.T. 1/25/2016 at I 00-05, 115-17; N.T. 

1/26/2016 at 92-95, 127, 180-85. 

Thornton told police that the shooter had a revolver, and described him as a black male, 

dark skin, 25 years old, wearing a red polo shirt, approximately 5'6" to 5'8", with a stocky build. 

Thornton's sister Darin also stated that the shooter wore a red shirt. She further testified that no 

one else involved in the fight had a red shirt on. Following the shooting, both Thornton and 

Hairston identified the Defendant from n photographic array as the male in the reel polo shirt. 

N.T. 1/25/2016 at 117-19; N.T. 1/26/2016 at l 03, 182. 

Almost immediately following the shooting, at or around 11 :20 p.m., Police Officer 

James Butler saw a silver vehicle speeding southbound on Ogontz Avenue, about six to eight 

blocks from the shooting on Beechwood. Officer Butler and Officer Mark Austin attempted to 

pursue the vehicle, but lost sight of it. N.T. 1/26/2016 at 26-33, 307-09. 

Not long after Officer Butler first spotted the speeding vehicle on Ogontz Avenue, a 

security guard nt Albert Einstein Hospital-just a few blocks from Ogontz Avenue+-heard tires 

screeching and witnessed a gray vehicle speeding up the hospital's emergency entrance. After 

the vehicle appeared to hit a guardrail, the passenger side window lowered, and the vehicle 

backed up and drove off. When the security guard inspected the guardrail for damage, he saw a 

gun lying nearby in the grass. N.T. l/26/2016 at 60-68. 

Roughly a minute after losing sight of the vehicle on Ogontz A venue, Officers Butler and 

Austin responded to Einstein Hospital for n report of a gunshot victim, later identified as Thomas 
Fields, who had just arrl ved. Fields was pronounced dead at 11 :40 p.m. The cause of death was 

a gunshot wound to the neck and the manner of death was homicide. A bullet entered the right 

side, upper back, near the neck. It traveled through the neck, striking the cervical spine> and 

perforated the right vertebral arteries, which provide blood to the brain. The bullet exited the 

front of the neck. N.T. 1/26/2016 at 26-27, 307-09; N.T, 1/27/2016 at 83-85. 

Upon their arrival at the hospital, Officers Butler and Austin noticed the same vehicle 

that they had just observed speeding on Ogontz parked in front of the ER. The passenger door 

was ajar, and a large amount of blood was on the vehicle's interior. The officers secured the 

vehicle, believing that it was a crime scene. Blood was subsequently found on the vehicle's seat, 

armrest, floor, door panel, and console. The front passenger side wheel was also flat. N.T. 

1/26/2016 at 29-33, 295-96, 307-09; N.T. 1/27/2016 at 29, 32. 

Officer Austin then entered the hospital to locate the driver of the silver/gray vehicle. In 

the ER lobby, he found the Defendant exiting the bathroom. There, the Defendant informed the 

officer that an altercation took place at a cookout and someone there was shot. The police later 

took the Defendant to the Homicide Unit for questioning. N.T. 1/26/2016 at 309-11. 

On July 201 2014, the Defendant gave a statement to police, in which he told detectives 

that he was present when a shooting occurred at Beechwood. He said that he saw a fight break 

out at a block party and then heard gunshots, He also said that after the gunshots, Fields, his 

friend, said to him that he could not breathe. The Defendant stated that Fields had asthma, He 

claimed that after he and Fields got into his car to drive to the hospital, Fields coughed \IP blood. 

Id. at 174-91. 

Police Inter recovered a security video from Einstein Hospital. On the night of the 

shooting, at approximately 11 :25:28, the camera captured the Defendant's vehicle driving \IP to 

4 
5 

2 A mixture of DNA was taken from the back collar of the red polo shirt. Be11ja111iu Levin, a forensic scientist, 

testified Lon rensonable degree of sclentlflc certainty that the major component la ken from the back collar was 

consistent with tt mixture orlginutlng from Cit least two contributors, one of which had a high probability of being 

Jeffrey Palmer. N.T. l/27/2016 at 59--63. 

and permitted the prosecutor to vouch for detectives and police officers. The Defendant also 

Discussion 

of'firlng a 9 millimeter bullet. N.T. 1/25/2016 at 84; N.T. 1/26/2016 at 182, 263-70. 

but was consistent with a 9 millimetcr/.38 caliber projectile, The subject revolver was incapable 

revolver, The remaining piece (the lead fragment) was unsuitable for microscopic comparison, 

fragments, the projectile, and both FCCs in the gun were all fired in and from the subject 

Identiflcalion Unit, concluded to a reasonable degree of scientific certainly that both copper 

door, five inches south of the doorknob. Officer Raymond Andrejczak, of the Police Firearms 

property, a lend fragment in the outside wall near the doorframe, and a projectile in the front 

shooting scene at 6088 North Beechwood Street, including two copper fragments found on the 

caliber and of the same manufacture. A total of four ballistic pieces were recovered from the 

revolver, held two fired cartridge casing ("FCCs") and three live rounds-all of which were .38 

The police later recovered the gun that was lying near the hospital guardrail. The gun, a 

shirt and tossed it onto the trunk of his vehicle. N.T. 1/27/2016 at 201-11, 242-43.2 

guardrail past where his vehicle was parked. A few minutes Inter, the Defendant retrieved the 

polo shirt. Roughly thirty seconds later, the Defendant removed the shirt, and threw it over a 

both doors open, pulling up outside the ER. The Defendant existed the vehicle wearing a red 

the hospital's emergency room ramp. At 11:26:14, the video showed the Defendant's vehicle, 

The Defendant alleges that this Court erred when it overruled the Defendant's objection 
6 

argued that the Commonwealth was "vouchsnfing" and "vouching" for the detectives. Defense 

N.T. 1/28/2016 at 86. Following closing arguments, defense counsel objected to the remarks and 

Well, if this is what's happening, that they're and forcing cases. 

Detective Harkins, next time you're going to force someone to do 

something, please force them to identify the defendant as actually 

shooting. Because this doesn't do anything for me. Force them to 

say he's the shooter, That's what's going to help me, right, not this 

nonsense. They're [referring to the detectives] fixing the case? 

Make it better. 

experience and sarcastically chastised them for not "fixing" the case better: 

at trial. In his remarks, the Commonwealth reiterating the detectives' law enforcement 

the detectives coerced witnesses, the Commonwealth referenced the detectives who had testified 

Fo1· the Defendant's first issue, during closing remarks, in response to insinuations that 

Assault, Firearms Not to be Carried Without License, and PIC. 

makes weight and sufficiency claims for First-Degree Murder, Attempted Murder, Aggravated 

COMMONWEALTH: Every insinuation has been made that Detective 

Harkins, Detective Fettersl.] who is here, that they what? That they 

forced people to say things; that they put things in the statement. 

Presumably to do what, right? To make their case better, right? To 

get the prosecution's conviction because it means so much to me. 

Every prosecution does because he means so much to them, to the 

Fields family) and every other family. 

But that's insinuation, right, that the detectives forced them, to 

say things to make the case better. Well, you heard me ask each of 

the detectives, nHow long have you been on force? How long were 

you in homicide? To get promoted to homicide, where were you"]"] 

I wasn't doing that for fluff. I was doing that so you could hear how 

long they were on the force. Why? Because they're not rookies. 

Thirty years, 26 years, 27 years; among them, over 150 years of 

experience. So, okay, they're going to fabricate, right[?] Detective 

Harkins is going to make Malik [Hairston] say what he wants him 

to say, make the case better .. 

Okay. Well, when you have Malik in there, right, and you want 

to frame I suppose the [D'[efendant, here's what was forced upon 

Malik Hairston, This is what was forced upon him, right? He didn't 

want to say it, it was forced. 
counsel requested a curative instruction to Instruct the jury not to give greater weight to the 

witnesses because they are detectives, which this Court denied. 

· It is well-established that a prosecutor is free to present his argument with logical force 

and vigor so long as there is a reasonable basis in the record for the prosecutor's remarks. 

Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 25 A.3d 277, 306 (Pa. 2011). Reversible error arises from a 

prosecutor's comments only where their unavoidable effect is to prejudice the jurors, forming in 

their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant such that they could not weigh the 

evidence objectively and render a fair verdict. Commonwealth v, Tedford, 960 A.2d 1, 33 (Pa, 

2008). The prejudicial effect of the prosecutor's remarks must be evaluated in the context in 

which they occurred. Commonwealth v. Gooding, 649 A.2d 722, 727 (Pa. Super. 1994) (citing 

Commonwealth v. D 'Amato, 526 A.2d 300, 309 (Pa, 1987) ( citations omitted)). The effect of 

remarks made in closing arguments is to be ascertained by the trial judge. Commonwealth v. 

Williams, 433 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 198 I) (citing Commonwealth v. Stoltzfus, 337 A.2d 873, 882 

(Pa. 1975)). The remedy to be applied in each case is within the discretion of the trial judge. 

Stolfrrs, 337 A.2d at 882; Commonwealth v. Silvis, 284 A.2d 740, 741 (Pa. 1971). 

The prosecutor's remarks and his use of sarcasm to appeal to the commonsense of the 

jury were well within the pennissible bounds. Additionally, before closing arguments, this Court 

properly instructed the jury that the)' were not bound by the attorneys' recollection of the 

evidence nor their conclusions of the facts, and that it was for the jury to decide what arguments, 

if any, appeal to their reason and commonsense. N.T. 1/28/2016 at 21-22. Moreover, at the start 

of trial, and in its final charge, this Court instructed the jury that they were the judges of a 

witness's credibility. N.T. 1 /25/2016 at 18. The jury is presumed to follow these instructions. 

7 
8 

Commonwealth v. Jones, 668 A.2d 491, 503-04 (Pa. 1995). For the foregoing reasons, the 

Defendant is not entitled to relief, 

For the Defendant's next issue, he baldly asserts that the evidence for each of his 

convictions was insufficient. This Court finds the Defendant's 1925(b) Statement deficient as he 

neglects to specify how the evidence failed to establish which clements of each offense. As 

Superior Court has held, "[ijf Appellant wants to preserve a clnlm that the evidence was 

insufficient, then the 1925(b) Statement needs to specify the element or clements upon which the 

evidence was insufficient." Commonwealth \'. Manley, 985 A.2d 256 (Pa. Super. 2009) (q1101/11g 

Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2008)); Commonwealth v. 

Reeves, 907 A.2d l (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 919 A.2d 956 (Pa. 2007). For this reason, 

the sufficiency issues are deemed waived. For the benefit of any future proceedings, however, 

this Com-twill address the sufficiency of the evidence fol' each of the Defendant's convictions. 

Evidence presented at trial is sufficient when, viewed in the light most fovornblc to the 

Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the evidence and all reasonable inferences derived 

therefrom are sufficient to establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Commonwealth v. Baum hammers, 960 A.2d 59, 68 (Pa. 2008). The Commonwealth may sustain 

its burden of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly 

circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Estepp, 17 A.3d 939, 943 (Pa. Super, 2011) (citing 

Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852, 856-57 (Pa. Super. 20 ! 0)). The fact-finder is free to 

believe all, part, or none of the evidence, and credibility determinations rest solely within the 

purview of the fact-finder. Commonwealth v. Treiber, 874 A.2d 26, 30 (Pa. 2005). The Superior 

Court considers nil the evidence admitted, without regard to any claim of wrongly admitted 
9 

evidence. Co111111011wealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 332 (Pa. Super. 2010). The Superior Court will 

also not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations. Jd. 

First-Degree Murder is any unlawful killing committed with malice and the specific 

intent to kill. 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a); Commonwealth \'. Johnson, '12 A.3d IO 17, 1025 (Pa. 2012). 

The specific intent to kill as well as malice can be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon \1po11 

a vital part of the victim's body. Commonwealth v, Thomas, 54 A.3d 332, 335-36 (Pa. 2012); 

Commonwealth v. Ramtahal, 33 A.3d 6021 607 (Pa. 201 l) (citing Commonwealth P. Smith, 985 

A.2d 886, 895 (Pa. 2009)). Evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for First-Degree 

Murder when the Commonwealth establishes that: (I) a human being was unlawfully killed; (2) 

the accused is responsible for the killing; and (3) the accused acted with specific intent. 18 

Pa.C.S. § 2502(a); Commonwealth v. Chambers, 980 A.2d 35, 44 (Pa. 2009). The 

Commonwealth may establish that a defendant intentionally killed the victim wholly through 

circumstantial evidence, lei. ( citing Commonwealth v. Rivera, 773 A.2d 131, 135 (Pa. 2001)). 

Under the doctrine of transferred intent, the intent to murder may be transferred where 

the person actually killed is not the intended victim. See Commonwealth v. Jones, 912 A.2d 268 

(Pa. 2006) (find ing that appellant had specific intent to kill a bystander, who was not the specific 

target, where appellant shot others three or four times at close range and killed the bystander 

with a single gunshot wound to the chest). The theory behind the doctrine is that if the intent to 

commit a crime exists, this intent can be transferred for the purpose of finding the intent element 

of another crime. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 739 A.2d 1023, l 030 (Pa. 1999) (citing 

Commonwealth ii. Gibbs, 626 A.2d 133 (Pa. 1993)). 

In the case at bar, sufficient evidence established that the Defendant, with the specific 

intent to kill, murdered Thomas Fields. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to Fields' neck. 
10 

N.T. 1/27/2016 at 83-85. Thornton identified the Defendant as the shooter. N.T. 1/25/2016 at 

117-18. Thornton's sister Daria stated that the shooter wore a red polo shirt and both Hairston 

anci Thornton identified the Defendant as the person in the red polo shirt. N. T. 1125/2016 at 119; 

N .T. I /26/2016 at 103, 182. The Defendant was the only person present in the fight wearing a 

red shirt, which he still had on when he arrived at the ER with Fields. N.T. 1/26/2016 at 182; 

N.T. 1127/2016 at 201-11. In addition, the police found a revolver on the hospital grounds near 

where the Defendant appeared to strike a guardrail and lowered his window. N.T. 1/26/2016 at 

60-68. Both copper fragments and the projectile, found at Beechwood, were fired from the 

found revolver. Id. at 182, 265-69. 

In addition to the evidence establishing the Defendant as the shooter, the evidence also 

showed that the Defendant specifically intended to shoot Hairston, and not in self-defense, as the 

Defendant was part of the group of men that was not free from fault in provoking or continuing 

the difficulty which resulted in the fight and subsequent shooting. See Commonwealth v. 

Mo11zo11, 53 A.3d 738 (Pa. 2012). Because the Defendant shot at Hairston after a voice among 

the attacking men yelled, "Shoot that n* gger," coupled with the fact that police found a bullet 

fragment near the door frame and a projectile in the door of 6088 North Beechwood, indicated 

that the Defendant specifically aimed at Hairston as Hairston fled into the house. N.T. 1/25/2016 

at 84; N.T. 1/26/2016 at 92, 180-85. Hairston was the only participant in the fight to nm into the 

house, N.T. 1/26/2016 at 127. That the Defendant's intended target was Hairston, and not 

Fields, is of no moment, as the Defendant's intent to kill Hairston was transferred to Fields. See 

Jones and Thompson, supra. 

The Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions for 

attempted murder and aggravated assault, A person is guilty of attempted murder if he takes "a 
- 11 

substantial step to words an intentional killing." Commonwealth v. Wesley, 860 A.2d 5 85, 593 

(Pa. Super. 2004); see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 90l(a). [fa defendant Hikes a "substantial step toward 

the commission of a killing, with the specific intent in mind to commit such an act, he may be 

convicted of attempted murder." !11 re R.D., 44 A.Jd 657, 678 (Pa. Super. 2012). The 

"substantial step test broadens the scope of attempt liability by concentrating 011 the acts the 

defendant has done and does not any longer focus on the acts remaining to be done before the 

actual commission of the crime." Id. (quoting Co111mo11111ealth v. Gilliam, 417 A.2d 12031 1205 

(Pa. Super. 1980)). The Commonwealth may also solely use circumstantial evidence to establish 

the mens rea required for first-degree nnuder=-the specific intent to kill. /11 re R.D., 44 A.3d at 

678 (citing Commonwealth v. Schoff, 91 [ A.2d 14 7, 160 (Pa.Super.2006)). 

To sustain a conviction fol' aggravated assault, the Commonwealth must prove that the 

Defendant either attempted if he "attempts to cause serious bodily Injury to another, or causes 

such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme 

indifference to the value of human life." 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(l ); Commonwealth v. Matthew, 

909 A.2d 1254, 1257 (Pa. 2006). "Serious bodily injury" is defined as "[b [odily injury which 

creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted 

loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." Commonwealth v. Lewis, 

911 A.2d 558, 564 (Pa. Super. 2006); 18 Pa.C.S. § 2301. For aggravated assault purposes, an 

attempt is found where the accused, with the required specific intent, acts in a manner which 

constitutes a substantial step toward perpetrating a serious bodily injury upon another. 

Commonwealth v. Matthews, 870 A.2d 924, 929 (Pa. Super, 2005) (citation omitted). 

In the instant matter, the Defendant's actions clearly constituted attempted murder. The 

Defendant aimed a gun and fl~ed at Hairston after someone requested him to do so-this clearly 
12 

established that he took a substantial step toward an intentional killing and demonstrated that he 

had the requisite intent to shoot and kill Hairston. N.T. 1/26/2016 at 92, 180-85. The same 

evidence also sufficiently demonstrated aggravated assault as the Defendant's act of aiming a 

gun and firing at Hairston constituted a substantial step toward perpetrating a serious bodily 

injury upon another. 

The Defendant also challenges his convictions for Carrying a Firearm in Public Without a 

License and PIC. To convict a defendant of Carrying a Firearm in Public Withouta License, the 

Commonwealth must prove: "(a) that the weapon was a firearm, (b) that the firearm was 

unlicensed, and (c) that where the firearm was concealed on or about the person, it was outside 

his home or place of business." Commonwealth v. Parker, 847 A.2d 745, 750 (Pa. Super. 2004); 

see also 18. Pa. C.S.A. § 6 L 06. 

To secure a conviction for PIC, the Commonwealth must show that a defendant 

possessed an instrument of crime wlth the intent to employ it criminally. 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a). 

An instrument of crime is (([ ajnything used for criminal purposes and possessed by the actor 

under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful uses it may have." 18 Pa.C.S. § 

907(d)(2); see also Commonwealth v, Robertson, 874 A.2d 1200, 1208-09 (Pa. Super. 2005). 

This evidence was more than sufficient to establish the Defendant carried a firearm in 

public without a license. Thornton told police that he saw the Defendant with a gun fire at 

Hairston. 1/25/2016 at 117-18. The security officer at the Einstein Hospital testified that a 

vehicle-matching the description of the Defendant's vehicle-stopped and lowered its window 

in the same area where the gun used In the shooting was found. N.T. 1/26/2016 at 60-68. Both 

copper fragments and the projectile recovered from Beechwood were fired from the subject 

revolver. Id. at 182, 265-69. The certificate of non-licensnre submitted by the Commonwealth 
13 

Finally, the Defendant alleges that the verdicts for all convictions were against the weight 

of the evidence. Because the Defendant, again, makes a bald assertion, this Court finds his 

1925(b) Statement deficient. A Rule 1925(b) statement that is not specific enough for the trial 

court to identify and address the issues an appellant wishes to raise may also result in waiver. 

Reeves, 907 A.2d at 1; see also Commonwealth v, Seibert, 799 A.2<1 54, 62 (Pa. Super. 2002) 

(finding that the weight of evidence claim was waived where the Rule 1925(b) statement only 

asserted that the jury verdict "was against the weight of the credible evidence as to all of the 

charges"), For the benefit of any future proceedings, however, this Com! will address the weight 

of the evidence claims. 

Weight of the evidence and sufficiency of the evidence are discrete inquiries, An 

argument that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence concedes that there is 

sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, but contends that the verdict is against the weight of the 

evidence. Commonwealth v. Davis, 799 A.2d 860, 865 (Pa. Super. 2002). An allegation that the 

verdict is against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, 

Commonwealth v, Dupre, 866 A.2d l 089, 1101 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citing Commonwealth v. 

Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795, 805-06 (Pa. Super. 2003)). 

For a weight of the evidence claim to succeed, the test is whether the verdict is so 

contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. Commonwealth v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 

conclusively established that the Defendant was not eligible to carry a firearm at the time of the 

shooting. N.T. 1/27/2016 at 251-52. As the above discussion for first-degree murder indicated, 

there was also more than sufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant's possessed a 

criminal instrument with the intent to employ it criminally. Thus, these two claims are devoid of 

merit. 
14 

873, 879-80 (Pa. 2008). To determine whether this standard is met, appellate review is "limited 

to whether the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised, and relief will 011ly be granted 

where thefacts and inferences of record disclose a palpable abuse of discretion." Id. Hence, this 

Court's denial of a motion for a new trial based on a weight of the evidence claim "is the least 

assailable of its rulings." Id. at 8 80. 

· As the fact-finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the 

credibility of the witnesses, for a defendant to prevail on a challenge to the weight, the evidence 

must be "so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court." 

Sullivan, 820 A.2d at 806. This is a lofty standard as generally this threshold is only met when 

"the figure of Justice totters on l ior pedestal," or when "the jury's verdict, at the time of its 

rendition, causes the trial judge to lose his (or her] breath, temporarily, and causes him [or her] to 

almost fall from the bench; [onlyf then it is truly shocking to the judicial conscience." 

Commonwealth v. Davidson, 860 A.2d 575, 582 (Pa. Super. 2004) (quoting N11del111an v. 

Gilbride, 647 A.2d 233, 237 (Pa. 1994)). 

The Defendant's weight of the evidence claims for first-degree murder, attempted 

murder, and aggravated assault are without merit as the verdicts were consistent with the 

evidence and a far cry from shocking one's sense of justice. The Commonwealth presented a 

considerable amount of testimonial, physical, and scientific evidence that the Defendant, with the 

specific intent, fired at Hairston and struck and killed Fields. The jury's verdict indicates that 

they chose to credit this evidence rather than the Defendant's theory of the case. 

Having concluded that the weight of the evidence supports first-degree murder, attempted 

murder, and aggravated assault, this Court also finds that the weight of the evidence supports the 

verdict for PIC and Carrying a Firearm in Public Without a License. The evidence, as discussed 
15 

BY THE COURT, 

~r~ 

above, clearly shows that the Defendant intended to criminally employ a firearm when he shot at 

Hairston mid struck and killed Fields. The record also reflects that the Defendant was not 

eligible to carry a firearm at the time of the shooting. These claims ore, therefore, meritless. 

For the foregoing masons, Defendant's claims are DENIED. 
Dated: April 18, 2016 

'I'ype of Service: Certified Mail 

Jeffrey Palmer 

MJ6344 

SCI Camp Hill 

P.O. Box 200 

CampHill,PA 17001 

Type of Service: 

Nino Tinari, Esq. 

1528 Walm1t Street 

Suite 1212 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Type of Service: Hm1<1 Delivery 

Philadelphia District Attorney's Office 

Three South Perm Square 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

Attn: Gaetano D' Andrea, Esq. 

I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing filing upon the personts), and in 

the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R. Crim, P. 114: 

Co111111011111ealth v, Jeffrey Palmer 

CP"51"CR"0002288~2015 

PROOF OF SERVICE