J-S16043-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

FREDERICK HALL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1528 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 7, 2022

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

No(s): CP-09-CR-0003679-2020

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

FREDERICK HALL 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1529 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 7, 2022

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

No(s): CP-09-CR-0004952-2020

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 19, 2023

Frederick Hall (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas after a jury convicted 

him at two criminal dockets of one count each of robbery, strangulation, theft

by unlawful taking, simple assault, and driving under the influence (DUI) —
J-S16043-23

- 2 -

general impairment, and two counts of witness intimidation.1 On appeal, he 

challenges the sufficiency of a curative instruction regarding four phone calls

presented by the Commonwealth at trial. He also raises a claim that the trial 

court erroneously limited the scope of Appellant’s cross-examination of a 

witness. We affirm.

We glean the underlying facts of this matter from the trial court’s 

opinion:

On June 12, 2020, [Falicia Stroye (Victim)] was finishing a 

[12] hour overnight shift as a Licensed Practical Nurse at Jefferson 

Bucks Hospital. Her shift ended at 7:00 a.m. and she was heading 

home to her apartment [on] Plaza Boulevard[ in] Morrisville, 

Bucks County, Pennsylvania. On her way home, [she] texted . . .

her boyfriend, Appellant[. Victim] recognized he was drunk again 

and told him not to come to her apartment.

Despite this admonishment, [Victim] saw Appellant . . . 

sitting in his burgundy Ford pick[-]up truck at the top of the hill 

near her apartment. Appellant . . . followed [V]ictim to her 

apartment where he used his truck to block her in a parking spot. 

Appellant . . . jumped out of his truck and opened the door to 

[V]ictim’s car before she could lock it. Appellant . . . then began 

swinging his fists and striking [V]ictim in her head and face. 

[V]ictim was wearing a stethoscope from work around her neck. 

Appellant . . . used the stethoscope to choke [V]ictim. Her shirt 

was ripped. [Appellant] also used a sun visor from [Victim’s] car 

to strike her repeatedly about the face and head. 

Appellant . . . was using both open and closed fists to strike 

[V]ictim. However, during the assault, [V]ictim was able to 

remove mace from her pocketbook and spray Appellant . . . in the 

face. This interrupted the attack and [V]ictim dialed 9-1-1 for 

help[, but the call was “immediately disconnected before a 911 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3701(a)(1)(iv), 2718(a)(1), 3921(a), 2701(a)(1); 75 Pa.C.S. 

§ 3802(a)(1); 18 Pa.C.S. § 4952(a)(6), respectively.
J-S16043-23

- 3 -

operator answered the call.”2] Appellant . . . grabbed [V]ictim’s 

phone and keys before fleeing the scene. As he left, Appellant 

. . . said “I’m going to kill you and your whole family.” 

Morrisville Borough [Police Corporal William Smith and 

Officer Erica McIntyre] responded to [V]ictim’s apartment to 

investigate the abandoned 9-1-1 call. They met with [V]ictim who 

described the assault. [Corporal Smith] passed Appellant[’s]

vehicle while driving to [V]ictim’s apartment. [He] immediately 

left the scene to try to find Appellant . . . or his vehicle. [Officer 

McIntyre] stayed with [V]ictim[ and] described [her] injuries:

[Victim] had various injuries about her face and neck. 

Around her neck there [were] red marks. On her face[,] her 

left ear had blood coming out of it. [There was blood on her 

nostril.3] There was a knot above her eye on her forehead. 

There was a knot on her chin as well as her cheekbone area. 

* * *

[Corporal Smith] found [Appellant’s] truck parked 

approximately five . . . miles away. The truck was running and 

Appellant . . . was sitting in the driver’s seat. [Corporal Smith]

approached Appellant . . . and noted he had pepper spray on him. 

[Corporal Smith] also noted Appellant . . . had a heavy odor of

[alcohol] about his person and that he was unsteady on his feet. 

Appellant . . . was irritated and non-cooperative. He was placed 

under arrest. [Officer McIntyre arrived at the scene to aid 

Corporal Smith and] recovered [V]ictim’s cellphone and keys from 

Appellant[’s] truck and . . . returned [them] to [V]ictim. [V]ictim 

immediately noticed that records of text messages and phone calls 

between her and Appellant . . . had been deleted. 

Trial Ct. Op. 10/31/22, at 1-3 (some paragraph breaks inserted & record 

citations omitted). 

____________________________________________

2 N.T. Jury Trial, 3/3/22, at 7.

3 N.T., 3/3/22, at 50. 
J-S16043-23

- 4 -

Appellant was arrested that same day. At Criminal Docket CP-09-CR0003679-2020 (Docket 3679), he was charged with two counts of robbery, 

and one count each of strangulation, terroristic threats, theft by unlawful 

taking, receiving stolen property (RSP), simple assault, DUI — general 

impairment, possession of an instrument of crime (PIC), and operation of a 

vehicle without ignition interlock.4 

Appellant was held at the Bucks County Correctional Facility, and 

“[a]bout a week after this incident [he] mailed two . . . separate letters from 

the [Facility] to [V]ictim requesting her not to appear in court.” Trial Ct. Op. 

at 3. Appellant also made “approximately [165] intercepted prison phone 

calls” to Victim. See id. In some of these phone calls, Appellant asked Victim

“to not come to court or testify against him.” Id. Based on the above conduct, 

Appellant was charged with two counts of witness intimidation at Criminal 

Docket CP-09-CR-0004952-2020 (Docket 4952). 

On February 16, 2021, the Commonwealth filed a motion to consolidate 

Dockets 3679 and 4952 for trial.

5

 The trial court held a hearing on September 

____________________________________________

4 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3701(a)(1)(iii), 2707(a)(1), 3921(a), 3925(a), 907(a), and 

3808(a)(1), respectively. 

5 Appellant was also charged at an additional docket, CP-09-CR-0003684-

2020, with one count each of operation of a vehicle without ignition interlock

and operating a vehicle while license was suspended, related to DUI for an

incident that occurred on January 23, 2020. See N.T. Sentencing, 4/7/22, at 

6-8. The Commonwealth did not seek to consolidate this matter with Dockets 

3679 and 4952 for trial; however, Appellant pleaded guilty to these charges 

on April 7, 2022, the same day he was sentenced for his convictions at Dockets 

3679 and 4952. 
J-S16043-23

- 5 -

8th, where the Commonwealth clarified it charged Appellant with two counts 

of witness intimidation based upon two letters he sent Victim while 

incarcerated, which it planned to present at trial. See N.T., 9/8/21, at 26-27. 

The Commonwealth also stated that it sought to admit some of the phone calls 

Appellant made to Victim while incarcerated to provide “context” for the two 

counts of witness intimidation. See id. at 27-29. The court directed the 

parties to come to an agreement as to which phone calls the Commonwealth 

would introduce at trial. See id. at 31. 

On September 16, 2021, the trial court granted the Commonwealth’s 

motion to consolidate Dockets 3679 and 4952 for trial. Order, 9/16/21. This 

matter proceeded to a two-day jury trial on March 2, 2022, where Victim, 

Corporal Smith, and Officer McIntyre testified. Relevant to Appellant’s claims 

on appeal, the Commonwealth played portions of four of the intercepted prison 

phone calls. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/2/22, at 89-92. The jury was not aware that 

Appellant was incarcerated while making the phone calls. We note the parties

had entered into a stipulation, which was read to the jury, that Appellant made 

phone calls to Victim, which were intercepted and recorded, and the 

recordings were redacted, but fair and accurate copies of the calls. Id. at 86-

88. On cross-examination, Appellant asked Victim if the four phone calls 

“represent[ed] an extremely small portion of” the approximately 165 phone 

calls. See id. at 103. The Commonwealth objected, stating this line of 

questioning “suggest[ed]” Appellant spoke to Victim about not coming to court 

only in those four calls, which was “not accurate.” Id. at 103-04. The 
J-S16043-23

- 6 -

Commonwealth argued Appellant’s counsel was “opening the door to more 

phone calls being played.” Id. at 104. The court sustained the objection and 

gave the jury a curative instruction, explaining that while Appellant’s 

questions implied “there may not have been other conversations regarding 

not coming to court[,]”the evidence was a “fair cross representation” of the 

calls. Id. at 112. 

The Commonwealth also presented Officer McIntyre’s body camera

footage, depicting a conversation immediately after the incident on June 12, 

2020, where the officer told Victim that Appellant would go to jail that day. 

See Trial Ct. Op. at 13-14. Officer McIntyre also explained that she did not 

know when Appellant would be released, and it would depend upon his ability 

to make bail. Id. Appellant then informed the trial court he wished to crossexamine the officer about the fact that he was incarcerated from the time of 

his arrest until trial. N.T., 3/3/22, at 69. However, the court ruled Appellant 

could only ask if Appellant was transported to the Bucks County Correctional 

Facility that day. Id. at 84-85. Appellant did not testify or present evidence 

on his own behalf. 

At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Appellant guilty at Docket 3679 

of one count each of robbery, strangulation, theft, simple assault, and DUI —
J-S16043-23

- 7 -

general impairment.

6

 At Docket 4952 the jury found him guilty of both counts 

of witness intimidation. 

On April 7, 2022, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of four 

to eight years’ incarceration at Docket 3879. At Docket 4952, the court 

sentenced Appellant to a term of four to eight years’ imprisonment, to run 

concurrently to the sentence at Docket 3879. 

On April 18, 2022, Appellant filed a post-sentence motion to reconsider 

his sentence, arguing it was “excessive[.]”7 Appellant’s Moton to Modify &

Reconsider Sentence, 4/18/22, at 2 (unpaginated). He also requested the 

trial court to hold a hearing. See id. Before ruling on this motion, the court

filed an order, stating that “by agreement of the parties,” Appellant shall

receive credit for time served since June 12, 2021. Order, 4/22/22. Because 

this order was filed within 30 days of the imposition of sentence, we consider 

it to be an amended judgment of sentence. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 (“[A] court 

____________________________________________

6 The trial court noted in its opinion Appellant was not convicted of robbery. 

See Trial Ct. Op. at 4. However, the verdict reflects he was found not guilty 

of one count of robbery under Section 3701(a)(1)(iii), and convicted of one 

count under Section 3701(a)(1)(iv). See N.T., 3/3/22, at 209-10. 

7 Appellant’s sentence was imposed on April 7, 2022. The tenth day after 

sentencing fell on a Sunday, and thus, Appellant had until the next business 

day to file a timely motion. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (for computations of time, 

if the last day of any such period shall fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or on a 

legal holiday, that day shall be omitted from the computation); Pa.R.Crim.P. 

720(A)(1) (written post sentenced motions must be filed within 10 days of 

sentencing). Therefore, Appellant’s post-sentence motion, filed Monday, April 

18th, was timely. 
J-S16043-23

- 8 -

upon notice to the parties may modify or rescind any order within 30 days 

after its entry . . . if no appeal from such order has been taken or allowed.”). 

On May 4th, the trial court entered a second order, denying Appellant’s 

request for a hearing. Order, 5/4/22. 

Appellant filed timely, separate notices of appeal at each docket8 and 

complied with the trial court’s order to file a statement of errors complained 

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

9

 He raises the following claims 

for our review:

A. Did the trial court err in giving an improper curative instruction 

regarding the phone calls from Appellant to [Victim]?

B. Did the trial court err in refusing to allow Appellant to crossexamine Officer McIntyre regarding Appellant’s incarceration?

Appellant’s Brief at 9. 

____________________________________________

8 On November 28, 2022, this Court sua sponte consolidated Appellant’s 

appeals. Order, 11/28/22. 

9 The trial court’s Rule 1925(b) order does not appear in the certified record. 

However, the criminal docket reflects that the court granted Appellant an 

extension to file his Rule 1925(b) statement, and this order was served upon 

him on September 26, 2022. Appellant filed his statement on September 

29th. See Docket 3679 at 25; Docket 4952 at 23. Neither the court nor the 

parties raise concerns as to the timeliness of Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) 

statement. 

We further note Appellant raised two additional claims in his Rule 

1925(b) statement: (1) the trial court erred in consolidating Dockets 3679 and 

4952 for trial; and (2) the trial court gave an improper jury instruction 

regarding witness intimidation. See Appellant’s Statement of Matters 

Complained of on Appeal, 9/29/22. He abandons these claims on appeal. 
J-S16043-23

- 9 -

In his first claim, Appellant argues the trial court gave an improper 

curative instruction to the jury regarding the contents of the intercepted prison 

phones calls played at trial. Appellant’s Brief at 12. As discussed above, the 

Commonwealth presented portions of four of the phone calls made by 

Appellant to Victim. Before the phone calls were played, the trial court read 

the following stipulation, made by the parties, to the jury:

[Appellant] called [Victim] and spoke with [her]. The phone calls 

were intercepted and recorded. The intercepted phone calls are

fair and accurate copies of the intercepted phone calls, with 

portions redacted pursuant to pretrial rulings from [the trial 

court]. 

N.T., 3/2/22, at 87-88. The Commonwealth then played the portions of the 

four phone calls for the jury. Id. at 89-92. 

On Appellant’s cross examination of Victim, the following exchange 

occurred concerning the phone calls:

[Appellant’s counsel]: So over the course of 160 phone calls, at

10 to 15 minutes or so, rough low estimate, a piece, that 

represents an extremely small portion of those phone calls. Is 

that fair to say?

[Commonwealth]: Objection, Your Honor. . . .

* * *

(Whereupon, the following discussion was held at sidebar)

[Commonwealth: T]here are numerous redactions that were made 

in anticipation of [the trial court’s] rulings, in addition to a

redaction that [the court] ordered. I think that [Appellant’s] 

counsel’s questions right now are trying to suggest that the only 

time [Appellant] said something about getting help or not coming 

to court is what we’ve heard, which we all know is not accurate. 
J-S16043-23

- 10 -

I think that [Appellant’s] counsel is opening the door to more 

phone calls being played. 

Minimally[,] I would ask [the trial court] to give an 

instruction that [it] approved what was being played and [it]

ordered redactions in this case[.] I think the Commonwealth is

being prejudiced right now by the implication that we’re hiding

other phone calls that [the court] ordered couldn’t come in or that

we all agreed that I wouldn’t reference him being in jail, all these

other things, and so I would ask minimally for a curative 

instruction.

But also[,] I would ask potentially to play additional portions 

of phone calls with this line of questioning. 

* * *

[Appellant’s counsel]: I respectfully disagree. I think what I’m

getting at here is completely different than what [the 

Commonwealth] thinks that I’m trying to get at. 

What I’m trying to get at here is we’re talking about portions 

of phone calls that are this big, but, in fact, there [are] 160 phone 

calls that are made between . . . the two individuals, and that in 

those phone calls they talk about a variety of other things 

including, I’ve already referenced, the relationship. 

My point is just to make that this is just a small portion of 

those phones calls that . . . have been played.

[Trial court]: The objection is sustained. The clear implication is

. . . that the four calls were the only calls that had anything to do 

with . . . threatening or intimidation of a witness, and they have 

been redacted, and I think that you’re opening the door for her to 

bring in every other phone call to prove. I mean you’re saying 

[these are] the only times he said anything, and these are love

letters,[10] and this is, and that’s not what’s true. 

* * *

____________________________________________

10 Appellant’s counsel referred to the two letters, which were the basis for the 

witness intimidation charges, as “love letters.” See N.T., 3/2/22, at 97. 
J-S16043-23

- 11 -

[Trial court:] The remedy is [Appellant’s counsel] either [ends that 

line of questioning] or we listen to 165 phone calls. . . .

* * *

[The court’s] concern is the point that you are clearly 

making is that only four phone calls even contain mention of not 

coming to court. I don’t know. I didn’t listen to the 165 phone 

calls, but according to the Commonwealth, it’s mentioned in a lot 

of them. If so, [the Commonwealth is] going to be permitted to 

play them if you are going to make the —

* * *

[argument] that that’s all that exists. 

* * *

[Trial court]: I will give a cautionary instruction unless you want

to continue [with this questioning]. I’m not trying to limit you. 

[Appellant’s counsel]: I understand. 

N.T., 3/2/22, at 103-09. 

The trial court then gave the following curative instruction:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, prior to today’s trial we’ve 

had pretrial hearings in this matter, specifically concerning what 

evidence gets presented to the [c]ourt. And there have been a 

significant number of phone calls that have been intercepted. You 

heard four. You could hear all 165 of them. You’d probably be 

banging your head against the wall if I made you listen to 165 

because that’s what I was doing when I was listening to them[.] 

They are all very similar in the sense that you heard 

[Appellant and Victim] discuss many things within the phone call. 

We’ve picked and limited it to these. 

However, [Appellant’s counsel] has stated . . . that there 

may not have been other conversations regarding not coming to 

court. I don’t believe that to be accurate in the phone calls. I

think that this is a fair cross representation of those phone calls, 
J-S16043-23

- 12 -

and they were ones that I decided should be heard in court, and I 

limited the Commonwealth from presenting many more of those 

because you hear the quality of the conversation, and it’s not like 

they’re crystal clear and you can clearly hear. All of them are that 

way. 

So that’s the reason for the ruling. . . . And you should not

consider that there are only four calls that mention anything about

not coming to court. . . . 

N.T., 3/2/22, at 111-12 (paragraph break inserted). 

Returning to Appellant’s argument, he avers the above curative 

instruction was improper. Appellant’s Brief at 13. First, he states that the

instruction referenced the remaining phone calls, which were not admitted 

into evidence, and thus “created a great risk of confusing the jury.” Id. 

Specifically, he argues the jury was instructed that in the remaining phone 

calls, Appellant told Victim “not to come to court.” Id. Next, he contends this 

suggested the Commonwealth had evidence of 165 instances of witness 

intimidation. Id. Appellant also maintains the instruction “commented on the 

credibility of defense counsel by instructing the jury that [his] comment [was] 

not accurate[.]” Id. at 14. He insists the court’s comment “accus[ing] counsel 

of attempting to mislead the jury” prejudiced Appellant and deprived him of a 

fair trial. Id. at 15. We conclude no relief is due. 

“[T]he decision to give curative instructions is within the sound 

discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent manifest error.” 

Commonwealth v. Ford, 650 A.2d 433, 442 (Pa. 1994). “A trial court’s

curative instructions must be viewed in the context of what occurred, i.e., 

what evidence was previously excluded and subsequently allowed, and when
J-S16043-23

- 13 -

it was allowed.” Commonwealth v. Padilla, 923 A.2d 1189, 1196 (Pa. 

Super. 2007) (emphases & citation omitted). 

Further, our review of a trial court’s evidentiary rulings is wellestablished:

The admission or exclusion of evidence is within the sound 

discretion of the trial court, and in reviewing a challenge to the

admissibility of evidence, we will only reverse a ruling by the trial 

court upon a showing that it abused its discretion or committed 

an error of law. Thus[,] our standard of review is very narrow. 

To constitute reversible error, an evidentiary ruling must not only 

be erroneous, but also harmful or prejudicial to the complaining 

party.

Commonwealth v. Bond, 190 A.3d 664, 667 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation 

omitted). 

The trial court concluded it did not err when it gave the jury a curative 

instruction after Appellant’s line of questioning. See Trial Ct. Op. at 7. It 

noted, “The letters and phone calls were consistent in that they concerned the 

nature of the parties’ relationship and its future. They also advised [V]ictim 

of the necessity of her not going to court or testifying against Appellant[,] or 

there would be no future.” Id. at 11. The court determined that on crossexamination of Victim, Appellant “strongly implied” that the four phone calls 

were the only calls where he asked Victim not to come to court and testify, 

and this “was simply not true.” Id. After discussing the matter with the 

parties, the court decided a cautionary instruction was proper and would

“correct a false impression or belief.” Id. at 11-12. 
J-S16043-23

- 14 -

We agree with the trial court’s determination that it did not abuse its 

discretion. Appellant’s line of questioning implied that the remainder of the 

165 phone calls did not include additional requests for Victim to not testify. 

See N.T., 3/2/22, at 103 (asking Victim if the four calls played only 

represented an “extremely small portion of those phone calls”). Appellant 

claimed he sought to demonstrate merely that “a small portion of those 

phones calls . . . have been played[,]” without any implication that the 

requests were only in those four calls. See id. at 105. We disagree with 

Appellant and, instead, accept the trial court’s conclusions. 

Additionally, the trial court’s curative instruction did not prejudice 

Appellant. At trial, he implied that the four calls were isolated events of his

requesting Victim not to attend the trial. The Commonwealth disagreed and 

requested a curative instruction. See N.T., 3/2/22, at 103-04. It was 

appropriate for the court to then provide an instruction, mindful of “the context

of what occurred” during the cross-examination. See Padilla, 923 A.2d at

1196. As Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the court abused its 

discretion, no relief is due. See Bond, 190 A.3d at 667; Ford, 650 A.2d at

442. 

In his second claim, Appellant argues the trial court erred when it did 

not allow him to cross-examine Officer McIntyre about the timeline of his 

incarceration. Appellant’s Brief at 17. Relevant to this claim, the 

Commonwealth offered into evidence Officer McIntyre’s police body camera 

footage from the day of the incident showing a conversation between the 
J-S16043-23

- 15 -

officer and Victim. See N.T., 3/3/22, at 28-29. Appellant objected to the 

relevancy of all the body camera footage, but the trial court permitted the 

Commonwealth to present it to the jury. Id. at 29-31. The footage at issue 

showed the following conversation between Officer McIntyre and Victim 

immediately following the incident:

[Officer McIntyre: Appellant will] be going to Bucks County prison 

today. I don’t know how long he’ll stay[. H]e’ll have to get . . . 

bailed out but that’s up to . . . whatever he can do.

[Victim]: Can’t y’all please make sure [Appellant] does not come 

nowhere near me?

[Officer McIntyre]: Well it will be up to the Judge, the Judge will 

have that . . . set up that [Appellant] can’t have any contact with 

you. If he gets out of prison . . . can I stop him from coming here? 

I can’t. I’m not go[ing] to lie to you.

Trial Ct. Op. at 13-14.11 

After the Commonwealth played this video, Appellant’s counsel argued 

it “flings the door wide open to [questions about] incarceration[,]” and stated 

he intended to cross-examine Officer McIntyre about Appellant’s incarceration. 

See N.T., 3/3/22, at 69. Specifically, counsel averred:

[B]ased on the video evidence . . . of [Appellant] being placed into 

custody in the police vehicle, under arrest, in handcuffs, moved to 

another vehicle, and then . . . there [are] discussions . . . about 

[Appellant] being taken into custody [and] to the Bucks County 

Correctional Facility[.] I think there was testimony by Corporal 

Smith about [Appellant] at the hospital, how he had to be cleared 

____________________________________________

11 A transcript of this conversation was not included in the trial transcript. 

However, the trial court partially transcribed it in its opinion. See Trial Ct. 

Op. at 13-14 n.1. The parties do not dispute the accuracy of this transcription. 

Copies of the body camera footage were also included in the certified record. 
J-S16043-23

- 16 -

for incarceration[.] I think at this point I’m seeking potentially to 

introduce the fact that [Appellant] is incarcerated. 

Id. at 69, 74-75. The Commonwealth noted it removed “countless phones 

calls” with “any reference to [Appellant] being currently incarcerated” as it 

was not relevant for the jury to consider. Id. at 77. After extensive discussion 

between the parties and the trial court, the court concluded Appellant could 

only ask the officer whether he was transported to the Bucks County facility 

that day. Id. at 69-85. 

Returning to Appellant’s argument on appeal, he avers he should have 

been permitted to cross-examine Officer McIntyre about the fact that he was 

incarcerated from the day of the incident through trial. Appellant’s Brief at 

17. He insists the video footage “opened the door” to this line of questioning, 

and the preclusion of it deprived him of his right to present a defense. Id. at 

17-18. Appellant maintains that Victim’s concerns about his whereabouts

implied she was afraid of him, but he reasons “[t]he fact that [he] was 

incarcerated at the time [of the] phone calls . . . would negate this implication 

of fear because [Victim] had to accept each of the . . . phone calls.” Id. at 

20. Appellant claims this knowledge would have demonstrated to the jury

that he knew the calls were being recorded, which was “relevant to undercut 

the implication that [Victim] was afraid of [him].” Id. at 21. In support, 

Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Yale, 249 A.3d 1001 (Pa. 2021), which 

he summarizes to have “expanded the enhanced state constitutional right to 

present a defense to include the right to present evidence.” Appellant’s Brief 

at 18. 
J-S16043-23

- 17 -

Preliminarily, we conclude Appellant’s reliance on Yale is misplaced. In 

Yale, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held a defendant may introduce 

evidence of a third party’s guilt if it is relevant to their defense and the 

prejudicial value does not outweigh the probative value. See Yale, 249 A.3d 

at 1004, 1025. While the Court highlighted the right to present a defense, its 

holding focused on presenting evidence of third-party guilt as a defense. See

id. These facts are not analogous to the present matter, where there was no 

alleged third party involved in the incident. As such, we do not consider Yale

governing authority. 

Next, we note the trial court suggests Appellant has waived this claim 

when he failed to object to the content of the videos, but instead only 

challenged their relevancy. See Trial Ct. Op. at 12-14. However, Appellant 

responds his claim is “clearly preserved” as he “requested to explore [a topic]

on cross-examination[,]” which the court did not allow. Appellant’s Brief at 

17 n.1. We agree that a fair reading of the trial testimony encompasses 

Appellant’s argument on appeal. See N.T. 3/3/22, at 69-85. For this reason, 

we decline to find that Appellant waived this claim. Nevertheless, we conclude 

Appellant is not entitled to relief. 

“The Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution provides that all criminal defendants enjoy ‘the right to confront 

and cross-examine adverse witnesses.’” Commonwealth v. Rosser, 135 

A.3d 1077, 1087 (Pa. Super. 2016) (en banc) (citation omitted). “[T]he trial 

court has broad discretion regarding both the scope and permissible limits of 
J-S16043-23

- 18 -

cross-examination. The trial [court’s] exercise of judgment in setting those 

limits will not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of that discretion, 

or an error of law.” Id. (citations & quotation marked omitted). Additionally:

Although the right of cross-examination is a fundamental right, it 

is not absolute. The trial court may place reasonable limits on 

defense counsel’s cross-examination of a prosecution witness 

“based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, 

prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or 

interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.” 

“Generally speaking, the Confrontation Clause guarantees an 

opportunity for effective cross-examination, not crossexamination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever 

extent, the defense might wish.” 

Id. at 1087-88 (citations omitted). 

The trial court concluded it did not improperly limit the scope of 

Appellant’s cross-examination of Officer McIntyre. Trial Ct. Op. at 12. It 

reasoned:

[T]he question of whether, or for how long, Appellant . . . was 

incarcerated at the Bucks County Correctional Facility prior to trial 

is irrelevant to the question of his guilt. It was clearly beyond the 

scope of cross-examination of [Officer McIntyre]. . . . 

. . . [T]he testimony regarding the arrest of an individual and the 

procedures surrounding bail and release do not “open the door” 

to testimony about the length of time a person was incarcerated. 

Testimony involving the length of incarceration prior to trial is 

irrelevant. Further, [Officer McIntyre] was not the appropriate 

witness to be questioned on this topic.

Id. at 14-15. 

We agree with the trial court’s conclusions. Despite Appellant’s 

assertions, the mere facts that he was incarcerated and that Victim accepted 

his phone calls, do not automatically “negate” any implication of Victim’s fear. 
J-S16043-23

- 19 -

See Appellant’s Brief at 20. Even so, if Appellant were permitted to follow 

this line of questioning, Officer McIntyre was merely one of the arresting 

officers and told Victim immediately after the incident, she did not know how 

long Appellant would be in prison or if he was going to post bail. See Trial Ct. 

Op. at 13. Thus, the trial court reasonably inferred the officer was not the 

proper witness to question on this matter. See id. at 14-15. It was 

appropriate for the court to limit the scope of cross-examination to facts within 

the officer’s knowledge. See Rosser, 135 A.3d at 1087. Appellant has not 

demonstrated that the trial court erred or abused its discretion, and as such, 

no relief is due. 

As Appellant has failed to establish that the trial court committed error 

when it gave the jury a curative instruction regarding the phone calls or limited 

the scope of cross-examination to facts within Officer McIntyre’s knowledge, 

he is not entitled to relief.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Date: 10/19/2023