J-S18041-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JASON F. FORD 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1225 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 26, 2019

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

No(s): CP-14-CR-0001095-2018

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MAY 21, 2020

Appellant Jason F. Ford appeals the judgment of sentence entered by 

the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County after a jury convicted Appellant 

of Manufacture, Delivery or Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent 

to Manufacture or Deliver, Possession of a Controlled Substance, Criminal Use 

of a Communication Facility, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Appellant 

claims the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to give one of his 

requested jury instructions. After careful review, we affirm.

The following factual background was developed at Appellant’s jury trial 

that was held on November 9, 2018: in June 2018, drug task force officers

conducted surveillance of Appellant’s residence at 143 Fairlawn Avenue in 

Houserville, Pennsylvania, after receiving numerous citizen reports of

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S18041-20

- 2 -

suspected drug trafficking at this home. The drug task force observed several 

individuals drive to Appellant’s residence, enter for a brief period of time, and 

leave the residence shortly thereafter. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 11/9/18, 

37-42, 44-45, 48-49. 

In particular, the officers observed an individual named Terry Miller 

making multiple brief stops at Appellant’s home. On June 13, 2018, officers 

watched as a Dodge Dakota driven by Clint Wagner dropped Miller off at 

Appellant’s home. Ten minutes later, Miller exited Appellant’s home and was 

picked up by a white Kia sedan driven by Brian Foster. N.T. at 47, 50-53.

The officers subsequently stopped the Kia sedan and detained Foster 

and Miller. In a search of the vehicle, officers discovered a pipe containing 

marijuana residue, a marijuana grinder, a pill grinder, a small amount of 

marijuana in a pill container, two small bags of crystal methamphetamine,1 a 

Buprenophine tablet, and a digital scale. Miller also was found in possession 

of a small amount of crystal methamphetamine. N.T. at 53-56, 131-32.

At trial, Miller admitted he was addicted to methamphetamine and 

traveled to Appellant’s home several times a day to purchase this drug. Miller 

recalled that on June 13, 2018, that he attempted to purchase $250 worth of 

drugs from Appellant. However, as Appellant did not have that quantity of 

drugs in his possession, Appellant gave Miller one gram of methamphetamine 

and a Subutex pill, admitted that he still owed Miller $90 worth of drugs, and 

____________________________________________

1 The two bags contained a total weight of 1.02 grams of methamphetamine. 

N.T. at 99-101.
J-S18041-20

- 3 -

promised to call Miller after he received more methamphetamine from his 

supplier. After this transaction, officers stopped Foster’s vehicle (in which 

Miller was a passenger), and discovered Miller in possession of 

methamphetamine. N.T. at 187-191.

Miller explained that he had a custom of arranging with other drug users 

(including Wagner and Foster) to pool their money in order to “all take turns” 

buying drugs and splitting the drugs amongst themselves. Miller explained 

that he had a digital scale to make sure that each individual received their 

proper share of the drugs. Both Wagner and Foster confirmed that they would 

share drug purchases with Appellant. Wagner indicated that he would drive 

Appellant around in his vehicle in exchange for Appellant providing him with 

small amounts of methamphetamine. N.T. at 146, 160-61, 180-83, 191, 217.

In the evening hours of June 13, 2018, drug task force officers stopped 

a silver Chevy Impala that had departed from Appellant’s home. Officers 

discovered that Tyler Alterio was the driver of the vehicle and Kaitlyn Rearick 

was the passenger. Alterio was found to be in possession of 

methamphetamine. N.T. at 125-28, 132-133.

At trial, Rearick claimed that Alterio had given her $120 for her to obtain 

methamphetamine for him. Rearick indicated that after she heard Appellant 

sold methamphetamine, she contacted Appellant on Facebook and arranged

to meet him. On June 13, 2018, Rearick met with Appellant at his home to 

buy the drugs, some of which she used intravenously while she was waiting 

for Alterio to pick her up. After Alterio arrived Rearick up from Appellant’s 
J-S18041-20

- 4 -

home, he was pulled over by police shortly thereafter. Rearick asserted that

this was the first and only time that she had purchased methamphetamine 

from Appellant and had never met him before June 13, 2018. N.T. at 125-

128, 222, 229.

On June 14, 2018, officers executed a search warrant for Appellant’s 

home. In one of the bedrooms, officers recovered $979 U.S. currency in 

Appellant’s wallet, a pill bottle on Appellant’s nightstand containing a 

powdered substance,

2 Clonazepam pills, two bags of suspected 

methamphetamine, three syringes, an appointment card for Appellant, and an 

envelope addressed to Appellant at the 143 Fairlawn Avenue address. Officers 

also confiscated two digital scales, various items of drug paraphernalia, and 

multiple BB guns. Detective Donald Paul testified in his experience as a drug 

investigator, he observed that individuals who are not permitted to possess 

firearms often buy BB guns, which can look like real firearms. N.T. at 69-

74; Inventory of Seized Property, at 1.

Detective Donald Paul also testified that he investigated Appellant’s 

work history using Appellant’s Social Security number, which showed that over 

the previous four years, Appellant had only worked in one quarter in 2017. 

N.T. at 79. 

____________________________________________

2 Officer Donald Paul testified that the powder was suspected to be a “cutting 

agent,” a substance that drug dealers mix with their drug to increase the 

volume of their product and their profit. N.T. at 69-70. 
J-S18041-20

- 5 -

On November 19, 2019, a jury convicted Appellant of the 

aforementioned offenses. On March 26, 2019, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant to two consecutive terms of 21 to 60 months’ imprisonment for two 

counts of PWID and one consecutive term of 12 to 60 months’ imprisonment 

for the Criminal Use of a Communication Facility charge. Appellant filed a 

timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court subsequently denied. 

Appellant filed this timely appeal and complied with the trial court’s direction 

to file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

Appellant raises one issue for our review on appeal:

Did the trial court err in refusing to instruction the jury on 

[Appellant’s] requested point for charge, No. 5, Pennsylvania 

Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instruction, 4.06, Certain 

Testimony Subject to Special Scrutiny, with respect to the 

testimony of Commonwealth witnesses Tyler Alterio, Brian Foster, 

Terry Miller, Kaitlyn Rearick, and Clint Wagner?

Appellant’s Brief, at 13.

Our standard of review is well-established:

In reviewing a jury charge, we determine “whether the trial court 

committed a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law which 

controlled the outcome of the case.” We must view the charge as 

a whole; the trial court is free to use its own form of expression 

in creating the charge. “Our key inquiry is whether the instruction

on a particular issue adequately, accurately and clearly presents 

the law to the jury, and is sufficient to guide the jury in its 

deliberations.” Moreover,

it is well-settled that “the trial court has wide discretion in 

fashioning jury instructions. The trial court is not required 

to give every charge that is requested by the parties, and 

its refusal to give a requested charge does not require 
J-S18041-20

- 6 -

reversal unless the appellant was prejudiced by that 

refusal.”

Commonwealth v. Wise, 171 A.3d 784, 787-88 (Pa. Super. 

2017) (citations and brackets omitted), appeal denied, ––– Pa. –

–––, 186 A.3d 939 (2018). A defendant “may not claim 

entitlement to an instruction that has no basis in the evidence 

presented during trial.” Commonwealth v. Hairston, 624 Pa. 

143, 84 A.3d 657, 668 (2014) (citation omitted).

Commonwealth v. Soto, 202 A.3d 80, 98–99 (Pa.Super. 2018). “A charge 

will be found adequate unless the issues are not made clear, the jury was 

misled by the instructions, or there was an omission from the charge 

amounting to a fundamental error.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 602 Pa. 

224, 980 A.2d 35, 50 (2009).

Specifically, Appellant claims that he was entitled to a “corrupt source” 

jury instruction. We are guided by the following principles:

[A “corrupt and polluted source”] instruction is required when an 

accomplice's testimony implicates the defendant; the instruction 

informs the jury “that the accomplice is a corrupt and polluted 

source whose testimony should be viewed with great caution.” 

Commonwealth v. Smith, 609 Pa. 605, 17 A.3d 873, 906 (2011) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 536 Pa. 244, 639 A.2d 9, 

13 (1994)). This instruction is necessary if the trial evidence is 

sufficient to present an inference that a Commonwealth witness 

was an accomplice. Smith, 17 A.3d at 906.

Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 644 Pa. 386, 434–35, 177 A.3d 136, 165 

(2018). 

The Crimes Code provides the following definition of “accomplice”:

(c) Accomplice defined.—A person is an accomplice of another 

person in the commission of an offense if:

(1) with the intent of promoting or facilitating the 

commission of the offense, he:
J-S18041-20

- 7 -

(i) solicits such other person to commit it; or

(ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person 

in planning or committing it; or

(2) his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his 

complicity.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 306(c).

However, “a person is not an accomplice in an offense committed by 

another person if the offense is so defined that his conduct is inevitably 

incident to its commission.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 306(f)(2). This Court has held 

that the conduct of a buyer who purchases a small quantity of drugs “is

‘inevitably incident’ to the delivery of drugs and [t]his conduct cannot be

considered that of an accomplice.” Commonwealth v. Fisher, 627 A.2d 732, 

733 (Pa.Super. 1993).

Appellant does not develop any argument on appeal to explain why the 

corrupt source instruction was necessary in that the evidence would allow the 

jury to infer that any of the prosecution’s witnesses (Miller, Foster, Wagner, 

Alterio, and Rearick) were his accomplices. Instead, Appellant argues that 

the prosecution witnesses were all biased as they had not yet been charged 

in connection with their June 13, 2018 arrests. Appellant argues that the trial 

court should have specifically charged the jury to carefully scrutinize and 

consider the testimony of these five witnesses with caution. 

In reviewing the record, we note that evidence presented by both the 

prosecution and defense fully apprised the jury that Miller, Foster, Wagner, 

Alterio, and Rearick had interests in testifying for the Commonwealth. 
J-S18041-20

- 8 -

Detective Paul admitted on direct examination that none of these five 

witnesses had been formally charged in connection with their June 13, 2018 

arrests. Detective Paul testified that after Appellant’s trial, the district 

attorney’s office would “review every case individually and determine in the 

end if and what charges they get charged with.” N.T. at 106. Defense counsel 

also aptly highlighted the bias of the prosecution witnesses and their motive 

to testify for the Commonwealth.

Moreover, the trial court provided the jury with a thorough instruction 

on witness credibility. The trial court emphasized that the jury members were 

the “sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony” and 

indicated the jury “must judge the truthfulness and accuracy of each witness’s 

testimony to decide whether or not to believe all or part or none of that 

testimony.” N.T. at 353. In providing a list of factors for the jury to consider 

when deciding whether to believe a witness’s testimony, the trial court 

specifically instructed the jury to assess whether the witness had “any interest 

in the outcome of the case, bias, prejudice, or other motive that might [a]ffect 

his or her testimony.” N.T. at 353-54. 

Considering the trial court’s instruction on credibility and the fact that 

the jury was made aware that the five prosecution witnesses had an interest 

in testifying for the Commonwealth, we find the trial court’s instructions 

“adequately, accurately and clearly present[ed] the law to the jury, and [were] 

sufficient to guide the jury in its deliberations.” Soto, supra. Accordingly, 

we conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief.
J-S18041-20

- 9 -

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 5/21/2020