### J - A11019 - 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. JAMES BROOKS, Appellant No. 588 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of September 16 , 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP - 51 - CR - 0011224 - 2012 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON AND WECHT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 05, 2015 Appellant, James Brooks, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on September 16, 2013, as made final by the denial of Appellant’s post - sentence motion on January 16, 2014. We affirm. The t rial court has ably explained the underlying facts of this case: On the evening of January 25, 2012, [Appellant and Appellant’s co
- defendant, Tyrone Jefferson (Jefferson)] walked together along Bridge Street in the direction of Torresdale Avenue[, in Phil adelphia]. After the pair crossed Ditman Street, they passed a house [on] Bridge Street, where Quadir Bush (Bush) and [Bush’s] cousins were celebrating a family member’s birthday. Bush’s cousins, Mark Brown (Brown) and Darryl Wallace (Wallace), both desc ribed feeling uneasy as Jefferson and [Appellant] walked past. At the intersection of Bridge Street and Torresdale Avenue, four of [Appellant’s] friends
– Ali Ellis (Ellis), Zakeem Singleton (Singleton), Dhubair Muhamad (Muhamad), and Mysheer Pryor (Pryor )
– stood, smoking cigarettes together

### J - A11019 - 15

- 2 - outside of a corner store. Jefferson and [Appellant] spoke to Ellis and Muhamad for two
- and
- a - half to five minutes. After that conversation, Jefferson and [Appellant] doubled
back [and walked] north on Bridge Street in the direction from which they had come. Jefferson and [Appellant] walked directly to Bush and his cousins, where [Appellant] asked if anyone had marijuana. In response, Bush and his cousins laughed; they told [Appellant] that they did not have any ma rijuana. [Appellant] pressed [and asked] for drugs a second time. The cousins once again answered in the negative, angering [Appellant]. Wallace [testified] that [Appellant] “went from 0 to 100.” [Appellant] then said, “you all think I’m playing[?]” an d told Jefferson to pass him a gun. Jefferson took a revolver from the waistband of his pants and handed it to [Appellant]. [Appellant] [] pointed the gun at the cousins, prompting Wallace and Brown to run for cover. As they ran toward the house, [App ellant] aimed the gun at Bush’s head [and pulled] the trigger [from] less than two feet away. A single bullet penetrated Bush’s head, killing him. Immediately thereafter, Jefferson and [Appellant] ran away together “down Torresdale towards Pratt.”

. . . On September 16, 2013, following a jury trial[, Appellant] was found guilty of [first degree murder, criminal conspiracy, and possessing instruments of crime 1 

### ]. That same day, [the trial court] sentenced [Appellant] to the mandatory term of life imprisonment for murder of the first degree. On September 20, 2013, [Appellant] filed [a] post
sentence motion[], which [the trial court] denied on January 16, 2014. Trial Court Opinion, 6/17/14, at 1
- 3 (internal footnotes and citations omitted and some internal corrections omitted).

____________________________________________ 1 

### 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 903(a), and 907(a), respectively.

### J - A11019 - 15

- 3 -

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal; Appellant now raises one claim to this Court:

Did the trial court commit an abuse of discre tion when it overruled objections to comments made by the prosecutor during his closing speech wherein he gave his personal opinion regarding testimony given by Ali Ellis, [a/k/a] Hawk and told the jury that the defense had a duty to interview and take sta tements from witnesses even though the police had not done so? Appellant’s Brief at 3. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, and the thorough and well
- written opinion of the able trial judge, the Honorable Tere sa Sarmina. We conclude that the claim raised in Appellant’s brief is meritless and that the trial court’s opinion, filed on June 17, 2014, meticulously and accurately explains why Appellant’s claim fails. Therefore, we adopt the trial court’s opinion as our own. In any future filings with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/5/20151 4 As to the conviction fo r criminal conspiracy, this Court sentenc e d th e defendant to a concurrent term of not less than 20 years nor more than 40 years confinement. N.T. 9/16/13 at 71. A s to the conviction for PIC, this Court sentenced the defendant to a concurrent term of not les s than one y e ar nor more than five }'Cars confinement. Id. 318 Pa
. C.S. § 1102(a)(1). 2 18 P a.C.S. §§ 2502(a), 9 03(a), and 907(a), respectively. 1 111e defendant was tried alongside Tyrone Jefferson 

### O efferson), CP-51-CR

- 0008441

- 2012 , Superior Court Docket No. 776 EDA 2014. Jeffer s on was convicted of murder of the third degree (F-1), criminal conspiracy (F-1 ), and possessing instruments of crime (P I C) (M-1). Note s of Testimony (N.T.) 9/16/13 at 59. February 12, 2014, the defendant filed this timely appeal. 2013, the defendant filed post-sentence motions, which this Court denied on January 16, 2014. On to the mandatory term'' of life imprisonm e nt for murder of the first degree. 4 On Septemb e r 20, possessing instruments of crime (PIC) (M-1). 2 That same date, this Court sentenced the defendan t I

. I defendant) was found guilty of murder of the first degree (H-1), criminal conspiracy (F-1), and On September 16, 2013, following a jury trial' before this Court,James Brooks (the 

### PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

## JUN 1 7 

## 2014 Criminal Appeals Unit F i rs t 1- I 

## udicial District of P/.t OPINION Sarmina,J. 

### June 17, 2014 

### JAMBS BROOKS Superior Court Docket No. 588 EDA2014 

### v. CP-51-CR-0011224-2012 COMMONW'EALTH

PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION Circulated 05/11/2015 12:25 PM2 7 T he comer s tore is located at the inter s ection of Bridge Street and Torres<lale Avenue. Elli s , S ingleton, Muharnad, and Pryor had been on the comer smoking cigarettes for about ten minutes before the defendant and Jefferson approached. N.T. 9/12/13 at 160

- 61. Ordinarily, the s e four friends did n o t spend an extended period of time in this area. Id. at 195; N.T. 9/13/13 at 76, 192. 6 Jeffer s on and the defendant had played ba s ketball with these four individuals in the past at \\'lute Hall Park, five blocks away from Bridge Street and Torresdale Avenue. N.T. 9/12/13 at 114; N. T
. 9/13/13 at 176, 184-85, 191-92. 5 Roughly fourteen months earlier, on the evening of November 20, 2012, Philadelphia Police Officer John Descher had encountered Jeffe r son and the defendant together, walking northbound on 5000 Ton:esdale Avenue, approximately two to five blocks away from the inters e ction of Bridge Street and Torresdale Avenue. N.T. 9/11 

### /13 at 135-40, 142. the defendant. Wallace stated that the defendant "went from O to 100." Id. at 59. The defendant pressed, asking for drugs a second ti.me. The cousins once again answered in the negative, angeti.ng cousins laughed; they told the defendant that they did not have any marijuana. The defendant the defendant asked if anyone had marijuana. N.T. 

### 9/11/13 at 24. In response, Bush and his which they had come. Jefferson and the defendant walked directly to Bush and his cousins, where Jefferson and the defendant doubled-back, walking north on Bridge Street in the direction from two-and-a-half to five minutes. N.T. 

### 9/10/13 at 

### 91; N.T. 

### 9/12/13 at 166. After that conversation, 244

- 45; N.T. 9/13/13 at 79-80, 88. Jefferson and the defendant spoke to Ellis and Muhamad for \ (P1-yor)6- stood, smoking cigarettes together outside of a corner store. 7 N.T. 9/12/13 at 161

- 2, Ali Ellis (Ellis), Zakeem Singleton (Singleton), Dhubair Muharnad (Muhamad), and Mysheer Pryor At the intersection of Btidge Street and Tonesdale Avenue, four of the defendant's friends - at 

### 103-04;

N.T. 

### 9/11/13 at 23. (\Vallace), both described feeling uneasy as Jefferson and the defendant walked past. N.T. 9/10/13 9/11/13 at 24; N.T. 9/13/13 at 186. Bush's c o usins, Mark Brown (Brown) and Darryl Wallace (Bu s h) and his cousins were celebrating a family member's birthday. N.T. 9/10/13 at 84; N.T. After the pair crossed Ditman Street, they passed a house at 2091 Bridge Street, where Quadit Bush Bridge Street in the direction of Torresdale A v enue. 5 N.T. 9/10/13 at 83-84; N.T. 9/11/13 at 24. On the evening of January 25, 2012, Jeffer s on and the defendant walked together along FACTS Circulated 05/11/2015 12:25 PM

### 3 8 A s the d e f

e nd ant h as no t all eg ed th at th e pro s e c uto r ' s con du c t vio l at ed a s tatu t o ril y p ro te ct e d rig h t, thi s C o urt w ill onl y addr es s th e defen d ant' s cl aim of pro sec utori al misc o ndu c t as bein g root ed in a vio lati o n of a c o nstitutionall y prot ec ted ri g h t. p ro p e rty, with o ut du e pr oce ss of law. " U
. S
. CONST
. amend. 

### X I V,§ 1. \X l bil e the re i s n o " prec i s e the Unite d S tate s Co ns ti tuti on e s tabli s he s th at n o S tate s hall " dep ri ve any per so n o f life, liberty, or C o mm o nwe alth v . Rh o n e , 619 A. 2d 10 8 0, 1084 (Pa
. Sup e r . 1 9 93). T h e F o urte e nth A m e ndmen t of c o n s titu tio nally prote c ted ri g ht s." C o mm o nweal th v. Cox , 9 83 A .2 d 66 6 , 685 (Pa. 2009); Prosec uto rial misco ndu c t e xis t s wh e n th ere i s a vi o l ati o n of a d e fend ant' s statut orily or d e f e ndan t's cl aim fail s . A s the Du e Proc es s C lau s e w as n o t v io late d by e ithe r o f th e p ro s e c uto r's pu rp orte d e rr o r s, th e p ro duc e e vid e n c e t o the d e fend ant; se c o nd, the prosec utor i mpro pe rly p r off ere d a p e r s on al o p inio n. fo r hi s clai m o f p rosec utori al mi sc onduct: fir s t, th e p rose cut or i mp ro perly sh i fte d th e burd e n to mi sc onduc t, d e privin g th e defendant o f a 

### fair and imp artial tri al. The de f e nd ant id e ntifi es tw o ba s e s d e fen se co un s el' s obj e ction s o n the g round s th at the pr os e c utor co mmitted p ros e c u to ri al I I Th e d e fend ant cl ai m s th at thi s C o urt committ ed an abus e o f di scr eti o n w he n it ov errul e d On app eal , th e def

e ndant rai se d a s ing l e i s s u e wi th tw o c o mpon e nts . 

### LEGAL DISCUSSION 2 3
. J e ff erso n and the d efe nd an t ran aw ay t oge th er "d ow n T orres dal e to w ard s Pratt].]" N. T
. 9 / 13 / 13 at 70 ; N
. T. 9/1
. 1 /13 at 2 4
. A s in g l e bull e t p e n e trate d Bu s h' s h e ad, killin g h i m . Imm e di at e ly th ere aft er, aim e d th e gu n at Bu s h' s h e ad, pullin g the tri gger w hil e l ess than two f ee t aw ay . N. T. 9 / 1 0/ 1 3 at 6 8, for cover
. N .T
. 9 /1 0/ 13 at 92 ; N
. T
. 9/11 / 13 at 2 4
. A s th e y ran t o w ar d th e h o u s e, th e defend ant T he d e fen dant th e n p o inted the gu n at th e c o u s in s, p romptin g \X lall a c e and B ro wn to tun t oo k a revol ve r fr om th e wai s tb and o f hi s p ant s and h and e d it t o the de f e n dant. Id
. then s ai d , "[Yl o u all think I'm p l ay in g [ ?]" and t o ld J effe r so n t o p a s s h i m a g un. Id. at 5 7. J e ff ers on Circulated 05/11/2015 12:25 PM4

the defense[.]" Commonwealth v. S1ieed, 45 A.3d 1096, 1112 (Pa. 2012). trial when the statements are in response to "defense counsel's argument" or a "theory espoused by concerning a defendant's failure to produce evidence does not violate a defendant's right to a fair produce evidence infringes upon his presumption of innocence. A prosecutor's comment evidence. I:v1iller, 208 A.2d at 870. However, not eveq comment about a defendant's failure to from which the jury may draw an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to produce A defendant's constitutionally-protected right to be presumed innocent is violated by a statement essential element of the crime charged and the defendant need not offer any defense whatsoever."). A.2d 880 (Pa. 1974) ("The Commonwealth bears a never shifting burden of proving each and every Commonwealth v. Wiggins, 328 A.2d 520, 521 (Pa.Super, 1974), 

### citing Commonwealth v. Rose, 321 of his right to a fair trial. Commomvealth v. :tvliller, 208 A.2d 867, 869-71 (Pa. 1965); see also may infringe upon the defendant's constitutionally-protected presumption of innocence in violation In a criminal trial, a suggestion that a defendant has a duty or obligation to produce evidence a. The prosecutor did not shift the burden to produce evidence such that the defendant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial. 1019 (Pa.Super. 2009). occurred, and 

### (b) assess the degree of resulting prejudice. Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015, been deprived a 

### fair and impartial trial, a trial court must (a) analyze whether misconduct actually v. Thompson, 281 A.2d 856, 858 (Pa. 1971). When determining whether or not a defendant has tribunal." Id. at 764, 

### citing Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 132 (Pa. 2008); Commonwealth (1981 ). Procedural due process requires "the chance to defend oneself before a fair and impartial 134 S. Ct. 1771 (U.S. 2014), citil{g Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Serv. of Durham County, 452 U.S. 18 Commonwealth v. Turner, 80 A.3d 754, 764 (Pa. 2013), cert. denied SHh uo/». Turner v. Pennsylvania, definition" of due process, "the phrase expresses the requirement of 'fundamental fairness[.]"' Circulated 05/11/2015 12:25 PM5

pr o du c ti o n , and th e d e fen dant was n o t d ep ri v e d o f a 

### fair and i mp arti al tri al. I n d e f e n s e c o u nsel 's ad vanc e d in d e fe n se c o un s e l ' s s umm atio n, th e p ro se c u t or did n o t i mpro p e rl y s hi f t the b u r d e n o f I n th e c ase 

### su b

jlldice, as th e pro s e c u t o r 's c o mmen t s w e r e mad e in r es p o n s e t o the all eg ati ons pr off ere d ev id e n ce

j] " did n o t am o unt t o an imp ro p er s hi ft of th e b urd e n to produ ce ev id e n ce . 

### Id
. di s ab iliti e s . O u r S uprem e Co urt fou n d that " s u gg es ting p o ss ib l e w e akn ess es regardin g th e d ef e n se ' s th at th e d e fe n s e h a d n o t p r o duc e d e vid e n ce t o co rr o b orat e M c lvlurr e n ' s cl aim. ab out th e d e f e n dant' s to tun an d co uld n o t u se h is rig h t b an d
. Id
. In h is closi n g ar g um e n t, th e p ros e c u to r poin ted ou t Mclvlurren, who te s ti fi e d th atthe d e f e nd an t cou l d n o t h av e co mmitte d th e c ri m e a s h e wa s u n ab l e 

### d en ied su b 

### u om. Th o ma s v. P e nn s v l vani a J 34 S. Ct. 1 73 , 18 7 (U. S
. 2 01 3)
. Th e d e f en s e c all e d Tamik a d e fe ns e c ouns el du rin g s u mmati o n la c ke d evi d e nti ary s up po rt. 54 A.3 d 3 32 , 34 0 (Pa
. 2 0 1 2 ), ce rt . n ot improp e rl y shi ft the b ur d e n to produc e e vid e nc e b y hi g hli g htin g th at th e th eo ry espo u se d b y S i milarl y, our Sup r eme Court in Co n u nonwealth v. T h o m a s found th at th e p ro se c u t or di d d o es not co n s ti tute b u rd en - s hiftin g. I d. at 110-11. ( th at commenting o n the ab s enc e o f evid e n c e to d e m o n s tr at e th e weakne s s o f th e d e fe nse' s th e o ry it wo uld h av e dem o n s tr at ed that Z l atn i k: h a d not b ee n v i s ite d by Ca s tillo. T he D e J es us C o urt h eld omi tte d ). T h e pro s ec ut or the n su g g es t ed that th e de f ens e had n ot prese ~te d the p ri so n l og b ec au se pre s e n t th e prison l o g a s t o who c o ntac te d M s . Z l atnik at pri so n." I d. at 1 lO ( inte rn al cit ations Ca s tillo during a v i s i t in j ail. I d. T he pro s ec utor re s pond e d, "a sk ( i.n g ] wh y the def en s e did n o t ar g ue d th at M s. Zlatnik 's te s ti m ony ha d be e n colore d b y in fo rm ati o n she re ceived fro m An t o ni o the tru th fulness of C o mm o nwealth w itne ss Je n nif er Z l atri c k's trial t estimo ny . D e fen s e c o unsel s ummati o n , 860 A
. 2 d 102 , 11 0

- 111 (P a . 2004 )
. During th at s umm atio n, d efe n se c o u n s el qu es ti o ne d e vidence b e caus e the pro se cutor' s c omm en t reb u tte d th e th e ory offe re d duri ng d efe n s e c o u ns el' s ab o u t th e d e fe n se' s fail ure to pr oduce evid e n c e did no t i mpro p erly s hift th e b ur d e n t o produce In Co mmonweal th v. D ej e s us , our S uprem e Cou rt fou n d that th e p ro s ecu to r's c o mme n t Circulated 05/11/2015 12:25 PM6

Commonwealth's theory changed slightly during the course of trial because neither party had indicative of weaknesses in the Commonwealth's case. The prosecutor agreed that the He admitted that new information was revealed during trial, but he disputed that the change was The prosecutor responded to the accusation that his theory of the case changed mid-trial. N.T. 9/13/13 at 237-40. You have the awesome responsibility of not only sifting through this evidence, but making sense of it, which is absolutely impossible; and if it's impossible for you to sift through this evidence to the extent that you must in order to decide this case, the only appropriate verdict here is not guilty. That's when they run in the bar, and you also see that 17-year-old kid, Mr. Pryor, standing there on the corner watching everything, You don't see those people at the bar -- despite what he says, it's what the tape shows, not what we say. \Y/e don't get to tell you what the evidence is. The evidence is what it is. And the evidence in this case, if you watch the video, those people don't nm into that bar until right around the time two people run by them. Ladies and gentlemen, one of the things that Mr, Lim made a big deal about today was he was attempting to argue with a witness about what the reaction -- he was comparing the reaction of the people outside the bar with the people on this corner here (indicating). We all know, when you see something startling, you look at it. You stop and take your eyes off it. That's what those people at the bar did. ( \Xlhy aren't those people sitting at this table if that's what he really thinks? And if that's what he really thinks, he's changed his theory of the case from when he first argued the case. Because when he first presented this case to you on Tuesday, in his opening, Mr, Lim said it was these two guys, not these six guys or four guys or three guys. \X!ell, if this is what he thinks

- - and we're almost two years post murder in this case -- then why weren't any one of these individuals that he thinks were accomplices and set up this hit or directed th.is hit, why weren't one of these persons arrested? And through this examination today of certain witnesses, seems like he's going to stand up here in a moment and argue that this was some grand setup, that there were people, in his words, positioned, a 17-year-old kid [Pryor] positioned on the bar over here. Other people over here in front of the corner store. theory of the case mid-trial in order to distract the jury from underlying weaknesses in its evidence: closing argument, he attacked the Commonwealth's case, arguing that the prosecutor changed the Circulated 05/11/2015 12:25 PM7 9 The prosecutor did not place the onus for the absence of pre-trial statements on the defense. thus impeding their ability to weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict."). was to prejudice the jurors 

### by forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant, ("[P]rosecutorial misconduct does not occur unless the unavoidable effect of the comments at issue 778, 787 (Pa.Super, 1998); see also Commonwealth v. Chmiel 889 A.2d 501, 542 (Pa. 2005) determine if it denied the defendant a fair and impartial trial. Conunonwealth v. Johnson, 719 A.2d produce evidence, the trial court would then evaluate the prejudice exacted by the statement to Had the prosecutor, in fact, improperly suggested that the defense had the burden to defense's allegation that the prosecutor's theory of the case changed mid-trial because it was weak. statements did not shift the burden to produce evidence to the defense, but instead rebutted the The prosecutor's explanation that his case changed because of the absence of pre - trial N.T. 9 /13/13 at 320. The motive, the reason, the why came together and was supported by their own witnesses. But now, you want me to believe that they were there, that in1ages ate burned and they want to clear their conscience and that's not them? So they know them and let them sit till trial without a statement, without anything? They ha? conversations with each other and they don't mention it to each other? at trial: The prosecution then explained how his theory evolved as he heard the witnesses' testimony N.T. 9/13/13 at 314. But I didn't get to do that because I didn't have enough statements, I'm learning like you're learning, as these defense witnesses testified and as I'm learning like [sic] listening. When people don't give statements, they're not committed to anything. They can walk into this courtroom, take the seat and say whatever it is they want to say; and that's what happened and when I won't get statements -- see, by rules, I got to give all these documents in that box. I got to turn them all over to the attorneys before we start, so they can read, review and critically analyze my witnesses before we get started. weak: obtained pre-trial statements" from certain witnesses, not because the Commonwealth's case was Circulated 05/11/2015 12:25 PM

### 8 1 0 Alth o ugh an immediat e instru ctio n i s p refe rab l e, a trial c o u rt m ay wai t t o addr ess an is s u e until its c h arge at th e c o nclu s io n o f a ca s e . Co mm onw e alth v. Rou gh , 4 1 8 A.2 d 6 0 5, 6 1 1 (P a. S up er. 198 0 ) ( n oti n g th at a c u rativ e in s truc tio n "n eed not b e gi ven imm e diate l y foll o win g the erro neou s ad mis sio n, but m ay o cc ur l ate r in the c h arge .")
. So t o s umm ari ze, yo u m ay n o t find th e d e f e nd ants gu ilty based up on a m e re s u s pi ci on o f guil t. The Co mmo nw ealth h as th e burden o f provio. g ea ch d e f e nd ant guil ty b ey o n d reas onab le d o ub t. If the Co mm o nw ealth has me t th at b ur den , . then the de f e ndan ts are 11 0 l o n ge r pre s ume d in n o cent and yo u s h o uld find them g uil ty . Thi s Co urt the n s umm ari z ed: N.T
. 9/ 1 6/ 13 at 11- 1 2
. ( e mph a si s a dded)
. If the eviden c e presente d fails t o me e t th e C ommonwealth's burd e n , th en your v er dict mu s t b e not g uilty. On the o ther hand , if th e ev idenc e d oes p ro ve b e yon d re aso n able d o ubt that th e def e ndan ts ar e g uil ty o f the crime s char g ed , the n y ou r v erdict s h o uld b e g uilty. It is not a d e fendant's burden to prove anything in his own defens e. In s t e ad , i t i s the C omm o nw ealth th at alw ay s ha s the b u rde n o f prov in g e ac h an d ev e ry el e ment of the c rime s ch arged and that ea ch defendan t i s g uilty o f th ose crime s be yo nd a r easo n abl e doubt. A nd I will give you tho se element s tow ard th e e n d of this c har ge. A fund amental princi p le o f our s ystem of c riminal l aw i s that a def e ndant is p re sum e d in nocen t. Th e m e re fa c t th at so me one i s arre ste d and i s c h ar ge d w i th crime s is n ot evid e nc e o f g uilt. Fu rthe rmor e, th e pre s umpti o n o f inn oc en ce th at I w as ju s t tell i n g y o u ab o ut s t ays wi th a d e fendan t thr o u g h ou t the entir e trial and unl ess and until y o u, th e jury, conclud e ba se d upon a care ful and imparti al c o nsid e r ati o n of the e vide nce th at th e Co mm o nwe al th h as pr o ven ea ch g uilty bey d nd reas on abl e doub t of the ch arge s made a gai n st him
. 1 ins truc ti o n to th e ju ry : a mis tri al
. N.T
. 9 /1 3/ 13 at 320, 324
. In it s final c h ar ge , thi s Court p ro vid e d th e foll o win g bu r d e n o f pr o ducti o n t o th e de fen se. T h .is C o urt ove rrul e d the o bje c tio n and d e nied th e mo ti on fo r pro s e cut o r and m o ved fo r a mistri al o n the gro und th at th e pro se cut or imp ro p erly s h i fted th e In th e c ase 

### s sb Ju dice, defen s e c o unsel o bje c ted to th e afo re m e ntion e d s t at e m e nt s o f the S zak al , 5 0 A. 3 d 210, 222 (Pa
. S up er. 2012 )
. e ra dic at e prejudic e as lo n g a s i t c orr ec ts th e p o te ntially imp ro per s tate men t. C omm o nw ealth v . i s su e. to As j ur o r s ar e p res um e d t o fo ll o w a trial co urt' s i n structi o n s , an ap pro priate i ns tru c tion will In maki ng thi s d et ermi n ati on, the co urt' s in stru c ti on s m ay c ou nt erb alan c e th e co mm e n ts at Circulated 05/11/2015 12:25 PM9

p e r ce i ve th e ir d ec i s i o n, n ot o n th e e vid e n c e p re se n ted at tri al and/ o r the p e n alty p ha s e h e arin g . i mprop e r state m e n t, as kin g th e 

### ju ry to se nte n c e th e d e fe nd an t to d e ath b a se d on h ow s oc iety wou l d th e trial co urt's in s tru cti o n th e rea f t er c ure d th e pre

ju di ce at i ss u e . T h e p ros ec u t o r h a d m ad e an b y a pro s e c ut o r durin g cl os in g ar gu m e n t s did n ot v i o l ate th e de fe nd an t' s du e pro ces s ri ght s b e c au se In C o mm o n weal th v. J o n e s , o ur S u pre m e C ou rt h e l d th at an improp e r s t ate m e nt p ro ff e re d c re ate s 

## a fixe d bi a s in th e mi nd s of th e j ury . J o h ns o n , 719 A.2 d at 78 7 ; C hmi el, 8 8 9 A. 2 d at 5 4 2
. C l au s e i s n ot au to m atic all y v i o l ated. A d e fe ndan t i s de pri v e d o f a fair tri al o nl y w h e re th at s t ate m e n t A s di s c u sse d 

### supra, w h e n a pro s e c ut o r m ake s an imp r o p e r st ate m e nt, th e Due Pr oc ess i mp re s s i o n s - th e d e fendan t w a s n o t d e p ri ve d o f a fair and i mp arti al tri al. in s tructi o n to ba se it s de te rmin atio n o n th e ev i d en c e p re se n te d at tri al

- n o t o n th e p r ose c u to r ' s Jan uary 25 , 20 1 2
. A s thi s Co u rt s u st ain e d co un sel ' s o b j ec ti o n an d prov id e d th e jury with an w h e n r e c o u n tin g h o w th e e vid en c e e li cite d at tri al imp ac t ed h is u n d e r s t andin g o f the eve nt s on points t o th e po rti o n o f th e pros ec u to r' s cl os in g w h e r e h e s tate d , " [M) y 1 G o d " and 

### " I can ' t b e lie v e" cl os i ng ar g um e nt s wh i c h vi o lated hi s du e p ro c e ss ri g h t to a fair tri al
. T h e d e fe nd ant sp ec i ficall y T h e defend an t cl aim s that th e pr o s ec utor o ff e red an imp ro pe r p e rs o n al o p inio n du rin g b
. Th e defend ant w a s not d e pri ve d o f a fai r and i mparti al trial whe n th e p ros ec u to r off e red hi s person al opini o n, as this Court provided a limitin g instru c tion w h ic h c ure d an y pre

j u d i ce . in stru ction p rope rl y a ddre s s e d any po ssibl e p reju di c e flow ing fr o m th e p r o s e c u t or 's s t at e m e n t. pr o ve d e ac h and eve ry el e m e nt o f the cri m e s c h ar ge d b e yo n d a re a s o n abl e d o ubt. T h u s , th. i s C ou rt's p re s u m ed th at th e ju ry fo ll o w e d th i s C ourt ' s i n stru c ti o n t o an al yze w h e th e r the C o mmo n w eal th g uil t be y on d a rea so nabl e do ubt -res ted w i th th e C o nun on weal th, no t th e d e f e nd ant. I t i s Th i s Court's instru c tion s ma de it cl e ar th at the bu r d e n t o p ro duc e e v i den c e - and t o p r o v e I d
. at 13
. O n the oth e r h an d, if th e C o mm o nwe alth h as n o t m e t it s bu r d e n , th e n y ou mu s t fin d th e m n o t g u ilty . Circulated 05/11/2015 12:25 PM10 MR
. ST RETT O N : M o v e for mi strial. M R. PA G ANO : O b

jec ti o n . I' vfR

. S TRE TT ON: O bjecti o n . : MR. LH v f : I'm like I can ' t b e li eve d ay fo ur and I reali ze thi s c o n s p iracy i s so much lar ge r th an th e two p e o p l e s i ttin g at th i s tab l e. . TH E C OURT : St o p wi th th e co n v er s ati on, M r. Lim. 

### :tvIR
. PA G ANO: O bj ec ti o n . M R
. S TR ETI ON : O bje ctio n. I'm about to cry in s id e an d s i t d o wn and th e n Mr. Pagan o a sks a qu es ti on: \X l h e re are yo u ? And My s h eer Pryo r s ays: I'm standin g ri g h t in front o f thi s b ar s m o ki n g a c i g are tte . A n d I' m like , 

### my G od, yo u 're ki d din g me . A nd like a bell g oes off. You can a sk my det ec tive s , I w e nt o ut s id e ye s te r d ay - H e ' s like , n o , I w as th e re , th is i s wh at I saw and I was th ere , my God, I set them up , I'm like s w e ating , what's goin g o n h e re? Until M y s h ee r Pry o r cam e o ut o f th e wall and sat in th e s ame c h air; an d again I' m fi g htin g him , yo u're n o t th ere , yo u' re n o t th e re , yo u ' r e n ot th e r e, becau se I ke pt thinkin g h e w a s p o i n tin g u p h e r e ( indi catin g ) like , h e wa s up h ere, M y s he er Pry o r b e in g th e secon d guy and I'm like, w h y ? Why i s thi s g uy n o t bud g in g ? And I' m chall e n gin g y ou, see me ge tting mad at h i m . I' m like , yo u ain' t th ere , s t o p it, tell m e thi s , tell me that. He's kind o f, i n all hone s ty , beatin g me u p . obj ec ti on but den ie d the m o tion for a mi s tri al: i mpro p erly a ss ert ed h is p er so nal opini on in hi s clo s ing ar g ume n t. Thi s C ou rt su s t ain e d c o u n s el 's b e liev e " durin g hi s s ummatio n , and m ov e d fo r a mi s trial o n the g r oun d th at th e p ros ecut o r H e r e, d e f e n se co u n se l ti me l y obj ect ed wh e n th e p rose cut or s tated , " [ 1v I] y G o d " and " I can ' t c o urt a dequately cu re d any possib le prejudi c e." Id
. at 1 201
. d e fe ndan t' s right t o a fair trial w a s no t vio l ate d b e c au se "th e cau ti o n ary in struc ti on s given b y the Our Supre me Court d e t e rmine d th at th e pro s ec u t o r 's comment s w e re imp r o p er, but the in s tead t o b as e it s d e c i s i o n o n th e fa cts p res e nted
. I d
. at 12 0 1 n.11. th e o bj ec tio n and i ns tru c ted the 

### jury " n ot t o be c o n c ern ed by h ow o ther p e ople w o u ld rea c t(,]" and Defe n se co unse l immedi ate l y obj ec te d
. 6 8 3 A.2d 118 1 , 1 20 1 (Pa. 1 9 96 )
. T h e tri al c ourt s u s tai ned Circulated 05/11/2015 12:25 PM1 1 l VL , T E RE S A S A RI\rIINA 

## J

. B Y T H E C OURT: 

# 1 1t.ck~ ~ ~ - A c c o rdin g l y , for all of th e for eg oing re a s on s , th e j ud g m e n t s of s e nte n c e s h o u ld b e a f firme d. pro se cu t or's s t atem e nt s , thus miti g atin g any po s s i b le pr e judic e . an d impartial tri al , A s i n J o n es , thi s C o urt i n s tru c ted th e j ury not t o b e i n fl uence d by th e T h i s Court' s in s tru c ti on e limin at ed any p re j udice that w o ul d h ave d eni e d th e de f end an t a 

### fair N
. T. 9/ 1 6/13 at 39

- 4 0. ( e mph as i s a d d e d )
. And a s I h ave t o l d you many tim es , you ar e the s o l e an d o nl y j ud g e s of th e credib ili ty and w e i g ht o f all of th e te s timon y in thi s ca s e . A nd s o yo u are n ot required to accept the ar g um e n t s of any o f th e l awy e rs . It i s for yo u and you al o n e t o d e cide th e ca s e based on th e evid e n c e a s it wa s pre s en te d t o you fr o m th e witn ess s t an d an d in accordan c e w ith the

- - and that i nclud e s th e s tipulati on s that w e re en te re d into b y an d be tw e en c ounsel, an d in acc or d anc e w i th th e i n s truction s w h ic h I have ju s t b e e n g i ving y o u. Now, Mr
. Lim sh are d with y ou hi s thought pr o c es s e s to s ome e x t ent and to s o m e extent hi s p e rsonal opini o n s. You are t o di s re g ard tho s e . Do no t think that b e caus e he is the pro s ecu t or h e h as s ome s p ec i al knowledge or in s ight th at wa s not pre sente d to y o u thr o u g h evid e n ce . That is n o t th e ca s e . And to th e ex te nt th at anyb o dy , including my self, st ated any fa c t s which d iffer from your r e c oll e cti on of the fa c ts , the n you are to go with y o ur re colle c ti o n and t o d i sre g ard all of ours, includin g min e . Th e s p e e c he s o f c o un s el ar e n o t part of th e e v i de n ce, and yo u sho ul d n ot consi de r th em a s s u ch. 

### In deci din g the c a s e , you s ho u ld carefu ll y co n s i der th e e v i dence in li g ht o f th e v ari o us rea s o n s an d argu m e n ts w hi c h eac h l a w y e r p re sen te d t o you. I t is th e rig h t and du ty o f ea ch l a w ye r to dis c u ss the e v i den ce in a mann e r w hich i s most favorab l e t o th e s i d e w h ic h h e p rese n t s . Y ou s h ou ld b e g u i d e d .by eac h l awy e rs' ar gum e n t s to the e x t e n t th at th ey ar e s u pp o rte d b y th e e v i d e n c e , an d inso far as th e y aid y o u in ap pl y in g y o ur o w n re a son an d c o mmo n se n s e . D u ring i t s fin al c h arge , thi s Co urt in s tructe d th e ju ry: N
. T
. 9/ 1 3/13 at 3 1 5

- 1 7
. T H E C OU RT : S u s tain e d
. De ni ed
. Circulated 05/11/2015 12:25 PM