J-S71019-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

DAQUAN HAMILTON

Appellant No. 1477 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 9, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County

Criminal Division at No: CP-46-CR-0001391-2014

BEFORE: PANELLA, STABILE, and PLATT,* JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2018

Appellant, Daquan Hamilton, appeals from his judgment of sentence of 

life imprisonment for second-degree murder1 and related offenses. We affirm.

On the evening of December 26, 2013, Appellant and Khaleef Jones 

visited an apartment complex in Pottstown. Appellant told Jones that he 

wanted to get his stuff out of one of the apartments. Steven Burns was inside 

the apartment with George Hashimbey and Angel Luna. When Appellant

knocked on the door, Burns opened the door but would not let Appellant

inside. N.T., 6/17/15, at 8-10, 90-96. 

Appellant and Jones left the apartment building, but they returned

shortly after midnight on the morning of December 27, 2015. Before entering 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b).
J-S71019-17

- 2 -

the building, Appellant handed Jones a .380 caliber gun and armed himself 

with a silver revolver. Id. at 93-94. Appellant and Jones returned to Burns’ 

apartment, and Appellant told Jones to cover his face as they entered the 

elevator. They knocked on the apartment door, and Burns partially opened 

it. Appellant shoved his pistol into Burns’ abdomen and forced his way inside. 

Id. at 10-11, 90-96. Burns and Appellant fought on the floor inside the door. 

Appellant yelled, “Shoot the nigger.” As they struggled, Appellant fired his 

silver pistol, killing Hashimbey. Id. at 12-14, 98-99. Burns testified that he 

saw Appellant shoot Hashimbey. Id. at 14-15. Jones fired one shot into 

Burns’ hip and ran down the stairs. Jones testified that he heard two shots 

after exiting the apartment. Id. at 99. Burns went into the hallway to ask a 

neighbor for help, and he remained there until police and paramedics arrived. 

Id. at 12-17, 98-99. The Commonwealth’s ballistics expert testified that the 

bullet recovered from Hashimbey’s body came from a .357 caliber gun, a 

different caliber from the gun Jones was carrying. N.T., 6/16/15, at 50. 

Approximately ninety minutes after the shooting, Philadelphia Police 

Officer William Lynch stopped Appellant’s car in a high crime neighborhood in 

North Philadelphia. When Officer Lynch ran the tags, he discovered a “tryand-locate” alert. Appellant, who was a passenger in the car, ran when he 

saw the police lights, but Jones stayed inside. Police arrested both men and 

recovered a .380 caliber gun from Jones’ person during the arrest. N.T., 

6/16/15, at 122-23. The police impounded the car and obtained a search 

warrant to search its passenger compartment. During the search, they
J-S71019-17

- 3 -

recovered two cell phones and a fired .357 cartridge casing. N.T., 6/16/15,

at 130-39. Subsequently, a Montgomery County detective obtained another 

search warrant to examine the contents of the cell phones.2 

At the conclusion of trial, the Commonwealth introduced letters that 

Appellant sent Jones while both men were incarcerated following their arrest. 

The first letter suggested that both men claim that Burns let them enter the 

apartment immediately before the shooting, and that Appellant “just came to 

get my clothes and see my cousin.” N.T., 6/18/15, at 21. “Nobody was 

[supposed] to get hurt,” Appellant continued, but Burns caused the shootings 

by starting a fight with Appellant. Id. In a second letter, Appellant stated 

that the Commonwealth was not offering him a plea bargain and was 

threatening to charge him with second-degree murder. Id. at 22-23. 

Appellant continued: 

I’m sorry for getting you in this shit. My lawyer said if I get on 

the stand, it would do more harm than good. Dam bro, I fucked 

up, but we can’t cry over spilled milk . . . I need you to get on the 

stand and blame everything on [Burns]. Keep your head up. Fuck 

these crackers.

Id. at 23.

During closing argument, defense counsel did not deny that Appellant 

was present in the apartment during the shootings. Instead, counsel 

____________________________________________

2 Appellant sought to suppress the contents of his cell phone in pre-trial 

motions, which the trial court denied. The contents recovered from the cell 

phones are described in our discussion of the suppression issue on pages 10-

11 below.
J-S71019-17

- 4 -

contended that any actions that Appellant took were in self-defense. N.T., 

6/18/15 at 74-93. The jury found Appellant guilty of second-degree murder, 

burglary and other offenses. On February 9, 2016, the trial court imposed 

sentence. Appellant filed timely post-sentence motions, which the trial court 

denied, and a timely notice of appeal. Both Appellant and the trial court 

complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant raises six arguments in this appeal, which we reorganize for 

the sake of convenience:

I. Whether [Appellant]’s conviction for burglary was supported by 

sufficient evidence where: (1) the Commonwealth failed to prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time they entered the 

apartment, [Appellant] and/or his codefendant intended to 

commit any crime inside of the residence; and (2) the 

Commonwealth failed to prove that either [Appellant] or his 

codefendant was [not] licensed or privileged to enter the 

apartment by the actual resident[?]

II. Whether [Appellant]’s conviction for second-degree murder is 

supported by sufficient evidence where the Commonwealth failed 

to prove that the decedent was killed during [Appellant]’s 

commission of an enumerated felony or during the commission of 

an enumerated felony by his co-defendant[?]

III. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or 

abused its discretion in denying [Appellant’s] motion to suppress 

the contents of his cell phone where the affidavit in support of the 

search warrant failed to establish probable cause to believe that 

evidence of that crime would be found in the phone’s contents at 

the time that the warrant was issued[?]

IV. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or 

abused its discretion in denying [Appellant’s] motion to suppress 

the identification made by David Anderson where the identification 

was tainted by his being shown a still surveillance video of the 

suspects prior to being shown the photographic array for 

identification purposes[?]
J-S71019-17

- 5 -

V. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or an 

abuse of discretion in denying [Appellant’s] Batson challenge 

where: the prosecuting attorney failed to state a valid race-neutral 

reason for striking juror 11; and the learned court ruled in error 

that [Appellant] was required to establish a pattern of 

discrimination by the prosecution before he could present a 

Batson challenge?

VI. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or 

abused its discretion in failing to rule on defense counsel’s 

objection to the prosecutor’s act of improperly vouching for the 

testimony of the Commonwealth’s witnesses during the 

Commonwealth’s closing argument[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 13-14.

We first examine whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain 

Appellant’s convictions for burglary. When evaluating a sufficiency claim,

our standard is whether, viewing all the evidence and reasonable 

inferences in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the 

factfinder reasonably could have determined that each element of 

the crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court 

considers all the evidence admitted, without regard to any claim 

that some of the evidence was wrongly allowed. We do not weigh 

the evidence or make credibility determinations. Moreover, any 

doubts concerning a defendant’s guilt were to be resolved by the 

factfinder unless the evidence was so weak and inconclusive that 

no probability of fact could be drawn from that evidence.

Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 332 (Pa. Super. 2010).

A person commits burglary when, “with the intent to commit a crime

therein, the person: . . . enters a building or occupied structure . . . in which 

at the time of the offense any person is present and the person commits, 

attempts or threatens to commit a bodily injury crime therein.” 18 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 3502(a)(1). “It is a defense to prosecution for burglary if . . . at the time 
J-S71019-17

- 6 -

of the commission of the offense . . . the actor is licensed or privileged to 

enter.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(b)(3).

Appellant contends that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he

intended to commit a crime when entering the apartment. We disagree. 

Appellant and Jones brought guns with them when they returned to the 

apartment, and Appellant told Jones to hide his face from the camera in the 

elevator. When the apartment door opened, he shoved the muzzle of a gun 

into Burns’ stomach. This evidence demonstrates Appellant’s intent to commit 

a crime inside the apartment. 

Appellant also argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove that he 

was not licensed or privileged to enter the apartment. This argument suggests 

erroneously that the Commonwealth had the burden of proof on this issue. 

Section 3502 plainly states that license and privilege are affirmative defenses 

for which the defendant shoulders the burden of proof. It is permissible to 

require the defendant to prove these elements, because “the burden of 

proving an affirmative defense that relieves the accused of criminal 

responsibility, but does not negate an element of the offense charged[,] may 

be placed on the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Collins, 810 A.2d 698, 701

(Pa. Super. 2002). 

Construed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the 

evidence demonstrates that Appellant failed to satisfy his burden of proof. 

Appellant did not present any evidence that he had any residential interest in 
J-S71019-17

- 7 -

the apartment or some other right that entitled him to enter. The occupants 

inside the apartment refused to let Appellant in the first time he knocked on 

the door, and several hours later, he forced his way in with a gun. From these 

facts, the jury had the right to infer that Appellant had no license or privilege 

to enter.

Next, Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support 

his conviction for second-degree murder, because the victim did not die during 

the perpetration of a felony. We disagree. “A criminal homicide constitutes 

murder of the second degree when it is committed while the defendant was 

engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony.” 

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b). Burglary is a felony, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(c), and we 

have held above that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Appellant’s 

conviction for burglary. Thus, the evidence establishes that the victim died 

during the perpetration of a felony. 

In his third argument, Appellant claims that the trial court erred in 

denying his motion to suppress by (1) ruling that police officers had 

reasonable suspicion on December 27, 2013 to stop the car in which Appellant 

was a passenger, and (2) probable cause existed to issue the search warrant 

for one of the cell phones seized from the car. 

Appellant waived his objection to the ruling that police officers had 

reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which he was a passenger by failing 

to raise this issue in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925 statement. The lone suppression issue 
J-S71019-17

- 8 -

in Appellant’s Rule 1925 statement pertained to the search warrant for his cell 

phone. As a result, the trial court did not address this issue in its opinion, 

thus impeding effective appellate review. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“[i]ssues 

not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the 

provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived”); Commonwealth v. Lemon, 

804 A.2d 34, 36-37 (Pa. Super. 2002) (issues not included in Rule 1925 

statement are waived because omission impedes preparation of trial court’s 

legal analysis).

Even if Appellant had preserved this issue for appeal, it is devoid of 

merit. When reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence,

[we are] limited to determining whether the suppression court’s 

factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal 

conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Because the 

Commonwealth prevailed before the suppression court, we may 

consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of 

the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read 

in the context of the record as a whole. Where the suppression 

court’s factual findings are supported by the record, [the appellate 

court is] bound by [those] findings and may reverse only if the 

court’s legal conclusions are erroneous. Where . . . the appeal of 

the determination of the suppression court turns on allegations of 

legal error, the suppression court’s legal conclusions are not 

binding on an appellate court, whose duty it is to determine if the 

suppression court properly applied the law to the facts. Thus, the 

conclusions of the courts below are subject to [ ] plenary review.

Commonwealth v. Parker, 161 A.3d 357, 361–62 (Pa. Super. 2015).

“The Fourth Amendment to the [United States] Constitution and Article 

I, Section 8 of [the Pennsylvania] Constitution protect citizens from 

unreasonable searches and seizures.” Commonwealth v. McAdoo, 46 A.3d 
J-S71019-17

- 9 -

781, 784 (Pa. Super. 2012). “To secure the right of citizens to be free from 

such intrusions, courts in Pennsylvania require law enforcement officers to 

demonstrate ascending levels of suspicion to justify their interactions with 

citizens to the extent those interactions compromise individual liberty.” 

Commonwealth v. Reppert, 814 A.2d 1196, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2002). 

Courts recognize three types of interactions between members of the public 

and the police: a mere encounter, an investigative detention, and a custodial 

detention.

A mere encounter between police and a citizen need not be 

supported by any level of suspicion, and carr[ies] no official 

compulsion on the part of the citizen to stop or to respond. An 

investigatory stop, which subjects a suspect to a stop and a period 

of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to 

constitute an arrest, requires a reasonable suspicion that criminal 

activity is afoot. A custodial search is an arrest and must be 

supported by probable cause.

Commonwealth v. Fuller, 940 A.2d 476, 479 (Pa. Super. 2007). In 

evaluating whether an interaction rises to the level of an investigative 

detention, “the court must examine all the circumstances and determine 

whether police action would have made a reasonable person believe he was 

not free to go and was subject to the officer’s orders.” Commonwealth v. 

Stevenson, 832 A.2d 1123, 1127 (Pa. Super. 2003). Prior to an investigatory 

detention, the officer “must harbor at least a reasonable suspicion that the 

person seized is then engaged in unlawful activity.” Commonwealth v. 

Barber, 889 A.2d 587, 593 (Pa. Super. 2005). “Reasonable suspicion is a 

less stringent standard than probable cause necessary to effectuate a 
J-S71019-17

- 10 -

warrantless arrest, and depends on the information possessed by police and 

its degree of reliability in the totality of the circumstances.” Commonwealth 

v. Brown, 996 A.2d 473, 477 (Pa. 2010). “[I]nnocent facts, when considered 

collectively, may permit the investigative detention.” Id. Police officers, 

however, “need not personally observe the illegal or suspicious conduct, but 

may rely upon the information of third parties, including tips from citizens.” 

Commonwealth v. Smith, 904 A.2d 30, 36 (Pa. Super. 2006).

Here, Detective Lynch, the Philadelphia detective who stopped the 

vehicle in which Appellant was a passenger, reasonably suspected that the 

driver was operating the car without authorization. The detective ran the tags 

because the car was in a known high-crime area in North Philadelphia, and he

learned that a “try-and-locate” notice was on the registration, which meant 

that the car might have been a rental that was not returned on time. N.T.,

6/15/15, at 9, 11-12. These factors gave the detective reasonable suspicion 

to stop the car for further investigation.

Next, Appellant contends that the search warrant for his cell phones 

failed to establish probable cause for the search. The contents of the cell 

phones introduced during trial were text messages from Appellant to 

Appellant’s brother between 10:29 p.m. and 11:43 p.m. on December 26, 

2013 (between Appellant’s first and second visit to Burns’ apartment). 

Appellant’s brother texted, “You got to grab da 380,” and Appellant responded,

“I know.” Appellant asked, “Where it’s at?” and his brother replied, “Da hotel.” 
J-S71019-17

- 11 -

N.T., 6/18/15, at 18. The gist of these messages was Appellant’s agreement 

with his brother that Appellant needed the .380 caliber pistol and information 

from his brother that the pistol was at the “hotel.” 

A reviewing magistrate must review the totality of the circumstances 

presented in the affidavit to determine whether there is a fair probability that 

evidence of the alleged crime will be reaped through execution of the warrant. 

Commonwealth v. Sharp, 683 A.2d 1219, 1223 (Pa. Super. 1996).

Appellant argued that there was no evidence of any cell phone use at the time 

of the murder, so there was not a fair probability that the police would recover 

any evidence of the crime from his phone. We agree that the search warrant 

failed to establish probable cause, but we also conclude that the introduction 

of the contents of the cell phones during trial was harmless error.

We summarize the averments in the affidavit of probable cause 

underlying the warrant as follows:

 Shortly after midnight on December 27, 2013, Officer Fritz, one of 

the first officers at the murder scene, Apartment 524, spoke with 

Steven Burns, who was suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. 

Burns stated that two armed gunmen had shot him inside the 

apartment. 

 Officer Fritz recovered a cell phone from Burns. 
J-S71019-17

- 12 -

 Corporal Hatfield entered the apartment and saw Hashimbey, who 

was pronounced dead at the scene. There was a cell phone near his 

body.

 Detectives discovered one fired .380 shell casing and one unfired 

.380 caliber bullet on the apartment floor.

 Detectives interviewed Burns at the hospital after Burns underwent 

surgery for his bullet wounds. Burns told them that he had seen two 

men on the evening of December 26, 2013 in the apartment elevator. 

Burns and the men exited the elevator on the fifth floor and went in 

opposite directions. Shortly after Burns entered Apartment 524, 

Burns answered a knock at the door and observed the two men he 

had seen on the elevator. One man asked whether “Miguel” was 

inside. Burns answered “no,” and the man asked to come inside to 

pick up his “stuff.” Burns replied that they could not come in because 

Miguel was not home. The two men left. Burns commented to 

Hashimbey that the men had been on the elevator with him but went 

in a different direction after exiting. Hashimbey replied that the men 

probably went to Apartment 507. Later that evening, around 

midnight, Burns answered another knock at the door. The two men 

forced their way into the apartment. One man said, “yo, I gotta get 

my stuff,” and Burns saw that both men were holding revolvers. One 
J-S71019-17

- 13 -

man said “shoot that nigga,” and the other man shot Burns in the 

hip. 

 Angel Luna was in the apartment with Burns and Hashimbey at the 

time the two men forced their way inside. Luna’s account of the 

events was consistent with Burns’ account. 

 Police recovered surveillance video of the encounter on the elevator 

between Burns and the two men at 9:15 p.m. and the two men 

returning to the fifth floor on the elevator at midnight. One of the 

men was wearing a blue Penn State jacket, a gray hoodie underneath 

and camouflage pants.

 On December 28, 2013, detectives interviewed David Anderson, a 

resident in Apartment 507. Anderson stated that on the evening of 

December 26, 2013, a man named Curtis Harrell had visited his 

apartment. After Harrell left, two men visited Anderson’s apartment 

looking for Harrell. Anderson knew one of the men as “Dre” but did 

not know the other man. The detectives showed Anderson a still 

photograph from the surveillance video, and Anderson identified the 

men in the photograph as the men who came to his apartment 

looking for Harrell. 

 A detective checked Harrell’s criminal history and learned that 

Philadelphia police had arrested Harrell on November 8, 2008 along 
J-S71019-17

- 14 -

with Daquan Hamilton, Appellant herein, and charged them with 

drug-related offenses.

 A detective then learned that Appellant had been arrested in 

Philadelphia at 1:41 a.m. on December 27, 2013 following a traffic 

stop of a Toyota with a registration number of EJE-3813. Appellant 

had run away from the vehicle following the traffic stop but was 

apprehended. Another male in the vehicle, Khaleef Jones, was also 

arrested. Jones was wearing the same clothes that one of the men 

in the surveillance video had been wearing: a blue jacket, gray 

hoodie and camouflage pants. Jones also was in possession of a 

.380 caliber pistol, the same caliber as the ammunition found at the 

crime scene inside Apartment 524.

 On December 28, 2013, a detective showed Burns separate 

sequential photo arrays containing Appellant’s and Jones’

photographs. Burns identified both men as the males who forced 

their way into Apartment 524 and committed the shootings.

 On December 29, 2013, Jones gave a statement to police in which 

he admitted entering Apartment 524 with Appellant and shooting his 

gun, but he claimed that the shot only struck a wall. Jones’ account 

of the events indicated that Appellant fired the shots that injured 

Burns and killed Hashimbey. Jones and Appellant exited the 

apartment, and another man, “Tone,” drove them to Philadelphia
J-S71019-17

- 15 -

 On January 2, 2014, a detective and police officer executed a search 

warrant on the Toyota that Jones and Appellant were driving at the 

time of the traffic stop. The detective recovered two cell phones and 

a camera/music device.

Exhibit C-1 (search warrant for cell phones). 

The allegations in the affidavit of probable cause do not furnish probable 

cause to believe that the police would find evidence of crime on the cell phones 

recovered in the Toyota. The affidavit does not allege that Appellant or Jones 

talked on their cell phones to plan the break-in or to discuss shooting the 

victims in advance of the break-in. Neither does the affidavit state that 

Appellant or Jones talked on their cell phones after shooting the victims and 

leaving the apartment. Nor does the affidavit allude to any other fact that 

would indicate a nexus between the cell phones and the charges against 

Appellant. Standing alone, the fact that the police discovered two cell phones 

in the vehicle driven by Jones and Appellant after the shooting does not 

provide reason to believe that the cell phones contained evidence of the crimes 

in question. Therefore, the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s 

suppression motion.

Nevertheless, this error was harmless. Harmless error exists 

if the state proves either: (1) the error did not prejudice the 

defendant or the prejudice was de minimis; or (2) the erroneously 

admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted 

evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously 

admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and 

uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the 
J-S71019-17

- 16 -

prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison 

that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.

Commonwealth v. Burno, 154 A.3d 764, 787 (Pa. 2017). The text 

messages seized from the cell phones were cumulative of other untainted 

evidence. The text messages indicated Appellant’s intent to (1) obtain a .380 

caliber pistol and (2) return to Burns’ apartment and attack Burns. The 

Commonwealth submitted other untainted evidence that proved the same 

facts. With regard to (1), Jones testified that before the second, fateful entry 

into Burns’ apartment, Appellant handed him a .380 caliber pistol. Jones 

entered the apartment, shot the .380 caliber pistol once and ran out into the 

hallway. Jones continued carrying the .380 caliber pistol until his arrest ninety 

minutes after the shooting. With regard to (2), Jones testified that he and 

Appellant drove back to the apartment complex, where Appellant handed 

Jones the .380 caliber pistol and told Jones to cover his face before they 

entered the elevator. Burns testified that Appellant forced his way into the 

apartment, shouted “shoot the nigger,” and shot Hashimbey. Jones testified 

that he entered the apartment, fired his gun once, and ran out into the hall. 

He heard two more gunshots as he exited. In addition to this eyewitness 

testimony, Appellant wrote Jones letters following their arrest in which 

Appellant admitted responsibility for the murder—“I’m sorry for getting you in 

this shit . . . Dam bro, I fucked up, but we can’t cry over spilled milk”—but 

implored Jones to blame the incident on Burns. Finally, ballistics evidence 

establishes that the bullet that killed Hashimbey came from a .357 caliber 
J-S71019-17

- 17 -

pistol. Since Jones was carrying a .380 caliber pistol, Appellant was carrying 

the .357 caliber pistol that fired the fatal shot. For these reasons, the 

erroneous admission of the cell phone evidence does not entitle Appellant to 

relief.

We note that our decision today is distinguishable from 

Commonwealth v. Fulton, 179 A.3d 475 (Pa. 2018), in which our Supreme 

Court criticized this Court’s harmless error analysis. In Fulton, this Court held 

that the search of the defendant’s cell phone was illegal, but that any error 

was harmless in light of other properly admitted evidence of the defendant’s 

guilt. Our Supreme Court observed that this Court applied the third harmless 

error test—i.e., “the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt 

was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant 

by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.” Id.

at 493-94. The Supreme Court continued, however, that 

the Superior Court failed entirely to discuss whether the evidence 

that it relied on to find harmless error was contradicted by other 

evidence of record. This omission from its determination of 

harmlessness is fatal to its conclusion . . . [O]verwhelming 

evidence of a defendant’s guilt is never harmless unless that 

evidence is uncontradicted.

Id. at 494. In the present case, we apply a harmless error test different from 

the test this Court applied in Fulton, namely “whether the erroneously 

admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted evidence which 

was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence.” Burno, 154 

A.3d at 787. Moreover, as established above, the evidence seized from the 
J-S71019-17

- 18 -

cell phones in the present case is cumulative of other untainted and properly 

admitted evidence that proves the same facts. 

In his next argument, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in 

denying his motion to suppress Anderson’s out-of-court identification of 

Appellant from a photo array. Appellant argues that the police made the 

identification procedure unduly suggestive by showing Anderson a still 

surveillance video of the suspects six hours before showing him the photo 

array.

3

We disagree with Appellant. The trial court opinion explained its reasons 

for denying Appellant’s motion in its opinion as follows:

[W]hether an out of court identification is to be suppressed as

unreliable, and therefore violative of due process, is determined 

from the totality of the circumstances. Commonwealth v. 

Carson, 741 A.2d 686, 697 (1999), abrogated on other grounds, 

by Commonwealth v. Freeman, 827 A.2d 385 (Pa. 2003). 

Suggestiveness in the identification process is a factor to be 

considered in determining the admissibility of such evidence, but

suggestiveness alone does not warrant exclusion. 

Commonwealth v. Kubis, 978 A.2d 391, 396 (Pa. Super. 2009). 

Identification evidence will not be suppressed unless the facts 

demonstrate that the identification procedure was so 

impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial 

likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Commonwealth v.

Burton, 770 A.2d 771, 782 (Pa. Super. 2001), appeal denied, 868 

A.2d 1197 (Pa. 2005), overruled on other grounds by 

Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617, 623 (Pa. 2002). 

Photographs in lineups are not unduly suggestive if the suspect’s

____________________________________________

3 As noted above, Burns identified Appellant and Jones from photo arrays 

prepared by the police. In the present argument, Appellant objects to 

Anderson’s out-of-court identification of Appellant but not to Burns’ out-ofcourt identification.
J-S71019-17

- 19 -

picture does not stand out more than the others, and the people 

depicted all exhibit similar facial characteristics. Commonwealth 

v. Fisher, 769 A.2d 1116, 1126-27 (Pa. 2001).

During suppression, [Appellant] argued that Mr. Anderson was 

shown a still shot of a surveillance video depicting [Appellant] and 

Khaleef Jones outside of the apartment in question at the time of 

the incident. A few hours later, Mr. Anderson was shown a photo 

array and asked if he recognized anyone, whereby Mr. Anderson 

identified [Appellant]. Thus, the defense contended that the 

identification should be suppressed as impermissibly suggestive.

The trial court disagreed. Indeed as demonstrated by the record, 

the trial court went to great lengths to determine whether the 

identification process was suggestive, requesting to see the 

surveillance still which had not been introduced into evidence, and 

also requesting that the [d]etective involved in the photo

identification process [be] further questioned. (Please see Notes 

of Testimony from 2/6/15, pgs. 52-61). Indeed, the court stated,

THE COURT: I want to make sure we target this. Your argument

isn’t as much the array itself was prejudicial, the argument that 

I’m hearing is that by virtue of showing a picture of [Appellant] 

earlier in the day, you’ve not tainted the witness and that’s what 

I want to hear argument about. [ . . . ]

THE COURT: What was he told when he was shown the earlier

photo? I mean, I think there’s things here that we’re not bringing

that out that might be helpful to resolving this. I want to know 

what he was told when he was shown the earlier photo—what 

discussion was had there—and I’d like to see the photo.

[The Commonwealth]: Sure. We can get the photo for you, Your 

Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Could you do that? That would be very 

helpful.

MR. WHALLEY: Detective Richard can testify again if he needs to.

THE COURT: I would like to know that. I’m going to ask him to 

come back up on the stand.

(Please see Notes of Testimony from 2/6/15, pgs. 52-61)
J-S71019-17

- 20 -

Upon further inquiry, Detective Richard indicated that they were

canvassing the apartment building to learn if anyone had 

information on the homicide that occurred in the building the day 

prior. He spoke to Mr. Anderson at the apartment building, and 

then Mr. Anderson later went to the police station to provide 

further information. Mr. Anderson indicated that a man named 

Dre had visited his apartment on the night in question. The 

[d]etective then showed Anderson some individual photographs 

followed by some surveillance still shots, including the photograph 

with [Appellant] and Khaleef Jones in it. Detective Richard further 

explained,

[Detective Richard]: Then I said I would like to show you some 

surveillance photos to see if you know the people in the 

surveillance photos. That was the extent of the conversation. As 

far as I knew at that point, the two people in the surveillance 

photos, they could have lived there. I had no idea what their

involvement was, but I know they were there about the time I 

needed to talk to them so I wanted to find out who they were. [. 

. . ] 

MR.COOPER: So you showed the picture that we just looked at 

which was C-4 or 5, whatever that was, right?

DETECTIVE RICHARD: The surveillance still. [. . . ]

MR. COOPER: Okay. And he said that’s Dre?

DETECTIVE RICHARD: He said I recognize the first person as Dre. 

I don’t know the person behind him. [ . . . ]

MR. COOPER: And you found out who he [Dre] was based on the 

research; is that correct?

DETECTIVE RICHARD: Yes, we eventually found out who he was.

(Notes of Testimony 2/16/15, pgs. 61-62)

The [d]etective eventually found out that Dre was [Appellant]

herein. Later that day, Mr. Anderson returned to the police station 

to view the photo array at issue whereby he identified an 

individual in one of those photos as Dre. 
J-S71019-17

- 21 -

After hearing the above testimony and viewing the surveillance 

photo, the trial court determined that the identification procedure 

was not unduly suggestive. (Notes of Testimony 2/16/15, p. 68). 

The trial court deemed Detective Richard’s testimony credible[,]

indicating that he originally showed Anderson the surveillance 

photograph outside of the apartment building purely to gather

information about individuals at the scene at the time of the 

incident. At that point, law enforcement had no suspects. Mr. 

Anderson recognized [Appellant] in the photograph as Dre, the 

individual who visited him at his apartment on the night in 

question. Again at that point Detective Richard [was] merely 

gathering information concerning the individuals at the scene who 

could provide information. Mr. Anderson left the police 

department and the investigators continue[d] gathering 

information, including information on Dre. They learn[ed] Dre’s

name [was] actually Daquan Hamilton, [Appellant] herein. When 

Mr. Anderson [was] called back to the police department to view 

a photo array, Daquan Hamilton’s photograph [was] included 

therein. Mr. Anderson indicate[d] that he recognize[d]

[Appellant’s] photograph and identifie[d] him as Dre.

The court found that the identification process was not unduly 

suggestive[,] given the quality of the surveillance photograph at 

issue; given that the photograph was shown during the initial 

information gathering process wherein there were not yet any 

suspects; given that Mr. Anderson was never told that the men in 

the photograph were suspects; given that Mr. Anderson did not 

recognize the co-defendant [Jones] in the photograph; given that 

time passed between showing Mr. Anderson the surveillance 

photograph and the actual photo array; given that Mr. Anderson 

identified [Appellant] as Dre; and, given that there was nothing

suggestive about the photo array itself. Thus, for all of those 

reasons, the trial court properly declined to suppress the 

identification.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/30/16, at 4-8. We agree with the trial court’s thorough 

analysis and find no merit in Appellant’s argument.

Appellant next argues that the Commonwealth violated his 

constitutional rights by exercising a peremptory strike against Juror 11, an 

African-American, with discriminatory intent. Appellant argues that the 
J-S71019-17

- 22 -

Commonwealth failed to state a valid race-neutral reason for striking Juror 

11, and that the trial court erred by ruling that he was required to establish a 

pattern of discrimination before he could present a Batson4 challenge relating 

to Juror 11. We disagree. 

Batson held that the racially motivated use of peremptory challenges 

to strike prospective jurors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court set forth a three-part test for 

examining the defendant’s claim that the prosecutor exercised peremptory 

challenges in a racially discriminatory manner: first, the defendant must make 

a prima facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that 

the prosecutor struck one or more prospective jurors on the account of race; 

second, if a prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor 

to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the juror(s) at issue; and 

third, the trial court must then make the ultimate determination of whether 

the defense has carried the burden of proving purposeful discrimination. 

Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 861 A.2d 898, 909 (Pa. 2004) (citing Batson). 

The trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent

represents a finding of fact of the sort accorded great deference 

on appeal and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. 

Such great deference is necessary because a reviewing court, 

which analyzes only the transcripts from voir dire, is not as well 

positioned as the trial court is to make credibility determinations.

Moreover, there will seldom be much evidence on the decisive 

question of whether the race-neutral explanation for a peremptory 

____________________________________________

4 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
J-S71019-17

- 23 -

challenge should be believed; the best evidence often will be the 

demeanor of the prosecutor who exercises the challenge.

Commonwealth v. Williams, 980 A.2d 510, 531 (Pa. 2009).

The record demonstrates that the Commonwealth articulated a raceneutral reason for striking Juror 11: she suffered from migraine headaches. 

The trial court found this explanation credible. Trial Ct. Op. at 14. We must 

accord great deference to this decision, Williams, 980 A.2d at 531, and we 

see nothing in the record that casts doubt on the court’s conclusion. Since 

Appellant’s Batson challenge to striking Juror 11 lacks merit, his complaint 

that the trial court erroneously required him to demonstrate a pattern of 

discrimination before presenting a Batson challenge to Juror 11 is moot.

Finally, Appellant seeks a new trial based on alleged prosecutorial 

misconduct during closing argument. First, Appellant claims that the 

prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of Jones, who testified for 

the Commonwealth. The prosecutor stated:

[The Commonwealth]: I submit, maybe they lied six months ago. 

Maybe they might lie tomorrow. Yesterday, they were telling the 

truth. They sat there yesterday and told you the truth. [Jones] 

sat there and stood like a man and finally told you what happened.

May not have been telling the truth last month. He told the truth 

yesterday. All the evidence points to that. He did tell the truth 

yesterday, and that’s the only time he has to tell the truth was 

yesterday.

[Defense counsel]: Objection.

[The Commonwealth]: Then he said they want back to the 

apartment complex.

N.T., 6/18/15, at 121-22. 
J-S71019-17

- 24 -

To begin with, Appellant waived this issue due to defense counsel’s 

failure to specify any grounds for his objection. Commonwealth v. Lopez, 

57 A.3d 74, 82 (Pa. Super. 2012) (party must make timely and specific 

objection to preserve issue for appellate review; merely stating “objection” is 

insufficient). Even if Appellant had preserved this issue, it is devoid of merit. 

“[T]he prosecution is accorded reasonable latitude, may employ oratorical flair 

in arguing its version of the case to the jury, and may advance arguments 

supported by the evidence or use inferences that can reasonably be derived 

therefrom.” Commonwealth v. Jaynes, 135 A.3d 606, 615 (Pa. Super. 

2016). The prosecutor herein argued that the witnesses told the truth on the 

stand because they were under oath, despite their earlier lies. These facts—

the witnesses had given prior inconsistent statements and were under oath 

when they testified—were in the record. N.T., 6/17/15, at 78-80. Therefore, 

the prosecutor advanced arguments that found support in the record, and he 

did not improperly vouch for any witness’s credibility.

Second, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth prejudiced him 

during closing argument by stating that the jury was the “voice” for the 

deceased victim, Hashimbey. At the beginning of closing argument, the 

prosecutor stated: “The only person who can’t speak anymore is George 

Hashimbey . . . He really doesn’t have a voice anymore. He’s never gonna 

speak again, never talk with his parents, anything. So he’s the one who can’t 

speak any more. He was silenced.” N.T., 6/18/15, at 94. At the conclusion 
J-S71019-17

- 25 -

of his closing, the prosecutor added, “You’re his voice. You’re his voice for 

him. You’re his voice for the family.” Id. at 141. 

Once again, Appellant waived this argument, because defense counsel 

did not object to either of the Commonwealth’s “voice” statements. Lopez, 

57 A.3d at 82. Even if Appellant preserved this objection, it does not warrant 

any relief. 

[I]t is well settled that any challenged prosecutorial comment 

must not be viewed in isolation, but rather must be considered in 

the context in which it was offered. Our review of a prosecutor's 

comment and an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct requires 

us to evaluate whether a defendant received a fair trial, not a 

perfect trial. Thus, it is well settled that statements made by the 

prosecutor to the jury during closing argument will not form the 

basis for granting a new trial unless the unavoidable effect of such 

comments would be to prejudice the jury, forming in their minds 

fixed bias and hostility toward the defendant so they could not 

weigh the evidence objectively and render a true verdict. The 

appellate courts have recognized that not every unwise remark by 

an attorney amounts to misconduct or warrants the grant of a new 

trial. 

Jaynes, 135 A.3d at 615 (citations and quotation marks omitted). The 

prosecutor made a passing remark during a lengthy closing argument that the 

jury served as the victim’s “voice.” While this comment might have been 

unnecessary, it did not have the unavoidable effect of prejudicing the jury. 

The Commonwealth presented strong evidence of Appellant’s guilt during trial, 

and the trial court instructed the jury to base its verdict on the evidence and 

not on counsel’s arguments. N.T., 6/18/15, at 160-62. We conclude that the 

jury decided this case based on the evidence presented against Appellant, not 

on the closing argument of the Commonwealth. 
J-S71019-17

- 26 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/18/18