J-A26038-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

RICARDO DUPLESSIS

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2601 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered November 17, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007098-2021

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM: FILED MARCH 3, 2023

Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the order 

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the

motion to quash filed by Appellee, Ricardo Duplessis, and dismissed the 

charges brought in the criminal information. We reverse and remand. 

The trial court set forth the relevant facts of this appeal as follows: 

On December 30, 2020, Alphonzo Anderson (“Decedent”), 

was shot and killed at 1109 Rosalie Street. [Appellee] was 

arrested and charged with Murder and associated charges 

on January 4, 2021. A preliminary hearing was held on 

August 9, 2021, where the Commonwealth called Marquita 

Grasty as the only testifying witness. Ms. Grasty’s 

identification of [Appellee] was stipulated between counsel 

as Ms. Grasty and [Appellee] share a child. Ms. Grasty

testified that she and [Appellee] have known each other 

since 2011, dating on and [off] for approximately six years. 

Ms. Grasty gave birth to their child in 2017, and officially 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 
J-A26038-22

- 2 -

ended the relationship with [Appellee] in 2019. Over the 

course of her relationship with [Appellee], Ms. Grasty began 

dating the Decedent on and off in 2016. [Appellee] was 

aware of this relationship. 

On the night of December 29, 2020, Ms. Grasty was at home 

where she called the Decedent a Lyft at approximately 

10:00 p.m. While Ms. Grasty intended to send a screenshot 

of the Lyft ride to the Decedent, she accidently sent the 

screenshot to [Appellee], and her mother. [Appellee] 

responded to the text message asking if Ms. Grasty would 

speak on the phone. [Appellee] further stated that Ms. 

Grasty would not speak to him since the Decedent would be 

at her home. Ms. Grasty replied to [Appellee’s] message, 

stating “Mr. Anderson was coming to get something out of 

her car and then going home.” 

The Decedent arrived at Ms. Grasty’s home at 

approximately 11:00 p.m. [Appellee] texted Ms. Grasty 

stating, “he was going for a walk.” Ms. Grasty did not 

respond. The Decedent was inside Ms. Grasty’s home for a 

few hours before leaving to sleep in Ms. Grasty’s Honda

Accord, parked in the rear of her home. To Ms. Grasty’s 

knowledge, people did not usually travel in the back area of 

her home, but [Appellee] had previously been in that area. 

When the Decedent left to sleep in the car, Ms. Grasty went 

to her bedroom to go to sleep. Overnight, Ms. Grasty woke 

up to the sound of four gunshots. Ms. Grasty sent a text 

message, checking on the Decedent. Without receiving a 

response, Ms. Grasty went back to sleep under the 

assumption the Decedent was still asleep. At approximately 

7:00 a.m. Ms. Grasty walked outside to find the Decedent 

sitting in the car, covered in blood. Counsel further 

stipulated that if Officers McDonna and McCabe were to 

testify, they would attest to arriving at 1109 Rosalie Street 

on December 30, 2020 at approximately 7:39 a.m. where 

they found the Decedent sitting in a gray Honda Accord with 

gunshot wounds to the face. 

A video compilation created during the investigation was 

presented at the preliminary [hearing]. Ms. Grasty was 

previously shown the video during an initial interview with 

the homicide unit. While on the stand, Ms. Grasty viewed 

the same video with the inclusion of additional angles. 
J-A26038-22

- 3 -

Testifying to the video compilation, Ms. Grasty identified 

[Appellee] as the individual seen walking on Summerdale 

Avenue. Despite defense counsel objections, Ms. Grasty’s

identification of [Appellee] was admitted. Ms. Grasty further 

testified that she was able to accurately identify [Appellee]

based on familiarity with his general demeanor due to their

long-term relationship. Although [Appellee] knew Ms. 

Grasty to park her car behind her home, Ms. Grasty testified 

that [Appellee] would not have known the Decedent was 

sleeping in her car. Ms. Grasty initially said that she did not 

know [Appellee] to own a gun but attested to his history of 

violence. In 2019, [Appellee] choked Ms. Grasty during a 

domestic altercation. Ms. Grasty originally testified that 

[Appellee] did not make any comment regarding her 

relationship to the Decedent during the incident, however, 

upon refreshing her recollection with a police statement, it 

was established that [Appellee] wrote in a letter to Ms. 

Grasty “while I was choking you, all I saw was your 

boyfriend [Decedent].” Further testimony based on the 

prior statement revealed that Ms. Grasty was aware 

[Appellee] owned a firearm that he stored in his basement 

ceiling. 

On cross examination, Ms. Grasty testified that multiple 

residents regularly parked their vehicles in the alley located 

behind her home. Ms. Grasty was aware that the Decedent 

was charged with dealing drugs and carrying an illegal 

firearm but was unaware of his involvement at the time of 

his death. Ms. Grasty admitted that there was nothing 

specifically unique about [Appellee’s] walk to make it 

identifiable, nor had [Appellee] suffered an injury that would

make his walk distinctive. The only time [Appellee] went to 

Ms. Grasty’s home at night was upon his release from jail in 

2020 to pick up their son. 

Lastly, counsel stipulated to the video compilation which is 

summarized as follows: The video, time stamped at 

approximately 5:45 a.m., shows an individual walking down 

Summerdale Ave. toward the back alley where Ms. Grasty’s

parked vehicle is located. An individual is seen dressed in 

plain, dark, clothing and black shoes. Video surveillance 

from a private residential home located on Rosalie Street, 

showed the individual entering the alleyway and walking in 

the direction of the gray Honda Accord. The individual 
J-A26038-22

- 4 -

proceeds to investigate the vehicle and remove a firearm 

from his jacket pocket. Surveillance shows the individual

walking around the car with the firearm in hand. The 

individual then walks to the other side of the alleyway, out 

of view of the camera. Approximately [two] minutes lapse, 

and the individual walks past the car again without the 

firearm present. The next camera angle shows the 

individual standing at the Summerdale Ave. entrance to the 

alleyway for several minutes. After, the individual returns 

to the alley he is seen walking towards the car, with the 

firearm in hand. The individual approaches the car, looks 

inside, and proceeds to fire [three] gunshots into the car. 

The individual then runs out [of] the alley toward Frontenac 

Street. The video surveillance concludes on Frontenac 

Street showing the same individual dressed in dark clothing 

exiting the alley way and running up the street. 

(Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/17/22, at 2-5) (internal footnotes and record 

citations omitted). 

At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Appellee was held for court 

on charges of murder, carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a firearm 

on public streets in Philadelphia, and possessing instruments of crime (“PIC”).

1

 

On September 22, 2021, Appellee filed a motion to quash the charges. In it, 

Appellee argued that the Commonwealth “failed to establish a prima facie

case” as to any of the charges. (Motion, filed 9/22/21, at ¶3). The court 

conducted another hearing on November 17, 2021. That same day, the court 

granted Appellee’s motion and dismissed all charges. Specifically, the court 

determined “that the Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case of 

identity.” (N.T. Pretrial Hearing, 11/17/21, at 5).

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502, 6106, 6108, and 907, respectively. 
J-A26038-22

- 5 -

The Commonwealth timely filed a notice of appeal on December 7, 2021. 

On January 4, 2022, the court ordered the Commonwealth to file a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. The 

Commonwealth timely filed its Rule 1925(b) statement on January 18, 2022. 

The Commonwealth now raises one issue for our review: 

Did the [trial] court err in ruling that the evidence was 

insufficient to establish a prima facie case that [Appellee] 

committed the crimes charged, where [Appellee’s] exgirlfriend—who had known him for more than eight years—

identified him from a surveillance video as the person who 

repeatedly shot the victim as he lay sleeping in a car parked 

in an alleyway behind her house? 

(Commonwealth’s Brief at 4). 

The following principles apply to this Court’s review of an order granting 

a pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus:

We review a decision to grant a pre-trial petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus by examining the evidence and reasonable 

inferences derived therefrom in a light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth. Whether the Commonwealth satisfied its 

burden of establishing a prima facie case for each charged 

crime is a question of law, to which this Court’s standard of 

review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. 

A pre-trial habeas corpus motion is the proper means for 

testing whether the Commonwealth has sufficient evidence 

to establish a prima facie case. To demonstrate that a prima

facie case exists, the Commonwealth must produce 

evidence of every material element of the charged 

offense(s) as well as the defendant’s complicity therein. To 

meet its burden, the Commonwealth may utilize the 

evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and also may 

submit additional proof. 

Commonwealth v. Wyatt, 203 A.3d 1115, 1117 (Pa.Super. 2019) (internal 
J-A26038-22

- 6 -

citations and quotation marks omitted). 

On appeal, the Commonwealth emphasizes Ms. Grasty’s preliminary 

hearing testimony identifying Appellee as the individual depicted in the 

surveillance video. In support of this identification, the Commonwealth 

reiterates that Ms. Grasty “was intimately familiar with [Appellee’s] 

appearance, gait, and demeanor because she had known him for nine years, 

dated him for six years, and had a child with him.” (Commonwealth’s Brief at 

12). To the extent that the trial court found Ms. Grasty’s testimony

unconvincing, the Commonwealth insists that the court made “an improper 

pretrial credibility determination.” (Id. at 13). The Commonwealth concludes 

that it presented a prima facie case as to each of the criminal charges, and 

this Court must reverse the order granting Appellee’s pretrial motion. We 

agree. 

“The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether the 

Commonwealth has made out a prima facie case for the offenses charged.” 

Commonwealth v. Ouch, 199 A.3d 918, 923 (Pa.Super. 2018). 

The preliminary hearing is not a trial. The principal function 

of a preliminary hearing is to protect an individual’s right 

against an unlawful arrest and detention. At this hearing 

the Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing at least 

a prima facie case that a crime has been committed and that 

the accused is probably the one who committed it. 

* * *

In addition, the evidence should be such that if presented 

at trial, and accepted as true, the judge would be warranted 

in allowing the case to go to the jury. The standard clearly 
J-A26038-22

- 7 -

does not require that the Commonwealth prove the 

accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at this stage. 

Most significant in this appeal, the weight and 

credibility of the evidence is not a factor at this stage. 

Commonwealth v. Hilliard, 172 A.3d 5, 10 (Pa.Super. 2017) (emphasis 

added; internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Inferences 

reasonably drawn from the evidence of record which would support a verdict 

of guilty are to be given effect, and the evidence must be read in the light 

most favorable to the Commonwealth’s case.” Ouch, supra at 923 (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Marti, 779 A.2d 1177, 1180 (Pa.Super. 2011)). 

Additionally, the Pennsylvania Crimes Code defines first-degree murder 

as follows:

§ 2502. Murder

(a) Murder of the first degree.―A criminal homicide 

constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed 

by an intentional killing. 

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a). 

To find a defendant guilty of first-degree murder a jury must 

find that the Commonwealth has proven that he or she 

unlawfully killed a human being and did so in an intentional, 

deliberate and premeditated manner. 

It is the element of a willful, premeditated and 

deliberate intent to kill that distinguishes first-degree 

murder from all other criminal homicide. ... 

The mens rea required for first-degree murder, specific 

intent to kill, may be established solely from circumstantial 

evidence. 

Commonwealth v. Schoff, 911 A.2d 147, 159-60 (Pa.Super. 2006) (internal 
J-A26038-22

- 8 -

citations and quotation marks omitted). 

The Crimes Code also defines the offense of PIC as follows: 

§ 907. Possessing instruments of crime 

(a) Criminal instruments generally.—A person 

commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses 

any instrument of crime with intent to employ it criminally. 

* * *

(d) Definitions.—As used in this section, the following 

words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them 

in this subsection:

* * *

“Instrument of crime.” Any of the following:

(1) Anything specially made or specially adapted 

for criminal use. 

(2) Anything used for criminal purposes and 

possessed by the actor under circumstances not 

manifestly appropriate for lawful uses it may have. 

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a), (d). 

The Uniform Firearms Act provides, in relevant part, as follows:

§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license 

(a) Offense defined.—

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any 

person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person 

who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, 

except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, 

without a valid and lawfully issued license under this 

chapter commits a felony of the third degree. 

* * *
J-A26038-22

- 9 -

§ 6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public 

property in Philadelphia 

No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any 

time upon the public streets or upon any public property in 

a city of the first class unless: 

(1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or

(2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 

6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried 

without a license). 

18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6106(a)(1) and 6108. 

Instantly, the record shows that Ms. Grasty first met Appellee in 2011, 

and she gave birth to his child in 2017. (See N.T. Preliminary Hearing, 8/9/21, 

at 8-9). After providing some additional context for this years-long 

relationship, Ms. Grasty unambiguously identified Appellee as the individual 

depicted in the surveillance video: 

[PROSECUTOR]: Does Homicide then show you some 

video from the area around your house? 

[WITNESS]: Yes. 

[PROSECUTOR]: After you watch the video, do you 

recognize anyone in the video? 

[WITNESS]: Yes. 

[PROSECUTOR]: Who do you recognize in the video? 

[WITNESS]: [Appellee]. 

(Id. at 19-20). 

Thereafter, the Commonwealth played a “compilation video,” which 
J-A26038-22

- 10 -

included images captured by several different cameras on the morning of the 

shooting. (Id. at 20). Again, Ms. Grasty identified Appellee as the individual 

in the video: 

[PROSECUTOR]: Ms. Grasty, can you see this individual 

walking? 

[WITNESS]: Yes. 

[PROSECUTOR]: Do you recognize that walk? 

[WITNESS]: Yes. 

[PROSECUTOR]: Whose walk is that? 

[WITNESS]: [Appellee]. 

(Id. at 23). 

At that point, defense counsel objected and argued that Ms. Grasty’s 

testimony was “not a reliable identification because of our inability to see” a 

clear image of the individual on the video. (Id. at 24). The court 

acknowledged that “[y]ou can’t necessarily see who that is” in the video, but 

Ms. Grasty made a permissible identification “based on a walk.” (Id.) When 

testimony resumed, the prosecutor confirmed that Ms. Grasty was familiar

with Appellee’s walk and his “general demeanor.” (Id. at 25). Ms. Grasty 

also stated that she had seen Appellee wear clothing that was similar to the 

wardrobe worn by the individual in the video. (See id.) 

Despite this evidence, the trial court determined that the 

Commonwealth failed to establish that Appellee was the individual depicted in 

the surveillance video. The court stated:
J-A26038-22

- 11 -

Here, evidence established that a premeditated, intentional 

killing amounting to first-degree murder occurred on 

December 30, 2020. However, the Commonwealth failed to

[demonstrate] that Appellee was, more likely than not, the 

individual who was responsible for the killing. During the 

preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth presented a video 

compilation and stipulated to the summary. Although the 

video accurately depicts the events of the crime, lay witness 

identification of the individual shown was not sufficient given 

the lack of identifiable factors. 

* * *

The video vaguely depicts an individual wearing dark 

clothing without identifying graphics or apparel logos. 

Additionally, the individual wore a hood, covering the head 

and a significant portion of the face. The face of the 

individual was not revealed in any of the varying camera 

angles presented. 

* * *

Although circumstantial evidence may create a logical 

connection as to [Appellee’s] motive, the witness 

identification based solely on her relationship with 

[Appellee,] in the absence of further corroborating evidence, 

is insufficient to establish that Appellee is responsible for the 

killing. 

(Trial Court Opinion at 7-9). 

On this record, we must disagree with the court’s conclusion that the 

Commonwealth failed to provide an adequate identification of Appellee. Ms. 

Grasty’s testimony definitively established: 1) she had known Appellee for 

years; 2) she was familiar with his appearance and demeanor; and 3) she 

believed Appellee was the individual depicted in the video. Under the totality 

of these circumstances, one could reasonably infer that Appellee was 

responsible for the shooting. See Wyatt, supra. The trial court’s decision to 
J-A26038-22

- 12 -

the contrary amounts to an impermissible evaluation of the weight of the 

evidence at the preliminary hearing stage. See Hilliard, supra. 

Our review of the testimony produced at the preliminary hearing, viewed 

in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and accepted as true at this 

juncture, leads us to conclude that the Commonwealth presented sufficient 

evidence to establish a prima facie case as to murder, PIC, and the firearms 

charges filed against Appellee. See Ouch, supra; Hilliard, supra. 

Accordingly, we reverse the order granting Appellee’s motion to quash and 

remand this case for further proceedings. 

Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judge Bowes joins this memorandum.

Judge Pellegrini files a dissenting memorandum.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/3/2023