J-A01035-16

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

WILLIAM THOMPSON

Appellant No. 887 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 9, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002719-2013

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 26, 2016

William Thompson appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in 

the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following a non-jury trial 

in which Thompson was convicted of robbery,1theft by unlawful taking,2

receiving stolen property,3criminal mischief-tampering with property,4and 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a).

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3921(a).

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a).

4 18 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(2).
J-A01035-16

- 2 -

criminal mischief.5 After our review, we affirm based on the opinion of the 

Honorable Roxanne Covington, dated May 5, 2015.6 

Benjamin Rothstein owned the property at 418 W. Spencer Street in 

Philadelphia, where Thompson, who was Rothstein’s former foster son, 

resided. Because Thompson had not been paying his bill, a Philadelphia Gas 

Works employee and Rothstein arrived at the property on February 12, 

2013, in separate vans, to shut off the gas. While Rothstein was in his van, 

Thompson and his girlfriend came out of the house; Thompson threatened 

Rothstein, screaming that he was going to “f--- [Rothstein] up” and damage 

the house so no one else could live in it. N.T. Trial, 11/19/13, at 16. 

Someone, either Thompson or his girlfriend, threw a rock at Rothstein’s van, 

at which point Rothstein called 9-1-1. Thompson grabbed the driver’s side 

door and tried to open it, and when he could not, he kicked the van, denting 

the van and breaking the driver’s side-view mirror. He also tried to rip off 

the license plate frame. In total, Thompson caused $3,300 worth of damage 

to the van. Thompson then went to the passenger side of the van, which 

was unlocked, and reached in and grabbed Rothstein’s wrist and took the 

wallet from Rothstein’s hands. He threw Rothstein’s wallet onto the roof of a 

____________________________________________

5 18 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(4).

6

In response to Thompson’s Application for Relief, this Court entered an 

order on February 13, 2015 directing the trial court to file its Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(a) opinion and certify and transmit the record within thirty (30) days. 

The court’s opinion was not filed until May 5, 2015. 
J-A01035-16

- 3 -

nearby building. When Rothstein later retrieved his wallet, his cash 

(between $80 and $100) and one of his credit cards were missing. 

Following a bench trial before the Honorable Roxanne Covington, 

Thompson was convicted of the foregoing charges and sentenced to twenty 

(20) to forty (40) months’ incarceration, followed by three years’ probation. 

Thompson filed post-sentence motions, which were denied. This timely 

appeal followed.

On appeal, Thompson raises ten issues:

1. Did the trial court err in precluding cross-examination on 

several issues, specifically stating it was precluding counsel 

from making a record?

2. Did the trial court err in precluding the defendant from even 

making a record during [the] sentencing hearing?

3. Did the trial court err in precluding any inquiry or even 

making a record as to the complainant’s own statements to 

the police regarding his motives to be [at] the defendant’s 

residence, his intent on evicting defendant?

4. Did the trial court err in precluding cross-examination of Ben 

Rothstein, the Commonwealth’s only witness, as to prior 

financial dealing between the parties, and why defendant was 

living in Rothstein’s 418 Spencer Street property?

5. Did the trial court err in denying defendant his right to 

confront his accuser and cross-examine Rothstein on the 

eviction, the long term financial dealings, Rothstein’s motive 

to lie, and bias? 

6. Did the trial court err in denying defendant his due process 

rights, thereby prejudicing his right to a fair trial, which 

constitutional errors were so fundamentally unfair and in 

direct contravention of long established evidentiary case law 

as to evidence a judicial bias against Mr. Thompson?

7. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it precluded full 

and complete cross-examination of Ben Rothstein about all 
J-A01035-16

- 4 -

issue of financial interest, prior financial dealings, and 

monetary claims between the only two trial witnesses so as to 

permit defendant to make a record of the Commonwealth’s 

sole witness’ motive to lie and bias on the witness stand? 

8. Did the trial court abuse it discretion when it precluded (by 

sustaining Commonwealth’s relevancy objections during 

defendant’s testimony) the defendant from testifying about all 

issues of financial interest, prior financial dealings, and 

monetary claims between the only two trial witnesses so as to 

establish the Commonwealth’s sole witness’ motive to lie and 

bias against the defendant?

9. Are the trial court’s errors of constitutional nature because 

they denied defendant his right to confront his accuser 

guaranteed by Article I, section 9 of the Pennsylvania 

Constitution?

10. Are the trial court’s errors of constitutional nature clear 

and obvious reversible error? 

Appellant’s Brief at 9-10. 

Thompson argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it 

precluded cross-examination of Rothstein regarding issues of “motive, bias 

and credibility.” Appellant’s Brief, at 12. Each of Thompson’s issues 

challenges the court’s exclusion of evidence regarding the nature of the 

relationship between him and Rothstein. The trial court allowed Thompson 

to establish the fact of an ongoing financial dispute between him and 

Rothstein. The trial court restricted the scope of Thompson’s crossexamination of Rothstein, concluding that the details of their acrimonious 

financial relationship were immaterial to the criminal case before the court. 

Even if Thompson had a right to be in the house on Spencer Street on 
J-A01035-16

- 5 -

February 12, 2013, that, in addition to their financial disputes, were 

immaterial to Thompson’s criminal behavior on that date. 

The extent to which a witness may be cross-examined and the subject 

matter of the cross-examination are matters within the sound discretion of 

the trial judge; we will not overturn the court’s decision absent an abuse of 

discretion. Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 861 A.2d 898 (Pa. 2004); 

Commonwealth v. Cheatham, 239 A.2d 293, 296 (Pa. 1968); see also 

Commonwealth v. Britton, 380 A.2d 807 (Pa. Super. 1977). A trial court 

has discretion to determine both the scope and the permissible limits of 

cross-examination. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 1211, 1230 (Pa. 

2009). 

We find no abuse of discretion here. The court allowed Thompson to 

demonstrate the existence of a financial dispute with Rothstein, in particular 

a failed real estate deal involving $25,000, but did not permit crossexamination on the details of that matter or the details of the history of their 

relationship. The court was within its discretion to keep the testimony 

focused on the criminal matter before it. We agree with the trial court’s 

finding that Thompson’s requested cross-examination was irrelevant under 

the circumstances. Rivera, supra. 

We find no abuse of discretion, and we affirm the judgment of 

sentence based on Judge Covington’s opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 

5/5/15. We direct the parties to attach a copy of the opinion in the event of

further proceedings. 
J-A01035-16

- 6 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/26/2016
steps of the property at 418 West Spencer Str00• ld. at 15, 36. Mr. Rothstein waited for police 

16 

l l/19/20l3, pp. 12-14. Mr. Rothstein observed Defendant, his former foster child, on the front 

across the street from the property he owned at 418 West Spencer Street, Philadelphia. N.T. 

Factual History 

On February 12, 2013, at around 3:15 p.m., Mr. Benjamin Rothstein parked his van 

was denied on March 13, 2014. On March 20, 2014, Defendant filed a timely notice of Appeal. 

On January 17, 2014, Defendant filed a Post Sentence Motion for reconsideration, which 

sentenced twenty (20) to forty ( 40) months incarceration followed by three (3) years probation. 

of a Presentence Investigation Report, Defendant's post-verdict motion was denied and he was 

Defendant filed a motion for extraordinary relief On January 8, 2014, following the completion 

Pa.C.S. § 3304(A2)), and Criminal Mischief (18 Pa.C.S. § 3304(A4)). On November 21, 2013, 

Stolen Property (18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(A)), Criminal Mischief Tampering With Property (18 

Robbery (18 Pa.C.S. § 370l(A)), Theft by Unlawful Taking (18 Pa.C.S. § 3921 (A)), Receiving 

On November 19, 2013, following a bench trial, the defendant was found guilty of 

II 111 11111111111111111111 

7289993211 

Procedural History 

MAY 6 2015 

Criminal Appeals Unit 

First Judicial District of PA 

CP-51-<:R-0002110-2013 CorMi v Thom~ocn ,::a,•m COVINGTON, J. OpinlQt\ 

FILED OPINION 

WILLIAM THOMPSON 

887 EDA 2014 vs. 

CP-51-CR-0002719-2013 COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

F1RST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

TRIAL DIVISION-CRIMINAL SECTION 

I 

I 

j 

I 

i· 

Circulated 04/06/2016 03:32 PM
17 

building. Id. at 28-29. 

wanted his wallet back, then threw the wallet across the street onto the top of the roof of a small 

Defendant exited his house, walked down to the sidewalk, again asked Mr. Rothstein if he 

was back inside the house, Mr. Rothstein called the police again. Id. Prior to the police arriving, 

repeatedly asking Mr. Rothstein, "Do you want this? Do you want this?" Id. While Defendant 

his hand. Id. at 27. Defendant then exited the vehicle, and walked back to the house while 

Defendant entered the car, grabbed Mr. Rothstein's wrist, and took Mr. Rothstein's wallet from 

and was able to open the door that was left unlocked by the prior passenger. Id. at 26. 

from the rear of the vehicle. Id at 21-23. Defendant approached the passenger-side front door, 

doors were also locked. Id. Defendant then yanked the license plate frame and surrounding area 

at Mr. Rothstein. Id. at 20. Defendant tried to enter through the rear doors of the van, but those 

Id. at 19. Defendant proceeded to walk along the side of the van, while kicking it and screaming 

side door, but the door was locked. Id. Defendant punched the window, but failed to break it. 

Mr. Rothstein called 911, and Defendant tried to enter the van through the front driver's 

the direction of Defendant and his girlfriend. Id. at 16-17. 

leaving a dent. Id. at 18. Mr. Rothstein didn't see who threw the rock but saw that it came from 

Rothstein ''better get out of there." Id. at 15-16. Mr. Rothstein then observed a rock hit his van, 

he was going to take an axe to the floor of the house if Mr. Rothstein entered, and that Mr. 

going to destroy the house so nobody would ever live in it again. Id. Defendant further yelled 

Rothstein to go away. Id. Defendant said he was going to "fuck [Mr. Rothstein] up" and he was 

calls and threats. Id. at 56-57. Defendant approached Mr. Rothstein's van while yelling at Mr. 

Mr. Rothstein previously obtained a stay-away order against Defendant, due to numerous phone 

officers to escort him and gas company workers into his property to tum the gas off. Id. at 40. 

I 

i 

! 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

' [ 

I 
18 

door of the van, argued with Mr. Rothstein about money, and threw Mr. Rothstein' s wallet. Id. 

Rothstein or damaged his van. Id. at 8 l ·82. Defendant said he leaned in the front passenger side 

window down to talk, and began to yell. Id. at 81. Defendant testified he never threatened Mr. 

window politely. Id. at 80. Defendant indicated he repeatedly asked Mr. Rothstein to roll his 

Rothstein's van on the street by the property, he approached the vehicle and knocked on the 

out. The gas company's coming." Id. at 80. Defendant further testified that when he saw Mr. 

Defendant said Mr. Rothstein called him at 2:30 p.m. on February 12, 2011, and said, "Watch 

the house located at 418 West Spencer Street, with. his wife and four children. Id. at 77. 

work out. N.T. 11/19/2013, p. 76. Defendant stated Mr. Rothstein permitted him to move into 

Defendant testified he had some financial dealings with Mr. Rothstein in 2011, that dido 't 

property that day, nor to take his wallet. Id. at 36. 

tum off the gas. Id. Mr. Rothstein testified Defendant did not have permission to enter the 

press charges against Defendant, and allowed the gas company workers to enter the property and 

Defendant had left the property. Id. at 34. Mr. Rothstein told the police officers he wanted to 

physical force, and Mr. Rothstein agreed. Id. at 34. The police officer kicked the door in but 

coming in." Id. at 32-33. The police asked Mr. Rothstein for permission to enter the house by 

Street. Id. at 32. Defendant refused to open the door, saying, "My kids are in here. You are not 

The Police arrived and knocked on the door of the house located al 418 West Spencer 

the wallet. Id. at 31. 

$100 in cash. Id. at 27. Mr. Rothstein never found one of his credit cards or the cash from inside 

31. Mr. Rothstein's wallet previously contained credit cards, pictures, and approximately $80 to 

fence. Id. at 30. Most of the contents of Mr. Rothstein's wallet were on the ground. Id. at 30- 

Mr. Joe Cane recovered the wallet from the roof of the small building by climbing a 

I 

I I I 

11 

I \ 

: I I 

! l 

I\ 

I 

I I 

\ I 

! \ 

. l i 

I i 
or omissions during testimony. Id. The power of an attorney to question and impeach witnesses 

19 

concerning issues raised on direct examination and impeach a witness through inconsistent acts 

Pa. 239 (Pa. 2001 ). During cross-examination, an attorney is permitted to question a witness 

Commonwealth v. Ogrod, 576 Pa. 412, 459 (Pa. 2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. Begley, 566 

I. The Court Did Not Err in Sustaining Objections to Defense Cross Examination 

The scope of cross-examination during trial is with.in the discretion of the trial court. 

making a record, and (5) in making evidentiary findings so unfair it constituted judicial bias. 

record during the sentencing hearing. (4) in specifically stating it was precluding counsel from 

the accuser by precluding cross-examination, (3) in precluding the defendant from making a 

precluding cross examination on several issues, (2) in denying the defendant his right to confront 

asserts 12 errors which can be summarized more specifically as the court erred in: (1) in 

Pursuant to the l925(b) Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, the Defendant 

Discussion 

result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the evidence of record.'' Id. at 570 

or misapplication of the Jaw, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or the 

2004). "An 'abuse of discretion' is not merely an error of judgment, but rather, is the overriding 

trial court abused its discretion." Commonwealth v. Gray, 867 A.2d 560, 569-70 (Pa.Super. 

discretion of the trial court, and such a decision will be reversed only upon a showing that the 

The standard of review for the "admissibility of evidence rests within the sound 

Standard of Review 

87. 

85. Defendant further testified he didn't take any credit card or cash out of the wallet. Id. at 86- 

i 

.. I 

I 

: I 

1--r--------··-· 

I - I,\ I I 

I 
20 

N.T. 11/19/2013, p. 57. These questions were objected to, and sustained, on relevancy grounds. 

agreement did not go through and that's why you let him live in your house on Spencer Street?" 

"Isn't it true that (Defendant] had given you approximately $25,000 to purchase a home, and that 

between the two of you not working out?" N.T. 11/19/2013, p. 38. Defense counsel asked, 

"Is it fair to say that (Defendant] was in the property as a result of a prior financial arrangement 

[Defendant] working for you in any capacity?" N.T. 11/19/2013, p. 37. Defense counsel asked, 

counsel also asked, "Prior to [February 12, 2011] with regard to 418 West Spencer Street was 

type of .financial relationship between you and [Defendant]?" N.T. 11/19/2013, p. 49. Defense 

Defense counsel asked Mr. Rothstein, "Isn't it fair to say there was a breakdown in some 

house Defendant was staying in. 

Defendant having prior failed financial dealings with the complaining witness, regarding the 

hand. The majority of defense counsel's precluded cross examination questions related to 

these questions as irrelevant to the current matter, as they failed to further explore the case at 

intent, bias, and motive to lie. The court repeatedly sustained the Commonwealth's objections to 

In the instant case, defense counsel asked several questions under the guise of exploring 

court, whose decisions will not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. Id. 

Id. Therefore, issues of relevancy are left in large measure to the sound discretion of the trial 

or to show the origin and history of the transaction between the patties and explain its character. 

Evidence is admissible which tends to make the fact at issue more or less probable or intelligible 

experience. Commonwealth v. Copeland, 38 l Pa. Super. 382 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) 

The law furnishes no test of relevancy, but tacitly refers it to logic and general 

Id. 

is subject to the trial court's power lo allow or disallow certain inquiries on cross-examination. 

1 · 

I 

' 

I 

I 

I I 

I 

I 

' 

I. 

! I 

~-;,...-------· . ·---· .. I 
21 

out of his property. As it was clear from previous testimony that Mr. Rothstein wished for 

financial dealings, including rent, and whether Mr. Rothstein was attempting to kick Defendant 

motive or intent to lie. Defense counsel was attempting to illicit more information about the 

Defense counsel's line of questioning was similarly irrelevant to the issues at hand and to 

sustained, on relevancy grounds. Id. at 40, 58, 64. 

live [at 418 Spencer Street)." N.T. 11/19/2013, p. 64. The questions were all objected to, and 

property]?" N.T. 11/19/2013, p. 58. Defense counsel also asked Mr. Rothstein, "When did you 

off?" N.T. 11/19/2013, p. 40. Defense counsel asked, "Had rent been paid [on the Spencer Street 

.. . 

I 

I property that you had let Defendant living in? Why were you going to let them shove the gas 

Defense counsel asked Mr. Rothstein, "Why were you there letting the gas company in a 

Rothstein any more likely to lie than not lie. 

why the amount of money exchanged or the nature of their financial dispute would make Mr. 

Defendant can be surmised from the fact that any financial dispute existed. There is no reason 

evidence that Mr. Rothstein was biased against the defendant or would want to falsely accuse 

Defendant out of his property has no bearing on Mr. Rothstein's bias or motive to lie. All 

the specifics of the financial dispute. Further exploring the reason Mr. Rothstein wanted 

no longer wanted Defendant in his property. Defense counsel's line of questioning all related to 

and by Defense counsel's cross examination, that there was a financial dispute and Mr. Rothstein 

property at 418 Spencer Street that went awry. It was clear from the testimony of Mr. Rothstein 

Defense counsel attempted to demonstrate that some financial issues involving the 

right to be in the house and Mr. Rothstein felt like he didn't." N.T. 11/19/2013, p. 79. 

and, you know, there is some financial stuff between them and [Defendant] felt like he had a 

Id. at 37, 38, 52, 58. The Court stated, "I kind of get the picture that they had some dealings 

I = 

I 

' 

I 

1. 

• I, 

, I 

n:- -· ·-- .. ·-·- ... 

i 

I 

I 
22 

the circumstances surrounding the incident on February 12, 2011, that Mr. Rothstein was 

taken to evict Defendant are irrelevant to his propensity to lie about Defendant. It is clear from 

desire for Defendant to leave the property. The methods Mr. Rothstein may or may not have 

This line of questioning from Defense counsel further harps back to Mr. Rothstein's 

was objected to, and sustained, on relevancy grounds. Id. 

any paperwork regarding any type of civil action you were going to take?" Id. These questions 

were going to get an ejectment?" Id. He then asked, "Did you provide the Commonwealth with 

preliminary hearing that "because [Defendant and his family] were in the property so long, they 

418 Spencer Street?" N.T. 11/19/2013, p. 61. He further asked if Mr. Rothstein testified at the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to commence an ejectment of [Defendant] from 

Defense counsel asked, "Did you secure any civil paperwork, file anything in the 

dealings and Mr. Rothstein's desire for Defendant to leave the property. 

questions were also a underhanded method to illicit more testimony about Defendant's financial 

Defendant and his possible bias against Defendant, the details of the PFA are irrelevant. These 

Although the securing of a PFA is certainly relevant to Mr. Rothstein's feelings about 

grounds. Id. 

sir?" N.T. ll/19/2013, p. 57. The question was objected to, and sustained, on relevancy 

sustained, on relevancy grounds. Id. Defense counsel then asked, "When did you get the PF A, 

his wife] on March 1, 2013?" N.T. 11/19/2013, p. 57. The question was objected to, and 

Defense counsel asked, "ls [your securing a PFA] why you sent a letter to [Defendant and 

challenge Mr. Rothstein' s credibility. 

Defendant to leave the property, it is illogical that further testimony on the matter would 

I . 

I 
23 

basis and denied when appropriate. 

complaining witness, and rulings on cross-examination questions were heard on an individual 

permitted to ask every question he desired, he was able to effectively cross examine the 

opportunity to conduct an effective cross examination. Although defense counsel was not 

I 

I 

I 

1 · 

i 

I 

I 

Li the instant case, as explained at large, supra, the Defendant was afforded ample 

whatever extent, the defense might wish." Id. 

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

(Pa. Super. 1994). "In short, the Confrontation Clause only guarantees the opportunity for 

trial, the confrontation clause is not implicated. Commonwealth. v, Reed, 644 A.2d 1223, 1225 

a discovery tool. So long as the defendant is given a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine at 

The United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause was a trial right, not 

II. No Confrontation Issue 

lead one to believe be was more or less likely to have testified credibly. 

actions. What Mr. Rothstein told the police is further irrelevant to his credibility, as it couldn't 

the witness's motive to lie. What Mr. Rothstein told the police is irrelevant to Defendant's 

This final line of questioning from defense counsel is irrelevant to the case at hand and 

on relevancy grounds. Id. at 65. 

between you, did you?" N.T. 11/19/2013, p. 64. Both questions were objected lo, and sustained, 

live in your property, did you?" and, "you didn't tell the police about money that was owed 

Defense counsel asked Mr. Rothstein, "You didn't tell the police about your letting him 

Rothstein less credible, nor be relevant to Defendant's behaviors on February 12, 2011. 

attempting to remove Defendant from the property. Any previous attempts would not render Mr. 
24 

Defense counsel is referring to the Court's statement, "So I am going to ask you to focus on the 

during sentencing hearing ... specifically stating it was precluding counsel from making a record." 

I Counsel alleges the court erred in "precluding the Defendant from even making a record 

I 

1 · 

I 

l: 

I 

I 

IV. The Court Did Not Err in Stating it Was Precluding Defense from Making a 

Record 

the victim. 

impact statements, which can be written and presented without testimony or cross examination of 

is further illustrated by the widely accepted, and encouraged, practice of introducing victimAs referenced in Wantz, there is no right to cross examination during a sentencing hearing. This 

Court sustained objections of the Commonwealth when Defense Counsel was cross examining. 

In the instant case, the Court did not preclude Defense Counsel from making a record, the 

community." Id. quoting 42 Pa.C.S. 9721. 

issue of "the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the 

friends as well as other evidence such as photographs at sentencing on the relevant sentencing 

Commonwealth may properly present live testimony of the victim and/or the victim's family or 

A.2d 610, 614-615 (Pa. Super. 1990). "Moreover, at the discretion of the trial court, the 

impact statements included in the PSI Report." Id. quoting Commonwealth v. Mcl.aughlin, 74 

victims of all crimes have the same right to breathe life with all its emotions into their victim 

432 F.3d 651, 654 (6th Cir. 2005). "Under our legislature's "Basic Bill of Rights for Victims," 

Commonwealth. v. Wantz, 84 A.3d 324, 337 (Pa. Super. 2014), quoting United States v. Stone, 

long-settled rule that the Confrontation Clause does not apply in sentencing hearings. 

"Because Crawford focused only on testimonial evidence at trial, "it does not change our 

III. The Court Did Not Preclude Defense Counsel From Making a Record at 

Sentencing Hearing 

,,f 

!, 

~ 

I 

., 
25 

a fair trial was administered. Thus, the Defendant's claim of judicial bias lacks merit. 

As discussed, supra, the Defendant's claims of numerous judicial errors are rneritless, and 

Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352, 367 (Pa. 1995), (citing Reilly v. SEPTA, 489 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 1985)). 

received a fair trial, then the allegation of judicial bias is not borne out. Commonwelath v. 

judge against that defendant. If the appellate court determines that the party alleging judicial bias 

"simply because a judge rules against a defendant does not establish any bias on the part of the 

Where the appellant's allegations of judicial error were deemed meritless, the courts held, 

V. There Is No Merit to the Claim of Judicial Bias 

self-help measure, and did not commit any crime. 

after the defense attorney repeatedly made a record of his opinion that Defendant had engaged in 

matter at hand, rather than allowing him to re-litigate Defendant's trial. This statement was made 

from making a record. The Court merely attempted to bring the defense attorney back to the 

The Court's statements, taken as a whole, were not intended to preclude the defense attorney 

information to sentence your client appropriately." Id. 

going to ask you, counsel to please focus on your client's sentencing so that l may have relevant 

"I don't - yes, because that record has been determined, it's not relevant before this court. l am 

understand, Your Honor. Are you precluding me from making a record?" id. The Court replied, 

object[ionJ has been sustained as irrelevant." N.T. 1/9/2014, p. 20. Defense counsel then said, "I 

on that in your hearing, in your motion for reconsideration, it has been objected to, the 

information pertaining to your client's sentencing, we are beyond that. You have made argument 

I\ 

Ii 

i ....... 

:• 

1: 

1\ 

J 

I 
26 

:~.::~:I I 

-~~ - 

May 4, 2015 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt be affirmed. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that the Trial Court's determination of 

Conclusion 

I 

. i .. 

i I 

' i . 

i ; 

• I 

' I 

I i 

' i 

I I 

I I 

i j 

i 

I I 

i 

; 

! 

I 

I 

.. 

' ' 

r-· ;·-., -----------· ---·· - --·. -···. 

!