### J - A01035 - 16

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA 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, 1 

### theft by unlawful taking, 2 

### receiving stolen property, 3 

### criminal mischief - tampering with property, 4 

### and

____________________________________________ 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 i n 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 v an, 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 re ached 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 fi led 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 Roth stein’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 agains t 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 testimon y) 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. Ar e 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 Tho mpson’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 cou rt restricted the scope of Thompson’s cross examination 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 wit hin 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. Bri tton , 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 cross examination on the details of that matt er 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: 4/26/2016s t e p s o f th e pr o p erty at 41 8 W es t Sp e n cer S tr 00 • ld. at 15, 36. Mr . R o ths t ei n wai ted fo r p olice 16 l l/1 9/20 l3, pp . 1 2- 14. Mr. R o th s t e in observed D efe n d an t, hi s forme r fos t e r ch i ld, on th e fro n t ac r oss the s tr ee t fr om th e prop e rty h e o w n ed at 41 8 West S p e n ce r S tr ee t , Philade l p hia . N . T. F a c tu al Hi s tory O n Fe bru ary 1 2, 20 1 3, at ar o un d 3 : 1 5 p .m . , Mr. Benjamin R othstein parked his van was d enied o n March 1 3, 201 4 . O n Marc h 20, 20 1 4, D efendan t fi l ed a timely notice of A ppeal. On Jan u ary 17, 2 0 1 4 , D efend ant fi led a P ost Sentence M o tion for r eco n side r ation, which se n t e n ce d twe n ty ( 20) to forty ( 4 0 ) mo n th s incar ce r ati on fo ll owed by three (3) years probation. of a Pr ese n te n ce Inves tigati o n R e port , D efen d ant's p ost-ve r di c t mo ti on was denied and he was Defe ndan t fi l ed a moti o n fo r e x trao r d in ary re l ie f On January 8, 201 4 , foll o wi n g the comp l e tion Pa.C . S. § 330 4 (A2)), and C rimin al M ischief (18 P a. C .S . § 330 4 (A4)) . O n November 2 1 , 20 1 3, S t o l e n Pr o p e rty (18 P a.C.S. § 3925( A )), Criminal Misc hi ef T amperi n g With Pr operty (18 Rob b ery (18 Pa.C.S. § 370 l (A)), T h eft by Un l awfu l Taking (18 P a .C. S . 

### § 392 1 ( A )), R eceiving On No v emb e r 1 9, 2013, following a b e n ch trial , the defendant was found guilty of



# II 111 111 111111 1 1 1111 1 1 111 7289993211 Pro ce dur al H i s t o ry 

### MAY 6 2 0 1 5 

## C rim i n a l Ap p e a ls Un it Fir s t Jud i c ia l D i s t r i c t o f PA CP

- 51-<:R-00021 1 0-2013 CorMi v T hom~ocn ,::a,•m

Op inl Qt\ C O V I NGT O N, J . 

# FILED OPI N I O N WIL L I A M T HOMP S O N 8 87 E D A 2014

v s. C P

- 51 -C R

- 0 0 0 2 7 1 9

- 2 0 13 C OMMONWE AL TH O F P ENNSYL V AN I A

I N T H E C O U R T OF C OMMO N P LEAS F1RST JU DI C I AL D ISTRICT O F P ENNSYL V ANIA T RI AL DIVI S IO N-C RIM I NAL SECT I ON

I I j 

# I i · Circulated 04/06/2016 03:32 PM17

buil d in g. 

### Id

. at 2 8

- 29. w ant ed hi s wall et ba ck , then threw th e wall e t a cro ss th e s tre e t onto the t o p of the roof of a small D e fend ant exi ted hi s h ou s e, walke d d o wn t o th e s id e walk , ag ain a s k e d Mr. R o thst e in i f he was back in s i de th e h ou se, Mr . Roth s t ein ca lled th e po l i ce a gai n . 

### Id. Prio r t o th e p o lic e arrivin g, re p e at edly aski n g M r. R oth stei n , " Do y ou w ant this? Do y ou w ant th i s?" 

### I d . While D efe n dant h is han d. 

### I

d . at 27. D efe n d an t the n exited th e ve h ic l e, and w al k e d b ac k t o the hou se w hi l e D efe nd ant ent e red the car , grabb e d M r . R oth s t e in 's wri st, an d t o o k 

### Mr . Ro thstei n 's w a lle t fr o m and wa s abl e to o p e n the d oo r th at w a s l e ft unl ocke d b y th e pri or pas senger. 

### I d . at 26. from th e r e ar o f th e v ehicle. Id at 21-2 3. D e f e nd an t approa c hed th e p ass en ge r- s i de fron t d oo r , doors w e r e al s o l o c ked . 

### Id. Defend ant then yank ed the li c en se pl at e fr ame and surr ou n di n g area at Mr. Rothst e in. 

### Id. at 20. D e fendant tried to ent e r throu gh the re ar do o rs of the van , but those 

### Id . at 19 . Defendant proc e ed e d to wal k alon g the s ide o f the van , while ki c kin g it an d s cre amin g si d e door , b u t the doo r was l o cked . 

### Id . Defendant punched the window , but fail e d to br e ak i t. Mr. Rothst e in call e d 91 1 , and D e fendant tri e d t o e nter the v an th r o u gh the fr ont dri v e r 's th e direc tion of De fe ndant and his gi rlfriend. 

### I d . at 1 6- 1 7 . l eav in g a d ent. 

### Id

. at 18 . 

### Mr. Roth s t e in didn ' t s ee who thr ew the rock but s aw that it came fro m R oth ste i n ''b ett e r get o ut o f th e r e . " 

### Id. at 15-1 6. Mr . Roth s tein then obs e rved a rock hit hi s van, h e was go ing to t ak e an axe t o th e floor of th e h ous e 

### if M r. R o th s tein e n ter ed, and th at M r . g o i n g t o des tro y th e hou se s o n o b o d y would eve r li ve in it a gain. 

### I d. D e fendant f

urth e r y ell e d R oth st e i n t o g o away. 

### I

d . D e fendant said h e was goin g t o "fuck [M r. Roth s te i n ] u p " an d h e was call s and thr eats. 

### I

d. at 5 6- 5 7. D efen dant appr oac h e d M r. R oth s t e i n ' s van while ye llin g at Mr. Mr. Roth ste in pr eviously obt ai n e d a s t ay - away o rd er against D efe nd ant, due to n umerous p ho ne offic er s to e sc o rt 

### him and g as co mp any w o rk e r s int o his p rop e rty t o tu m th e g a s off. 

### Id. at 4 0.

I 

### i ! I I I 

### I I I 

# I 

# I ' 

# [ 

# I18

door o f th e van, ar g u e d w i th M r. Roth s t e in ab ou t m o n e y , an d thre w Mr. R o th s t e i n ' s w all e t. I d . R oth stei n or d amage d hi s v an . 

### Id . at 8 l · 82 . D e f

e n dant sai d h e l ean e d i n the fr o n t p assenge r side wi n do w d o wn to talk , an d b egan t o y e ll . 

### I d. at 8 1 . D efe nd an t t es tifi e d h e n ever thr eat en e d Mr . win do w po l i t e l y . 

### I

d. at 80 . Defendan t in di cat e d h e r e p eat edly aske d M r . R o ths t ein to roll hi s Roths t ein's van on the s tr e e t b y th e p r operty , h e app r oached th e ve hi cle and knocked on the out. Th e g as company ' s comi n g . " 

### Id. at 80. D e f end ant furth er t es tified th at w h e n h e sa w Mr. Defe nd an t s aid Mr . Roth s t e i n calle d him at 2 : 30 p.m. on Fe b ruary 1 2, 2 0 11 , and s ai d , "Wat c h th e house l ocat ed at 418 W es t S p e n ce r Stree t , wi th . h is wife an d four c h i ldre n . 

### I d . at 77 . w ork out. N .T . 11/ 1 9/20 1 3, p . 76. D efe n d an t s t at ed 

### Mr . Ro th s t e i n p e rmi tt ed h im t o move i n to D e fendant tes ti fi e d h e h a d some fi n anc i al d eal in g s w i th Mr . R o ths t e in i n 2 0 1 1 , that d i d o ' t prope rty th at d ay, no r t o t ake his wall e t. 

### Id . at 36. tum off th e gas. Id. Mr. Roths t ein tes tified D e fe n dan t did n o t h a ve permission to en te r th e pr ess c h arg es agai n st D e fen d an t, and a ll o wed the g a s co mpan y w ork e rs t o e n ter th e p rop e rty and D efe ndant ha d left th e pr operty. 

### Id. at 3 4 . M r. Roth st e i n t o ld th e p olice officers h e want e d to p hysical force, an d 

### M r. Roth s t e i n ag r eed . 

### Id. at 3 4. The p o l ice office r kicked th e d oo r i n but comi n g in . " 

### Id

. at 32

- 33. T h e p o l i ce asked Mr . R oth ste in fo r p e rmission t o e n t er th e h ouse b y S tr eet. I d. at 32. D efe n d ant ref

u sed t o op e n th e d oo r , sayi n g , " M y ki d s are i n h ere . Y ou are not Th e P olice arrive d and knocke d o n the d oor of th e h ouse l ocat ed al 4 18 We s t Spen c er the wall et. 

### I

d. at 31. $ 1 00 in cash. 

### I

d . at 27 . Mr . Ro thstei n n ever foun d o n e of his cre d it card s or th e cas h from insid e 31. Mr . Rothstein's wallet p rev i ously contained credit cards, pi c tu r e s, an d ap p ro ximat e l y $80 to fence. 

### Id. at 30. M os t o f th e co n ten t s o f Mr . Ro th s t e i n's wall e t were o n th e gr ou n d. 

### Id . at 30 - M r. Joe Can e r ec o ve r e d th e w a ll e t fr om the r oo f of the smal l bui l di n g b y cl imbi n g a



# I I 

# I I 1 1 

# I \ : I I 

# ! 

# l I\

# I I 

# I \ I ! \



# . l i I io r o mi ssio n s du ring t es tim o n y. Id . T h e p o w e r o f an att orney t o q ues tion an d imp eac h w i tn esses

19 c o ncerning i ss u es raise d o n d irec t exami n ation an d i mp eac h a wi tn ess thr o u g h inco n sis t en t acts Pa. 239 (Pa . 2001 ). D u ring cross-exami n ation, an attorney is pe rmitt ed to qu estio n a wi tn ess Co m monw e al t

h v. O grod, 576 P a. 412 , 4 59 (Pa. 2003) ( q uo ti n g Commonwe a lt h v . B e gley , 5 6 6 

### I. Th e Co urt Did Not E rr i n S u s tain i n g Obj ec ti o n s to De f e n se C r o ss E x ami n ati o n The sc op e o f cross-exami nation du ri ng trial is wi th.i n th e d iscre tion o f th e trial co u rt . m aking a re co rd , and (5 ) in maki n g e v i d entiary fi nd ings so u nfair i t consti tu t ed j u dicial b ias. r eco rd du ring the se nt enci n g h eari ng . (4) in s p ecifically s t ating i t was p r e cludi n g counsel fro m th e acc u se r by pr e cludin g cross-examination, (3) i n p re clud i n g the defe n dan t fr om m aki ng a p rec l u di ng c r oss examin ati on o n se v eral issues , (2) in denying th e defen d ant h is rig ht to confron t asserts 12 err o rs w h ic h can be s u mmari ze d mo r e specificall y as th e cou rt e rr e d i n: ( 1 ) i n Purs u an t t o the l 925(b) S t at eme n t of Err o r s Co mp l ai n e d o f on A pp eal , th e Defen d ant D i s c u s s i o n r es u l t of bi as , p r ej ud ice, ill

- w ill o r p artial i ty, as sho w n by the evi d ence of record.'' I d. at 570 o r mi sapp l i cati o n of th e J a w , o r th e exe r c i s e of j u dgmen t th at is manifes tl y unreaso n able, o r the 20 04 ). 

### " An 'abu se o f di screti o n ' is no t mere l y an error ofjudgm e nt , but rath er , is th e overri d ing tri al co u rt abused i ts d iscre tio n ." Commonw e alth v . Gr ay, 867 A.2 d 560 , 569

- 70 (Pa . Su p er. di sc r e tion of th e tri al cou rt , and s u ch a decis i on wi ll be reverse d only u pon a showin g that th e T h e s t andard o f r evie w for the "admissibility of evi d ence r es t s with i n the sound S tand ard o f R e v i ew 87 . 85. D efen d an t furth e r t es ti fi ed h e didn ' t take any credit car d or cash ou t of th e wall e t. Id. at 86 -

i



## . . I I

: I 

# 1 --r ----- -- -·· -· I - I, \ 

# I I 

# I20

N . T . 11/1 9/20 1 3 , p . 57 . Th ese q uestio n s were ob j ec t ed to, and s u stai n e d , o n r e l e v ancy grounds. a greeme nt d id not go thr oug h and th at's why you le t hi m l i v e i n your h o u se o n S p e n cer S tr ee t ?" "Is n ' t i t tru e that (D efe ndant ] had give n yo u ap pro xi mat e l y $25,000 t o pu r c h ase a h o m e, an d th at b e tween th e two of y ou n o t w o rki n g o ut ?" N.T. 11 / 1 9 /20 1 3 , p. 38. D efense counse l asked, " I s i t fair to s ay that (De fe n dan t ] was in th e property a s a res u lt of a prior fin ancial arrangemen t [D e fend an t ] wo rki n g fo r y ou in an y cap a city?" N . T. 1 1/19 /20 1 3 , p . 37. D e f e n se c o u n sel as k e d , c o u n s el al so aske d , " Prior t o [ Fe bru ary 12 , 20 1 1] w i th regard t o 41 8 West S pencer S tre e t was type of .fi n anci al re l ati o n s h ip b etw een y o u and [ D e f e nd an t ]?" N. T . 1 1 / 1 9/2013 , p. 4 9. Defense D efe n se c o unse l a ske d Mr . R o ths te i n , " I s n 't i t fair to say th e re w a s a b reakd o w n i n so m e house Defendant w as s tayin g in . D efe nd ant hav in g prio r fai l e d fin an cial d eal i n gs wi th the comp l ain i n g wi tness , regardi n g th e h and . Th e majori ty o f de fe nse c oun s el ' s p rec l u d e d cross examinati o n q u esti on s r e l ated t o th e se questi o n s as irr e le v ant to th e c urr e nt matter, as they fai l ed t o furth er explo r e the case at int e nt , b ias , and m o ti ve to l i e. Th e court r ep eated ly sus t ai n ed the Co mm onwe alth's o b jec tions to In the i n stant c a s e, d e fe n se c o uns el a ske d se veral questi o n s und er th e gui se of e x p loring c ourt , who se decis io n s will n o t be r e v e r s ed in th e abs ence of a clear abu se of di scretion . I d. I d . T her e fo re, is sues o f r ele v ancy are l e ft i n l arge meas u re t o th e sou nd di sc r e tio n of th e trial or to s h ow the ori g in and hi s t ory of th e tran sac ti on b etwee n th e p atti es and e xp lain its c h ar a c t er. E v id e nc e is a dmi s s ibl e w hi ch t e nd s t o m ak e the fac t at i ssue more or l ess p ro bab l e or inte ll igi bl e exp e ri e nc e. Co m monwe al th v. Copela nd, 38 l Pa . S up e r. 382 (Pa. S u per. C t. 1 988) T he l aw furni s hes n o test of r ele van cy, b u t t ac i tly r e fe rs i t t o l ogic an d general I d . i s s ubjec t t o the tri a l co u rt's p o w e r l o all ow or disall ow cert ain i n q uiries on cross - examination.

1 · I ' I I 

### I I I I ' I. 

# !

I 

## ~ - ;,...-- - ---- · . · - - - · . . 

# I2 1

ou t of his p ro p e rty . A s it was cl e ar fr o m pr ev i ous t es tim o n y that M r. Ro th s t e in wi shed for fin an cial deal i n gs, incl u din g r e nt, an d wh eth er Mr. R o th s tein was atte mp ti n g t o kick D efen d ant m o ti ve or int en t t o l ie . D efe n se co un se l w a s atte mptin g t o illi c it m ore in fo rm ation ab out the D efe n se co un se l 's line o f qu es ti o nin g was s i mil arl y irr e l evant t o th e issues at hand an d t o sustai ned, o n re l e v ancy gr oun ds. I d. at 4 0, 58, 64 . l ive [at 4 1 8 Spencer S tree t). " N.T. 11 / 1 9/2 0 13, p. 6 4 . Th e q u es ti o n s were a ll objec t e d to, and pr operty ] ? " N.T. 11/1 9/2 01 3, p. 5 8. D efense co un sel a l s o aske d Mr. R o thstei n , "When d id you off?" N. T . 11 / 1 9/2 0 13, p . 40 . D efe n se counse l aske d , " Ha d re n t b ee n p aid [on th e S p e n cer S treet . . 

## . I I pro p erty that yo u h ad le t D efe n dan t l i v i n g i n ? Wh y we r e yo u go in g t o let th em s h ove th e gas

D efense cou n se l as k ed M r. R o th stei n , " Wh y we r e you th ere l etti n g th e gas comp any in a Ro thstei n an y mo r e li ke ly t o l ie th an n o t l i e . w h y th e amou n t of m o n ey exc h an ged o r th e natur e of th e ir fi n an cial di spute wou ld make M r. Defe n dan t can b e surmise d from th e fac t that an y financ i al dis pu te ex i s t e d. T h e r e i s no r ea s on ev i de n ce th at M r. R oth ste in was bi ase d again st th e d efe nd ant or wo u l d w ant t o fal se l y acc us e Defe nd an t o u t of h is pro p erty has n o b earin g on 

### Mr. R o thste in 's bias or moti v e to lie. A ll the specifics of th e fin an cial dis put e. Furth e r ex p l orin g the r easo n 

### Mr . Rothst e in wan ted no l o n ge r want e d Defe nd ant in hi s p ro p erty . D efe n se cou n se l 's lin e of qu esti o nin g all r e l ated t o and by D efe n se co un se l' s cross examinati o n , th at th e r e was a fi n anc i al dispute an d M r. Roths t ei n pro p erty at 4 1 8 Sp e n ce r Str ee t th at we nt awry . 

### It was c l ear fr om the t es ti mo n y of Mr. Rothstein D efe n se co un se l att emp ted t o d emo n s tr ate th at some fi n an c i al iss u es i nvolv i ng th e 

### right to be in the house and Mr. R oth ste in fe lt li ke h e didn ' t. " N.T. 1 1/ 1 9 /2013, p. 79. and , yo u kno w , th e r e i s some financ i al stuff b etween th em an d [ D e f endan t] fe l t l ik e h e h ad a 

### Id . at 37, 38, 52, 58 . Th e C ourt stat e d , " I ki n d of get th e pi c tur e that th ey ha d some d ea lin gs



## I = 

# I ' 

# I 1 . • I, , I 

# n: - - · ·-- .. · - ·- ... i I I22

th e c ir cum s tanc es surround in g th e incid e n t on F e b ru ary 12 , 20 1 1 , that Mr. Rothstein wa s tak e n to e vi ct D ef

endant are irre l e vant to his p r opensity to lie ab o ut D efe ndant. It is clear fr o m d es ire for D e fendant to l e av e th e property. The meth ods Mr. Rothst e i n may o r may n o t hav e Th i s lin e o f qu es ti oning fro m D e fe n s e coun se l further harp s back to Mr . Rothstei n ' s was ob jec t e d to , and s u s t ain e d , on r e l ev an cy gr o und s . 

### Id . any p ap e rwork r egard i n g any type o f civi l ac ti on you wer e goi n g t o take?" 

### Id. Th es e qu e sti o n s w e r e g o i n g t o get an ejectm e nt ? " 

### Id . H e then asked, " D id you p rovid e the C ommonwe alth w i th pr e li min ary h e aring that "bec au s e [Defend ant and hi s family] w e r e i n the prop e rty so lon g, th e y 418 Sp e ncer S tre e t ? " N . T. 1 1 / 19 /2 0 1 3 , p . 61. He further a s ked i f Mr. Roth s t e in t es tifi e d at th e Phi l ad e lphia C o u nty Court o f Co mmon Pl e as to commenc e an eje c tme n t of [ D e f e ndant] from Def e n s e co u ns e l aske d , " D id you secure any civi l pap e rwork, file an yth ing in th e d e al in g s and Mr. R o thst e in' s des ir e fo r D e f e nd ant to l ea ve the p r operty. ques ti o n s w e r e als o a und e rhanded m e thod to illi c i t more te s timony about D e f e ndan t ' s financial D efe n dant an d h i s possibl e bia s against D efen d ant, th e detail s o f th e PFA ar e irre l e van t. Th e se Although th e se c urin g o f a PFA i s ce rt ain l y r el e van t to Mr . R o th s t e in's fee li n g s about gro und s . 

### Id. s ir ?" N. T . ll/ 19 /2 01 3, p . 57. Th e qu es tion was object e d to, and s u s tain e d, on re l e vancy s u s tai n e d , on r e le v ancy gro u nd s. 

### Id . Defense counsel the n as ked , "Wh e n did you g et th e PF A, his w i fe ] on March 1 , 20 1 3 ? " N.T. 11/1 9/2 0 1 3 , p. 57 . T h e question w a s o b jected to , and D efe n se co unse l a s ke d , " ls [your se c uring a PFA] why you se nt a l e tt e r to [D e fe n dant and challen ge Mr. Roth s t ei n' s cr e dibility . Defe n dant to leav e the property, it is illogical that furth e r testi mo n y on th e m att e r would

I . 

# I23

b asi s and d en i e d wh e n ap p ropri ate. c o mp l ai n in g w i tn es s , an d ru l i n gs o n cross - e x aminatio n q ues tions were h eard on an i n di v idual p ermi tte d t o a s k e v e ry q u es ti on he desi r ed , h e was abl e t o effec ti ve l y c ro ss exami n e th e o p portunity t o c o n du c t an e ff e ctive cross e x ami n ati on. Al th o u gh d e fen s e co un s e l was n o t 

### I 

# I I

1 · i 

# I I Li th e in stant case, as e x plai ned at larg e , sup r a, th e D ef

end ant was a fford e d amp le what eve r exte nt , th e d efe n se mi gh t w i sh ." 

### I d. e ffecti ve cro ss - e x ami n ati o n, n o t c ro ss - exami n ation that i s e ff ec ti ve i n w h at ever way , and t o (P a . Su p er . 1 994 ) . " In s h ort , th e C o n fr o n t ation C l aus e o nl y gu aran te es th e opp o rtuni ty fo r tri al, th e co n fro n tati on claus e i s n ot imp l ic ated. Co mm o n wealth . v, R e e d, 6 4 4 A. 2d 12 23 , 1 225 a di sc ov e ry t oo l. So lon g as th e d efendant is gi ve n a m e anin g ful o pp ortunity t o c ross -examin e at T h e U n i t e d S t at es S u p r e m e C o u rt h e l d th at th e C o n fr on t atio n Cl au se was a tri al ri g ht , n o t II . No Con fr ontation Is s ue l e a d o n e to b el ie ve b e w as m o re o r l ess l i k ely t o h a ve t estifi ed c r e dibly. a c tion s . What Mr. Roth s t e i n t ol d the p o l ice i s furth er i rr e l ev an t t o his cred i bi l ity, as i t co u ld n ' t th e w i tn e s s's m o tive to li e. Wh at Mr . R o th stein to ld th e p olice is i rr e l evan t to Defendan t's Th is fi n al l i ne o f que s ti o nin g fr om d e fense cou n s e l is i rrelevan t t o th e case at han d an d o n re l evan c y gr oun ds . Id. at 65 . b etw e e n y ou , di d yo u ?" N .T. 11/1 9 /20 13, p . 64 . Bo th qu e stio ns we r e objected lo, and s u s t ai ned, li v e in yo ur prop erty, di d y o u ? " an d , "yo u didn't t e ll th e p o li ce about m o n e y th at was owed D efen se coun s e l aske d Mr. R o th stein , "You d i d n ' t te ll the p o l i ce abo ut y ou r l etti n g him R o th ste i n l ess c r e d ibl e, n or b e re l e v ant t o D e fen dant's behavi o r s o n F e bruary 1 2, 20 11 . att emp ti ng to r e m o ve D e f e n dant from the pro pe rty. An y p rev i o u s atte mpts would n ot r e nd e r Mr .24

D efense cou nsel is re fe rrin g to the Court's statement, "So I am goi n g to ask you to focus on the durin g se nt e ncin g h earing . . . specificall y stating it was precluding counsel from making a r ecord . " Co un se l all eges th e c o u rt erred in " pr ecluding the D efendant from eve n making a r ecord I 

## I 1 · I 

# l: I 

# I IV . Th e Co urt Did Not E rr in S tatin g it Wa s Pr e cludin g D e f e n s e fr o m M akin g a R e c or d the v i c tim. impact statements, which can be writte n and p resented without t es timony o r cross examination of is furth er illus trated by the widely accepted, an d e n couraged, p r actice of i n troduci n g v ictimAs r efe r ence d in Wantz, the r e is no right to c r oss ex ami n atio n during a sentencing hearing. This Court sus t ai ned objec tions of the Commo n weal th w h e n D efe n se Counsel was cross exami ni ng. In th e in stant case, the Cou rt di d not p r eclu d e Defe n se Counsel fro m makin g a r ecord, the co mmu n i ty. " 

### I

d . q uo tin g 42 P a. C. S. 972 1. i ss ue of " the gr avi ty of the o ffe n se as i t r e l ates t o the i mp act on the l i fe o f the victim and o n the frien d s a s well a s oth e r ev id e n ce such as photogr ap hs at sen t enci ng o n the r elevant se nt encing Co mmonweal th may p ro p e rl y pr es e n t l ive t esti m o ny of the victim and/or th e victim's family or A.2d 610, 6 14-6 15 (P a. Sup er . 1 990 ). " Mor eo v er, at the d is cr etio n of the trial co u rt, th e i mpa c t st at ements i nclud ed i n the P S I R eport." Id . qu o ti n g Commonwealth v. Mcl.aughlin, 7 4 v i c ti m s of all c rim es h a ve the s am e rig h t to b r e ath e life w i th all its emo ti o ns i nto th eir victim 4 32 F. 3 d 6 51, 6 54 (6 th Ci r. 2 00 5). "Un d er ou r leg i s l atur e's " B asic B i ll of Rights fo r Vic ti ms," Co mm o n wealth. v. W

a ntz, 8 4 A. 3d 3 24 , 337 (Pa. Su p e r . 201 4 ), quo ti n g United States v. Stone , l ong - se ttled ru l e th at the Co n fr ontatio n C lau se d oes n o t ap p ly i n sente n ci n g hearings . " B ecause C r awford focuse d on l y on t e stimonial evidence at trial, "it d oes n ot change o u r III. T h e C ourt D id No t Pr e clud e D e f e n se C ou n s e l From M aking a Reco r d at S e nte nci ng H eari n g , ,f ! , ~ I

. ,25



### a fai r trial wa s a dmini st ered . Thu s, th e Defendant 's c l aim of judi c i al bia s l acks me ri t. A s di sc u ssed, s upra , the D efe ndant 's c l aim s of n umero u s ju dic ial err o r s ar e rneri tl ess, an d T r avag l ia, 

### 66 1 A . 2d 35 2 , 367 ( P a . 1 995 ) , (c iti n g R eilly v . SEPTA, 

### 489 A . 2 d 1 291 ( P a. 1985)). r e c e iv ed a fair trial , th e n th e all eg ation of j u dici al b ia s i s no t b o rn e o ut. Com m on w elath v . 

### jud ge a gain s t th at d efe n dant. If th e app e ll at e co urt d e t ermi nes th at the p arty alleg in g j ud icial bias "si mpl y b e c ause a jud ge rul es a gains t a d efen dant d oes n o t es t abl is h an y b ias o n th e part of th e Wh e r e th e app e llan t ' s all egati o n s o fj u d icial e rr o r were d ee m e d m e ritless, th e c o u rt s h e ld , V. T h e r e I s No M e rit to th e C l aim 

### o f Judi c i al 

### Bia s se l f- h e lp m eas u r e, and did not co mmi t any c ri me. afte r th e d efe n se att orn ey r epeat e dl y m a d e a r ec ord of hi s o pin io n th at D efe n dant had e n gaged i n matt er at han d , r ath er th an all owi n g him t o r e - l i tigat e D efendan t's trial. Thi s s t at eme n t was ma d e fro m maki n g a rec ord . Th e Co urt m e r e l y atte mpt e d t o bri ng th e defe n se attorn ey ba ck t o th e Th e C o urt's state me nts, take n a s a wh o l e, w ere n ot i n ten d e d t o 

### pr ec l ude the 

### d e f e n se attorney inform ation to s ent e n ce your c li e n t appr o pri atel y. " I d . 

### go in g t o as k yo u , c o u n sel t o pl ease focus o n you r clien t 's sen t e n c in g so th at l 

### may have r elev ant " I 

### d o n't - yes, b ecau se th at r eco rd h as b e en d e t e rmi n ed , it' s n o t r elev ant b efo r e th is cou rt . l 

### am u nd e r s tand , Y o ur Hon o r . Ar e you pr ec l u din g me fr o m m aki n g a r ecor d ?" id . 

### Th e Co urt r e p l ie d , o bj e ct[i on J ha s b een sus t ain e d as irre l ev ant. " N . T . 1/9/20 1 4, p . 

### 20. D efe n se c oun sel the n said , "I o n th at in your hearin g, in yo ur m otion fo r r eco n s id e r atio n , it h as b e en objecte d to , the inf o rm ati on p e rtai nin g to y our c l i ent 's se n tenc in g , we are b eyo nd th at. You h ave m a d e arg um e nt I\ I i 

# i

. . . .. . . : •

1 : 1\ J I2 6 

# :~ . ::~ : I I



# -~ ~ - May 4 , 20 1 5 g u i l t b ey o nd a r e a s onabl e 

### d oub t b e af fi rmed. 

### Fo r th e for eg o i n g r e a s on s , i t i s r espec tfully r equested th at the T rial C o urt's determi n ation of C oncl u s i o n

I

. i 

# . . i 

# I ' i . i ; • I ' I 

# I i ' i I I I I i j i I I 

## i ; ! I I 

# . . ' ' r- · ;· -. , -- - -- -- - - -- · - - -·· - - -· . -·· ·. 

# !