J

### -S81018-16
NON-PRECEDENTIALDECISION - SEE 

### SUPERIORCOURT

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JIQUAN BELL 

### Appellant : No. 3787 EDA 2015 Appeal

### from theJudgmentofSentence December 22, 2011 Inthe Court ofCommon Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): 

### CP-51-CR-0002010-2011
BEFORE: BOWES, J., MOULTON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: 

### FILED MAY

### 09, 2017 I dissent from the 

### majority's reversal of 

### Appellant's conviction 

### for conspiracy to 

### commit murder as the Commonwealth presented 

### sufficient evidence to prove

### that Appellant committed homicide

### with the assistanceof
an 

### unidentified co-conspirator. In reviewing 

### sufficiency claims, appellate courts are required to view the record in the light most 

### favorable to the

### verdict winner, 

### thereby giving the Commonwealth the 

### benefit of all inferences 

### that can reasonably drawn from the evidence. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881, 

### 886-87 (Pa.Super. 2016) 

### (citation 

### omitted). This Court has emphasized 

### that while the Commonwealth has the burden of proving the 

### defendant committed the

* FormerJusticespecially assigned to

### the SuperiorCourt.J

### -S81018-16
charged offense and each 

### material element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable 

### doubt, the Commonwealth is 

### neither required to prove the 

### defendant's 

### guilt with absolute 

### certainty nor obliged to 

### "preclude every possibility of 

### innocence." 

## Id; Commonwealth v. 

### Thompson, 106 A.3d 742, 756 (Pa.Super. 

### 2014). In fact, it is well-established

### thatthe prosecution may meet its burden of proving the 

### defendant's 

### guilt on the basis of 

### wholly circumstantial evidence: Accordingly, 

### [t]he fact 

### that the evidence establishing a 

### defendant's participation in a crime is 

### circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where the evidence coupled 

### with the reasonable inferences drawn 

### therefrom overcomes the presumption of innocence. 

### Significantly, we may not 

### substitute our

### judgment for 

### that of the 

### fact 

### finder; thus, so long as the evidence adduced, accepted in the 

### light most favorable to the Commonwealth, 

### demonstrates the respective elements of a 

### defendant's crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant's convictionswill be upheld. 

### Tukhi, 149A.3d at

### 886-87 (citation omitted). To 

### reiterate, thisCourt has held

### that in 

### order

### "[t]o sustain a conviction 

### for criminal conspiracy,the Commonwealth mustestablishthe defendant: 1) entered into an 

### agreement to 

### commit or aid in an 

### unlawful act

### with another person or persons; 2) 

### with a shared 

### criminal 

### intent; and 3) an 

### overt act was done in 

### furtherance of the 

### conspiracy." 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Rogal, 120 A.3d 994, 1001 (Pa. Super. 

### 2015). In finding 

### there was 

### insufficient evidence to 

### convict Appellant of conspiracy to 

### commit murder, the 

### Majority improperly views the evidence in 

## -2J

### -S81018-16

the 

### light most favorable to the defense. Although the 

### Majority concludes 

### that the 

### jury's verdict of 

### guilt was 

### "mere conjecture" as 

### Appellant's co

### conspirators were never specifically identified, the Majority ignores well- established precedent which acknowledges 

### that 

### "[g]iven the 

### surreptitious nature of conspiracy, the existence of a 

### formal agreement is often proven 

### circumstantially, [by reviewing] the relations, conduct, or circumstances of the 

### parties." 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Jacobs, 614 Pa. 664, 678, 39 A.3d 977, 985 

### (2012). Viewing the evidence inthe 

### light mostfavorable tothe Commonwealth
as

### verdict winner, there is 

### sufficient evidence to allow the

### jury to conclude 

### that Appellant was 

### guilty of conspiring to 

### commit the

### victim's murder. The prosecution presented evidence 

### that supports an inference 

### that Appellant
was stalking the 

### victim by casing the crime scene in a vehicle driven by an associate. Beforethe shooting, the

### victim's friend, Hassan Polk, observed a red car circling 

### the block

### four times; Polk

### testified 

### that several people were in the car, including Appellant. 

### Shortly after Polk noticed the red car's suspicious 

### movements, he observed 

### Appellant approach on a nearby corner and openfire. Polk was 

### particularly perceptive of his 

### surroundings as he 

### admitted 

### that hewas having problems 

### with other individuals in his neighborhood. The 

### fact

### thatthe 

### driver ofthe red cardrove pastthe

### victims numeroustimes in a 

### short period weakens the proposition 

### thatthe 

### driver was 

### merely presentat the scene

### without knowledge

### thatAppellant planned to harmthe

### victim.

- 3 -J

### -S81018-16

The

### jury was freeto believe the prosecution's

### theory

### thatthe 

### driver of the red car agreed to aid 

### Appellant in 

### committing the homicide by 

### repeatedly driving past the

### victims to assess

### the scene and dropping 

### Appellantoff near the 

### victims to allow him to shoot the 

### victims. Shortly after Polk noticed 

### repeatedly passing his location in 

### the red vehicle, he observed 

### Appellant approach on a nearby corner and open fire. 

### Circumstantial evidence 

### that Appellant drove to the crime scene 

### with the assistance of a 

### cohort is evidence of a criminal conspiracy. 

### Commonwealth v. 

### Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010, 

### 1021-22 (Pa.Super. 

### 2002). Setting aside a

### juryverdict is a serious 

### matter. The 

### Majority erred in 

### substituting its own 

### judgment for 

### that of the 

### factfinder as the Commonwealth presented 

### sufficient evidence to allow the 

### jury to conclude 

### that Appellant conspired 

### with another in 

### committing the 

### victim's murder. Therefore, I dissent.



## -4