J -S81018-16 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

v. 

JIQUAN BELL 

Appellant : No. 3787 EDA 2015 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 22, 2011 

In the Court of Common 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 assistance of 

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 

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 
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 that the 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 

convictions will be upheld. 

Tukhi, 149 A.3d at 886-87 (citation omitted). 

To reiterate, this Court has held that in order "[t]o sustain a conviction 

for criminal conspiracy, the Commonwealth must establish the 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 

-2 
J -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 coconspirators 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 in the light most favorable to the 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. Before the 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 open fire. 

Polk was particularly perceptive of his surroundings as he admitted 

that he was having problems with other individuals in his neighborhood. The 

fact that the driver of the red car drove past the victims numerous times in a 

short period weakens the proposition that the driver was merely present at 

the scene without knowledge that Appellant planned to harm the victim. 

- 3 - 
J -S81018-16 

The jury was free to believe the prosecution's theory that the 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 Appellant off 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 jury verdict 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