J-A14044-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

BRIAN KENNEDY

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 998 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 23, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-23-CR-0002966-2019

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LANE, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 5, 2024

Brian Kennedy (“Kennedy”) appeals from the judgment of sentence 

imposed following his jury convictions for murder in the first degree and 

possessing an instrument of crime (“PIC”).1 We affirm.

Kennedy fatally shot his ex-wife, Stephanie Miller (“the decedent”), 

during a custody exchange of their minor child at a Wawa convenience store 

in Wayne, Delaware County. Kennedy then fled the scene. Shortly thereafter, 

police located Kennedy in his vehicle, which also contained an assault rifle and 

a cell phone. Police arrested Kennedy and charged him with the above 

offenses. 

During the murder investigation, police applied for a warrant to search 

Kennedy’s cell phone. As Kennedy’s sole issue on appeal challenges the 

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 907(a).
J-A14044-24

- 2 -

sufficiency of the affidavit of probable cause (“Affidavit”) supporting the 

application for the search warrant, we review the Affidavit in detail. The 

Affidavit was prepared by Radnor Township Police Detective Thomas 

Schreiber,2 specially trained in mobile device investigations, and Delaware 

County District Attorney’s Office Detective Michael Jay. The Affidavit first 

stated that on the night of March 28, 2019, police officers responded to a 

report of a shooting at the Wawa store in Wayne. The shooter was no longer 

at the scene. A woman, identified as the decedent, had gunshot wounds to 

her head and stomach, and she was pronounced deceased. See Omnibus 

Pretrial Motion, 7/30/19, Exhibit B, Affidavit, 3/29/19, at 2-3.

Responding officers obtained a surveillance video, which showed a man 

“retrieve a rifle from the trunk of a . . . sedan . . . in front of the Wawa” store. 

Id. at 3. The man entered the Wawa with the rifle, exited twenty-six seconds 

later with the rifle, entered the front seat of the car, and drove away. A second 

surveillance video, showing the front door area of the Wawa, also showed the 

man enter the Wawa with the rifle. 

The Affidavit further summarized: Tredyffrin Police Corporal Scott Costa, 

who responded to the scene, recognized the decedent’s name from prior 

2 Although the suppression hearing notes of testimony indicate the spelling of 

the detective’s last name to be “Shriver,” the Affidavit, co-written by the 

detective, sets forth his name as “Schreiber.”
J-A14044-24

- 3 -

domestic disturbances involving Kennedy.3 Corporal Costa retrieved an 

electronic photo of Kennedy and another officer who observed that photo 

stated that Kennedy was the same person he had just observed in the second 

surveillance video. Id.

Responding officers interviewed four Wawa employees who were in the 

store during the shooting. Two employees recognized Kennedy as a regular 

customer, although they did not know his name, and both stated they heard 

approximately five gunshots. One of these employees described Kennedy as 

appearing “agitated and [having] a ‘stern’ look on his face as he looked around 

the store.” Id. This employee further stated that Kennedy walked up to the 

decedent, shot her at point blank range, and did not say anything the entire 

time he was in the store. See id. Both employees, as well as two additional 

eyewitnesses in the store, identified Kennedy in a photo array as the person 

who entered the store with a rifle.

The Affidavit stated that two hours after the shooting, officers located 

Kennedy in his car in a park. Officers took Kennedy into custody and 

summoned medical assistance, as he was suffering from a drug overdose. 

Officers also retrieved an assault rifle from the car, which they believed to be 

the murder weapon, as well as a black Apple iPhone 6.

3 The decedent previously obtained orders against Kennedy pursuant to the 

Protection from Abuse Act, see 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6101-6122.
J-A14044-24

- 4 -

The decedent’s boyfriend told police that on the day of the shooting, 

Kennedy sent a text message to the decedent, confirming they would meet at 

the Wawa store that evening. Kennedy further stated in this message, “I don’t 

want to have to deal with law enforcement. If I have to speak to a cop, then 

I will ask[] through my attorney to have harassment charges against you.” 

Affidavit, 3/29/19, at 4.

The Affidavit also set forth the following findings of the police 

investigation: five months earlier, Kennedy obtained a permit to carry a 

concealed weapon; twelve days before the shooting, Kennedy purchased a 

firearm from a gun store; and on the day before the shooting, he purchased 

ammunition from the same store.

The application for a search warrant requested a “full search” of “all 

data” on Kennedy’s phone existing from March 16 through March 29, 2019, 

including:

Address book/contacts, messaging, call logs, voice mail, 

photographs, videos, emails, SMS/MMS messages, calendar, and 

any and all media, instant messaging, memo/note pads, tasks, 

voice memos, internet browser history[,] any and all applications, 

both available and deleted[, and] the SIM card [and] the Secure 

Digital (SD) card, [both of] which may or may not be located 

inside of the cellular phone.

Id. at 1, 9.

The affiants averred the above information would assist investigators in 

determining: (1) whether there were other communications between Kennedy 

and the decedent “leading up to the” shooting; (2) whether Kennedy 
J-A14044-24

- 5 -

“communicated with others about his involvement with the [decedent] in the 

days prior to” the shooting, as “this evidence may provide police with 

additional witnesses and motive evidence;” and (3) whether Kennedy 

researched information about the gun and ammunition purchased days before 

the shooting. Id. at 8. Additionally, the affiants wished to search for location 

(“GPS”) data that would “assist investigators in corroborating witnesses.” Id.

Based on the information in the Affidavit, the magisterial district court 

issued a warrant to search the contents of Kennedy’s phone. Subsequently, 

Kennedy filed an omnibus pretrial motion seeking suppression of the evidence 

recovered from his phone.4 The trial court conducted a suppression hearing 

at which the co-affiant, Detective Schreiber, testified. Pertinently, Kennedy 

argued that the Affidavit did not state why the detectives believed the soughtafter evidence would appear in the phone, and thus, the Affidavit failed to 

show a nexus between the crime and the phone. See N.T., 11/22/21, at 45-

46. The Commonwealth responded that police officers identified Kennedy as 

the shooter within thirty minutes of the shooting, and the search warrant 

application clearly stated the police were searching for a motive and “the why 

and the how this crime happened.” Id. at 46-47. Accordingly, the 

Commonwealth contended, the lack of any “particular language” in the 

Affidavit was not fatal and the trial court should review it “with common 

4 Neither the “Receipt/Inventory” sheet, attached to the last page of the 

Affidavit, nor the suppression record indicate what evidence was recovered 

from the phone.
J-A14044-24

- 6 -

sense.” Id. at 47. The trial court denied Kennedy’s motion to suppress the 

evidence recovered from his phone.

The matter proceeded to a jury trial, where the eyewitnesses inside the 

store, responding officers, and investigating detectives testified. Kennedy 

testified in his own defense, describing that the decedent previously 

threatened him and falsely accused him of hitting her, but his attempts to 

obtain a PFA order against her were unsuccessful. Kennedy stated that on the 

evening of the shooting, he took Xanax “to sedate himself ‘before doing 

anything’” and went to Wawa store to talk to the decedent, but she said, 

“[y]our time with your son is over for good this time.” Trial Court Opinion, 

8/25/23, at 23. Kennedy stated he “left in a rage,” drove to his apartment, 

but returned to the Wawa store, became progressively angrier, and “just 

reacted and . . . got the gun” and shot the decedent. Id. at 24.

The jury found Kennedy guilty of murder in the first degree and PIC. On 

March 30, 2023, the trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment 

without parole and a consecutive term of two and one-half to five years’ 

imprisonment. Kennedy filed a timely notice of appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal.5

5 Following the filing of the notice of appeal, the trial court permitted 

Kennedy’s trial counsel, Michael Dugan, Esquire, to withdraw from 

representation, and appointed present counsel, Wana Saadzoi, Esquire 

(“Counsel”). The trial court then directed Kennedy to file a Rule 1925(b) 

statement within twenty-one days, or by Tuesday, May 23, 2023. On the day 

thereafter, Counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file a Rule 1925(b) 
J-A14044-24

- 7 -

Kennedy raises the following issue for our review:

Did the trial court err by failing to grant [Kennedy’s] motion to 

suppress physical evidence when the search of [Kennedy’s] cell 

phone was overly broad and conducted without probable cause in 

violation of [Kennedy’s] right to be free from unreasonable search 

and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution and Article One, Section Eight of the Pennsylvania 

Constitution.

Kennedy’s Brief at 4.

Kennedy avers the search of his phone was overly broad and lacked 

probable cause, and thus the trial court erred in denying his motion to 

suppress. Our standard of review with respect to a suppression ruling is 

limited to determining:

whether the suppression court’s factual findings are supported by 

the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those 

statement, which the trial court purported to grant. Following a second 

extension of time, Counsel filed a Rule 1925(b) statement.

An appellant, who seeks an extension of time to file a Rule 1925(b) 

statement, must file such a petition within the time allotted for the Rule 

1925(b) statement, or risk waiver of all issues not timely raised. See 

Commonwealth v. Gravely, 970 A.2d 1137, 1145 (Pa. 2009). However, our 

Supreme Court has also held that an attorney’s untimely filing of a Rule 

1925(b) statement, which waives all issues on appeal, amounts to per se

ineffective assistance of counsel, for which an appellant is entitled to prompt 

relief. See Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 432-33 (Pa. 2009).

Here, Counsel filed the motion for extension of time after the twentyone-day deadline to file a Rule 1925(b) statement. We could find this untimely 

filing has resulted in the waiver of all of Kennedy’s issues on appeal. See 

Gravely, 970 A.2d at 1145. However, we conclude Counsel’s action 

amounted to per se ineffective assistance, for which Kennedy is entitled to 

relief. See Burton, 973 A.2d at 432-33. Thus, we decline to find waiver. 

Furthermore, as the trial court has prepared a thorough Rule 1925(a) opinion 

addressing Kennedy’s issue, we will consider the merits of his appeal. See 

id. at 433.
J-A14044-24

- 8 -

facts are correct. Because the Commonwealth prevailed before 

the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the 

Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as 

remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as 

a whole. Where the suppression court’s factual findings are 

supported by the record, we are bound by those findings and may 

reverse only if the court’s legal conclusions are erroneous. Where 

. . . the appeal of the determination of the suppression court turns

on allegations of legal error, the suppression court’s legal 

conclusions are not binding on an appellate court, “whose duty it 

is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law 

to the facts.” Thus, the conclusions of law of the courts below are 

subject to plenary review.

Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010) (citations omitted). 

Our scope of review of a suppression court’s ruling is confined to the trial 

court’s questions of law. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 784 A.2d 182, 185 

(Pa. Super. 2001) (citation omitted). We review only the factual record that 

existed at the time of the suppression hearing. See Commonwealth v. 

Davis, 241 A.3d 1160, 1171 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted). 

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, 

Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution protect citizens from unreasonable 

searches and seizures. See U.S.Const., amend. IV, § 1; see also Pa.Const. 

Art. I, § 8. To search protected areas, authorities must possess “sufficient 

probable cause . . . as determined by a neutral magistrate.” Commonwealth 

v. Ani, 293 A.3d 704, 715 (Pa. Super. 2023). “[T]he legal determination of 

whether a warrant was supported by probable cause is limited to the four 

corners of the affidavit.” Id. at 709.
J-A14044-24

- 9 -

“Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the 

affiant’s knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information 

are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the 

belief that a search should be conducted.” Davis, 241 A.3d at 1173 (citation 

omitted). “[P]robable cause is a fluid concept — turning on the assessment 

of probabilities in particular factual contexts —not readily, or even usefully, 

reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Ani, 293 A.3d at 715 (citing Illinois v.

Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983)).

“To establish probable cause, the Commonwealth must demonstrate 

that a search meets the requirements of the ‘totality-of-the-circumstances’ 

test.” Commonwealth v. Barr, 266 A.3d 25, 40 (Pa. 2021).

Pursuant to the “totality of the circumstances” test . . . the task 

of an issuing authority is simply to make a practical, 

commonsense decision whether, given all of the circumstances set 

forth in the affidavit before him, . . . there is a fair probability that 

contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular 

place. . . .

It is the duty of a court reviewing an issuing authority’s probable 

cause determination to ensure that the magistrate had a 

substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. In 

so doing, the reviewing court must accord deference to the issuing

authority’s probable cause determination, and must view the 

information offered to establish probable cause in a commonsense, non-technical manner. 

* * * *

Further, a reviewing court [is] not to conduct a de novo review of 

the issuing authority’s probable cause determination, but [is] 

simply to determine whether or not there is substantial evidence 

in the record supporting the decision to issue the warrant.
J-A14044-24

- 10 -

Jones, 988 A.2d at 655 (paragraph break added, citation omitted).

An affiant must establish a nexus between the item to be searched and 

the suspected crime committed. See id. at 667. Article 1, Section 8 of the

Pennsylvania Constitution “requires that a warrant describe the items to be

seized “as nearly as may be . . ..” Ani, 293 A.3d at 716 (citation omitted); 

see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 205(A)(2)-(3) (requiring a search warrant to “identify 

specifically the property to be seized” and “name or describe with particularity 

the person or place to be searched”). “The requirement that warrants shall 

particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches . . . 

impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing 

another.” Ani, 293 A.3d at 716 (citation omitted).

“A lawful search of fixed premises generally extends to the entire area 

in which the object of the search may be found and is not limited by the 

possibility that separate acts of entry or opening may be required to complete 

the search.” Ani, 293 A.3d at 717 (emphasis added and citation omitted). 

“[A] valid search warrant authorizes the search of any container found on the 

premises that might contain the object of the search.” Id. (citation omitted). 

However, this Court has recognized that “[s]earching digital evidence poses 

unique issues, owing to the distinctions between searching physical versus 

digital spaces.” Id. (emphasis added). “[D]igital evidence can be easily 

disguised or hidden.” Id. at 722. Additionally,

[c]ell phone users often may not know whether particular 

information is stored on the device or in the cloud, and it generally 
J-A14044-24

- 11 -

makes little difference. And the very nature of digital evidence 

makes it far more difficult to identify in advance which ‘containers’ 

in the device might hold the sought items.

Id. at 718 (quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, “in any assessment of 

the validity of the description contained in a warrant, a court must initially 

determine for what items probable cause existed. The sufficiency of the 

description must then be measured against those items for which there was 

probable cause.” Id. “[W]here law enforcement seeks to search a person’s 

cell phone based on the person’s mere proximity to illegal contraband, some 

link sufficient to connect the two must be provided in the affidavit of probable 

cause.” See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 240 A.3d 575, 587 (Pa. 2020) 

(plurality).

Relevant to Kennedy’s argument on appeal, we consider this Court’s 

decision in Ani, 293 A.3d 704. In that case, the police obtained a warrant to 

search the defendant Ani’s cell phone for certain data. See id. at 709. 

Pertinently, the affidavit of probable cause summarized the first victim’s report 

that an unknown man entered her apartment’s bedroom. See id. at 708. The 

man “shone a light from his cell phone on her.” Id. The victim scared the

man, who fled. See id. Officers obtained an interior surveillance video, which 

showed a man, later identified as Ani, who lived in the same apartment 

building, attempting to open several doors in the hallway, then entering the 

victim’s apartment, and subsequently entering two other apartments. See 

id. A second victim reported that, twenty days earlier, she “discovered” Ani 
J-A14044-24

- 12 -

inside her apartment. Id. Ani stated he was visiting her roommate and he 

would text the roommate, and then used his cell phone. See id. A third 

victim told police that she heard someone inside her apartment, and “[a] 

neighbor confronted [Ani] shortly thereafter and identified [him] in a photo 

lineup.” Id.

The police applied for, and received, a warrant to search Ani’s phone for 

data, existing on the dates of the three incidents above, relating to: (1) GPS 

information; (2) use of the flashlight; and (3) photos and videos, which the 

Commonwealth “hypothesize[d]” Ani could have taken as “trophies” of his 

crimes. Id. at 709, 728. Ani filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which 

the trial court granted.

The Commonwealth appealed. This Court reasoned: “If the authorities 

had probable cause to believe the phone contained [the above evidence], then 

the authorities could search the whole phone for” the evidence. Id. at 723. 

Under this test, we first concluded the affidavit established probable cause 

that Ani both possessed the cell phone and used the phone’s flashlight function 

while committing the crimes. See id. at 729. “Thus, there was probable 

cause to obtain records concerning the phone’s movement and its flashlight 

usage.” Id. However, this Court determined there was no probable cause 

that the phone would contain photos or videos relating to the crimes. See id. 

at 724-25. We cited the affidavit’s speculation — that the “[a]ffiants would 

like to access [Ani’s] phone to determine if there are any videos that may have 
J-A14044-24

- 13 -

recorded the crime” — and rejected the Commonwealth’s “hypothesi[s]” that 

Ani could have saved photos or videos as “trophies” of his crimes. Id. at 728, 

729. Accordingly, this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Here, Kennedy argues that, like the search for photos and videos in Ani, 

the Affidavit improperly sought evidence as there were no facts to support a 

belief that the evidence “even existed” on his phone. Kennedy’s Brief at 14. 

Specifically, Kennedy challenges the search for: (1) his communications with 

the decedent “leading up to the murder;” (2) his communications “with others 

about his involvement with the [decedent] in the days before” the shooting; 

(3) his research history for information about the gun or ammunition he 

purchased; and (4) the GPS information that “could assist investigators in 

corroborating witnesses.” Id. To support his claim, Kennedy also cites 

Detective Schreiber’s testimony at the suppression hearing that “he did not 

have any reason to believe that he would find the requested information [on] 

his phone.” Id. Kennedy thus concludes there was no nexus between the 

crime and the search of his phone, and the search warrant was overly broad.

The trial court stated that it deferred to the findings of the magisterial 

district court, who “dutifully determined there was a fair probability [that] 

contraband or evidence of the crime would be found in” Kennedy’s phone. 

Trial Court Opinion, 8/25/23, at 35. The trial court determined the Affidavit 

properly “described the places to be searched and the items to be seized with 

specificity and [was] supported by probable cause to believe the items sought 
J-A14044-24

- 14 -

would produce evidence of a crime.” Id. Furthermore, the trial court 

considered Detective Schreiber’s testimony at the suppression hearing. See 

id. at 35-36.

Based on our review of the suppression record, we conclude the trial 

court’s factual findings are supported by the record and its legal conclusions 

are free from error. See Jones, 988 A.2d at 654. First, we consider 

Kennedy’s claim that Detective Schreiber testified “he did not have any reason 

to believe that he would find the requested information [on] the phone.” 

Kennedy’s Brief at 14. Our review of the suppression hearing transcript 

reveals the detective did not testify to having such a belief. Instead, Kennedy 

cross-examined Detective Schreiber on whether the Affidavit included 

language “that based on [his] training and experience,” [he] believe[d he 

would] find” the sought-after evidence. N.T., 11/22/21, at 32-33. Detective 

Schreiber acknowledged that “[t]hat exact language is not in there.” Id. 

Detective Schreiber thus merely conceded that certain language was not 

included in the Affidavit.

In any event, at the hearing, Kennedy argued the Affidavit failed to 

both: (1) show a nexus between the crime and the sought-after evidence; and 

(2) explain why the detective believed he would find certain evidence on his 

cell phone. See id. at 45-46. The Commonwealth responded that “just 

because there wasn’t particular language used, [it was not] fatal . . . to the 

establish[ment] of probable cause in this matter. The police knew [who and] 
J-A14044-24

- 15 -

what they were looking for . . . and they articulated [it] plainly” in the Affidavit. 

Id. at 47. The trial court weighed these arguments and found the Affidavit 

properly described with specificity the places to be search and the items to be 

seized, and set forth sufficient probable cause to believe the data sought would 

produce evidence of a crime. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/25/23, at 35.

Second, we review Kennedy’s claim that the trial court abused its 

discretion in denying relief with respect to the search for communications 

between him and the decedent. As stated above, the affiants sought 

Kennedy’s communications with the decedent over thirteen days: from March 

16, 2019, when Kennedy purchased the firearm, through March 29, 2019, the 

day after the shooting. The Affidavit stated the decedent had prior domestic 

disturbances with Kennedy. See Affidavit, 3/29/19, at 2. Additionally, officers 

learned that on the day of the shooting, the decedent received a text message 

from Kennedy, confirming their meeting time that night at the Wawa store. 

Kennedy’s message also referred to police involvement: “I don’t want to have 

to deal with law enforcement. If I have to speak to a cop, then I will ask[] 

through my attorney to have harassment charges against you.” Id. at 4. 

Finally, the Affidavit specified that communications between Kennedy and the 

decedent would provide evidence of motive. Based on all the foregoing, we 

conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the magisterial 

district court’s ruling, and finding the Affidavit established probable cause for 

the police to believe Kennedy’s phone contained evidence of his 
J-A14044-24

- 16 -

communications with the decedent, that were connected to her fatal shooting. 

See Ani, 293 A.3d at 723. 

Third, we consider Kennedy’s arguments respecting the search for 

communications between him and others and relating to the decedent. Given 

the text communication Kennedy sent to the decedent on the day of the 

shooting, it was reasonable for the affiants to believe Kennedy’s phone 

contained other communications that would provide evidence about the 

decedent or this crime, including motive evidence. We reiterate the Affidavit 

limited the search to the twelve days leading to the shooting, and to those 

communications that concerned the decedent or this crime. In light of all the 

foregoing, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in upholding 

the magisterial district court’s ruling, and finding the Affidavit established 

probable cause for the police to believe Kennedy’s phone contained evidence 

of his communications with others about the decedent or the crime. See Ani, 

293 A.3d at 723. 

Next, we consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying 

relief on Kennedy’s challenge to the search for evidence that he researched 

information about the gun and ammunition he purchased. As stated above, 

the Affidavit stated that Kennedy obtained a permit to carry a concealed 

weapon five months before the shooting, and purchased a firearm twelve days 

before the shooting, and ammunition two days before the shooting. Under 

the totality of the circumstances, including the short amount of time between 
J-A14044-24

- 17 -

Kennedy’s purchase of the gun and ammunition and the shooting, we conclude 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Affidavit established 

probable cause for the police to believe Kennedy’s phone contained evidence 

of research about the gun and ammunition he purchased in the days before 

the shooting. See Ani, 293 A.3d at 723. 

Finally, we consider Kennedy’s challenge concerning the search for GPS 

information on his phone. As stated above, when officers arrested Kennedy 

on the night of the shooting, his phone was in the car with him. Based on the 

foregoing, the affiants had probable cause to believe Kennedy had his phone 

at the time of the shooting, either on his person or in his car, which was parked 

in front of the Wawa store. Thus, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding the affidavit established probable cause for the police to 

believe Kennedy’s phone contained evidence of GPS data relevant to the 

crime. See Ani, 293 A.3d at 723, 729.

Furthermore, even if we were to conclude the trial court should have 

suppressed any of the above evidence, Kennedy has not shown he was 

prejudiced. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 16-17 (arguing that “[a]ny 

imagined error in denying the suppression motion was harmless”). This Court 

has explained: 

Once a reviewing court has decided admitted evidence should 

have been suppressed, it must determine beyond a reasonable 

doubt whether the error was harmless. Where the error is 

harmless, a new trial is not warranted. Our Supreme Court has 

explained that “[h]armless error exists if the reviewing court is 

convinced from the record that[, inter alia,] the erroneously 
J-A14044-24

- 18 -

admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other untainted 

evidence . . ..”

Commonwealth v. Rosendary, 313 A.3d 236, 249 n.13 (Pa. Super. 2024) 

(citation omitted).

On appeal, Kennedy has not explained what, if any, evidence was in fact 

seized from his cell phone, nor what evidence was presented at trial. 

Importantly, Kennedy has also not explained how the seized evidence 

prejudiced him. Even if the above evidence were not introduced at trial, the 

trial court has thoroughly summarized the extensive evidence presented at 

trial, and opined it was sufficient to support his guilty verdicts. See Trial Court 

Opinion, 8/25/23, at 5-26. Pertinently, the decedent’s mother testified the 

decedent went to the Wawa store on the night of the shooting because it was 

the court-appointed custody exchange location for the decedent’s and 

Kennedy’s son. See id. at 5. Three Wawa employees testified that they 

observed Kennedy, who they described as a regular customer, enter or walk 

around the store with a rifle. See id. at 5-7. Two of these employees 

observed Kennedy shoot the Victim. See id. at 6, 8. Additionally, a customer 

testified he was in his vehicle outside the Wawa store but observed Kennedy 

shoot the victim, and another customer testified he observed Kennedy carry 

a rifle in the store. See id. at 9. Surveillance videos showed Kennedy retrieve 

a rifle from his car, carry it into the Wawa store, and leave the store. See id. 

at 12-13. Finally, Kennedy himself admitted at trial that he retrieved a rifle 

from the trunk of his car, “ran into the Wawa” store, “went straight for” the 
J-A14044-24

- 19 -

Victim, and “repeatedly pulled the trigger” nine to twelve times, shooting her 

four times. Id. at 26. Accordingly, even if we were to conclude that the trial 

court abused its discretion in denying Kennedy’s suppression motion, the 

erroneously admitted evidence would have been merely cumulative of other 

untainted evidence. See Rosendary, 313 A.3d at 236 n.13. 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the suppression record supports 

the trial court’s findings and conclusions of law. Thus, we do not disturb the 

suppression ruling nor the judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Date: 9/05/2024