J-A19044-19

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

AMEER MURPHY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1301 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 6, 2018

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

No(s): CP-51-CR-0005908-2015

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 21, 2019

Appellant Ameer Murphy appeals the judgment of sentence entered by 

the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County after a jury convicted 

Appellant of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, possession of 

an instrument of crime and two violations of the Uniform Firearms Act (VUFA). 

Appellant claims the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to admit

the prior statement of a prosecution witness. After careful review, we affirm.

The trial court aptly summarized the factual background of the case as 

follows:

On March 16, 2015, just before 10:00 p.m., Leon Williams 

sat on his porch at 6053 Irving Street in West Philadelphia, 

between 60th and 61st Streets. As he sat on the porch smoking 

cigarettes, he noticed his nephew, the decedent Marquan Royster, 

approaching him from the opposite side of Irving Street via 61st

Street. After Williams called out, “Hey Nephew!” to the decedent, 

[Appellant], Ameer Murphy, and an unidentified individual walked 

onto the block from 61st Street and started following the decedent. 
J-A19044-19

- 2 -

In response, the decedent began to jog away from the pair. After 

the three passed Williams’ home, [Appellant] and his accomplice 

drew laser-sighted pistols and fired what Williams thought was 

three to four shots at the decedent in the middle of the street. As 

the decedent lay dying, [Appellant] and his accomplice turned 

around, ran past Williams’ house for a second time, entered a red 

vehicle parked on 61st Street, and drove away. Williams saw 

[Appellant’s] face after [Appellant] passed by the home for a 

second time.

From his living room at 6052 Irving Street, across the street 

from Williams’ home, Norman Gay heard gunfire as he watched 

television. After going onto his porch to investigate, Gay observed 

[Appellant] and his co-conspirator, wearing sweatshirts and 

hoodies, run towards his house from the middle of the street to 

the near sidewalk, carrying laser-sighted pistols in their hands. As 

he ran past Gay’s home, [Appellant’s] hood came off his head, 

permitting Gay to observe his face as he approached and ran 

under a streetlight. After [Appellant] reached the front stairs onto 

Gay’s porch, Gay’s wife pulled him inside the home. Minutes later, 

Gay returned to the porch and observed a crowd in the middle of 

the street.

At 9:54 p.m., Philadelphia Police Officer Gary Mercando and 

Sergeant Mirriam Joseph received a radio call for a shooting near 

60th and Irving Streets. Upon arrival, the officers worked their 

way through a crowd of about eight people to the decedent’s body, 

which lay face down in the middle of Irvine Street. After 

discovering that the decedent was non-responsive, the officers 

carried him into the back of their squad car and drove him to 

Presbyterian Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Dr. Edwin Lieberman, a forensic pathologist formerly with 

the Philadelphia Medical Examiner’s Office, performed the 

decedent’s autopsy and generated a report. The decedent 

suffered two gunshot wounds, including a perforating gunshot 

wound to the rear-left side of his head, which was immediately 

fatal, and a perforating gunshot wound to his right shin. Each 

gunshot wound was consistent with the decedent running away 

from his assailants. Assistant Medical Examiner Dr. Khalil Wardak, 

an expert in forensic pathology, conducted an independent review 

of Dr. Lieberman’s report and photographs associated with the 

instant offense. At trial, Dr. Wardak testified, to a reasonable 

degree of medical certainty, that [the] manner of death of 

homicide, caused by a gunshot to the back of the head. 
J-A19044-19

- 3 -

Officer Michael Lombardi arrived at Irving Street shortly 

after the shooting and secured the area. There, he discovered 

five fired cartridge casings (“FCCs”) on the street. The 

Philadelphia crime scene unit ultimately recovered three .380 

caliber FCCs and four .45 caliber FCCs and one .30 caliber [sic]

and .45 projectile, respectively. Ann Marie Barnes, an expert in 

ballistics, reviewed the ballistics recovered from the scene and 

determined that each .380 caliber FCC and each .45 caliber FCC 

were fired from the same weapon for each respective caliber. 

Homicide detectives Frank Mullen and Thorsten Lucke 

recovered a surveillance video from the Baez Grocery Store on 

61st Street near the scene of the shooting. While the video did 

not show the shooting itself, it does show a red vehicle parking 

near Irving Street before the shooting, and the decedent walking 

out of the store immediately prior to the shooting. 

At approximately 11:37 p.m. on March 16, 2015, 

[Appellant] arrived at the Camden Medical Center in Camden, New 

Jersey suffering from a gunshot wound to the foot. After he 

arrived, Officer Jeffrey Kostopolis of the Camden City Police 

Department interviewed [Appellant], who identified himself as 

Quateer Brown, and gave an address of 3133 Tasker Street in 

South Philadelphia. At the hospital, [Appellant] explained that he 

was waiting for his paramour Jevana Robinson at 4th and Erie 

Streets in Camden where he was shot in the foot and after which 

Robinson drove him to the hospital. Camden City Police 

investigated the area around 4th and Erie and discovered no 

evidence of a shooting. 

In March 2015, Philadelphia homicide detectives received 

information identifying a phone number associated with 

[Appellant]. Detective John Verrecchio prepared a search warrant 

for the phone number (215) 251-3547, associated with 

[Appellant] and on March 31, 2015, Detective Verrecchio received 

the cell phone records. Detective Thorsten Lucke also reviewed 

the records and discovered that at 7:15 p.m. on March 16, 2016, 

the user of the cell phone texted an unidentified contact, “This is 

Meer Meer.” The phone further contained selfies of [Appellant] 

and a photo of [Appellant] in the hospital with a foot wound. The 

internet search history of the phone also revealed that the user, 

on March 17, 2015, searched for a news article concerning the 

instant shooting. The Phone’s user history was further littered 

with images of dirt bikes and pornographic videos.
J-A19044-19

- 4 -

At 6:00 a.m. on April 1, 2015, Philadelphia police officers 

obtained and executed a search warrant for [Appellant’s] home at 

3138 Tasker Street in South Philadelphia. There, officers 

recovered the iPhone 5c associated with the (215) 251-3547 

number and detained [Appellant] to question him at the homicide 

unit within the Police Administration Building. That morning, 

homicide detective Thomas Gaul Mirandized and interviewed 

[Appellant], who gave detectives consent to search the phone.

During the interview, [Appellant] denied any involvement in 

the homicide, but explained to the detective that the decedent 

was killed in retaliation for the murder of his best friend Damien 

James. [Appellant] further claimed that he shot himself on the 

corner of 25th and Moore Streets in South Philadelphia, that he 

went to Camden, New Jersey for medical treatment, and gave 

doctors a fake name while he was there, but did not explain why. 

Detective Gaul examined police reports for that night and 

discovered a complaint about two males who were shot [] on the 

1600 block of South Taylor Street in South Philadelphia.

At 8:00 p.m. that evening, Detective Verrecchio reMirandized [Appellant] and conducted a second interview. Then, 

[Appellant] described how he was in South Philadelphia at the time 

of the shooting, and that there was an ongoing conflict between a 

group of males from 20th Street against a group from 24th Street. 

[Appellant] identified himself as a member of the 20th Street 

group, and described the decedent as a member of the opposing 

faction. James, whose death [Appellant] described as a catalyst 

for the conflict between the groups and the instant shooting, was 

a member of the 20th Street group with [Appellant].

Before the interview, Detective Verrecchio examined the 

phone records for the 3547 number, which contained geolocation 

information for each phone call. By entering the coordinates into 

a Google Maps search, Detective Verrecchio was able to create a 

map for each phone call, demonstrating that the user was in West 

Philadelphia near the 61st and Irving Streets at the time of the 

shooting. When Detective [Verrecchio] confronted [Appellant] 

with this map during the interview, [Appellant] exclaimed that 

“[his] life [was] over,” and asked Detective Verrecchio if he could 

take the whole case himself without naming any other associates. 

After further questioning, [Appellant] refused to sign a written 

statement, but Detective Verrecchio prepared his own summary 

of the interview.
J-A19044-19

- 5 -

After [Appellant’s] arrest, Detective James Dunlap, an 

expert in cell phone tower analysis, analyzed the records for the 

phone associated with [Appellant] and identified more than three 

dozen connections on March 16, 2015. Between 7:50 p.m. and 

9:21 p.m., the phone associated with [Appellant] made seven 

connections at the tower located at 63rd and Walnut Streets, near 

the scene of the shooting. At 9:53 p.m., the phone associated 

with [Appellant] made a call from a different sector of the same 

tower. From 9:56 p.m. to 10:05 p.m., the phone travelled from 

a series of towers further west, connecting with towers in Upper 

Darby, Pennsylvania, the 6700 block of Baltimore Avenue in West 

Philadelphia, 58th and Springfield Streets, and on 67th and 

Essington Streets. By 10:19 p.m., the phone connected with a 

tower on Passyunk Avenue in South Philadelphia. Between 10:19 

and 11:18, the phone connected with numerous towers in an area 

between Broad Street and Interstate 76 west east to west [sic] 

and from South Street down to Passyunk Avenue north to south. 

At 11:27 p.m., the phone connected with a tower in Camden, New 

Jersey, near the Camden Medical Center. At trial, Detective 

Dunlap testified that the time and location of the connections 

indicate that the use of the phone was in the area of the shooting 

at the time it occurred, and then was inside a vehicle that travelled 

between the identified towers.

At trial, [Appellant’s] mother, Questina Woods, testified that 

the 3547 numbered phone belonged to her daughter, but that she 

was in possession of the phone on the evening of the shooting, 

and that the phone was in her possession while she was visiting a 

prospective new home at 57th and Hazel Avenue in West 

Philadelphia, blocks from where the shooting occurred. On crossexamination, when confronted about pornography discovered on 

the phone, Woods testified that she often used her phone to 

search for pornography, but could not explain answers to text 

messages identifying the user as “Meer Meer,” [Appellant’s] 

nickname.

[Appellant] elected to testify at trial and explained that he 

was at 24th and Morris Streets from 6:00 to 10:30 p.m. Then, 

while [Appellant] and his friend Lawrence Shiver sat in a Buick 

LeSabre, an unidentified vehicle pulled up next to them and fired 

into the passenger compartment, striking [Appellant] in the foot. 

After that shooting, [Appellant] went to Woods’ home, and had 

her drive him to a hospital in Camden, New Jersey. [Appellant] 

elected to check into a New Jersey hospital and provided a 

pseudonym, he explained, because he feared being arrested for a 
J-A19044-19

- 6 -

probation violation if he treated his wound in Philadelphia. 

[Appellant] further claimed that Woods had the 3547 numbered 

cell phone from 6:00 p.m. until his arrival at the Camden Medical 

Center.

Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 6/21/18, at 2-7 (citations omitted).

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Appellant of the 

aforementioned charges on April 6, 2018. On the same date, the trial court 

imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment without parole 

on the first-degree murder charge. In addition to this life sentence, the trial 

court also imposed sentences of imprisonment for his conspiracy, PIC, and 

weapons charges. Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion.

On May 1, 2018, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Thereafter, 

this appeal was dismissed twice for Appellant’s failure to file a brief. After this 

Court reinstated the appeal on two occasions, Appellant filed a counseled brief 

raising one issue for review, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in 

allowing the Commonwealth to introduce a witness’s prior written statement 

into evidence.

It is well-established that “[t]he admission of evidence is solely within 

the discretion of the trial court, and a trial court's evidentiary rulings will be 

reversed on appeal only upon an abuse of that discretion.” Commonwealth 

v. Le, ___Pa.___, 208 A.3d 960, 970 (Pa. 2019) (citing Commonwealth v. 

Reid, 627 Pa. 151, 99 A.3d 470, 493 (2014)).

Specifically, Appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion in 

allowing the Commonwealth to admit Leon Williams’ prior statement, which 

Appellant characterizes as a prior consistent statement, which improperly 
J-A19044-19

- 7 -

bolstered Williams’ credibility. In response, the Commonwealth asserts that 

the statement at issue was properly admitted as a prior inconsistent 

statement.

This Court has held that a prior inconsistent statement is admissible to 

impeach a witness if the statement was given under reliable circumstances 

and the witness is available for cross-examination. Commonwealth v. Enix, 

192 A.3d 78, 81–82 (Pa.Super. 2018). As noted above, Appellant does not 

suggest that Williams’ prior statement to police was unreliable, but argues 

that it was not inconsistent with his trial testimony. We disagree.

At trial, the Commonwealth elicited the following testimony from Mr. 

Williams on direct examination:

[Prosecutor:] To the best you can remember, can you describe 

this defendant and what he was wearing at that time?

[Williams:] The one’s that’s in the courtroom with me now?

[Prosecutor:] Yeah.

[Williams:] Like a sweatshirt with a hood. It had like a hood on 

it. I don’t know what kind of sweatsuit it was, partake, but it was 

a general sweatsuit. It was a darker color. That’s all.

[Prosecutor:] Okay. What about the other male?

[Williams:] He had on, like, a same, similar outfit. Another 

hooded shirt or sweatsuit. But they were dressed similar.

[Prosecutor:] Was one taller or shorter than the other?

[Williams:] Yes.

[Prosecutor:] Which one was this defendant?

[Williams:] The shorter one.

Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 4/2/18, at 218-219 (emphasis added).
J-A19044-19

- 8 -

At that point, the prosecutor introduced the signed statement Williams 

gave to Philadelphia detectives after the shooting occurred. In this statement, 

Williams had indicated that the shooter was wearing a “light gray Nike

sweatshirt with a zipped-up hood” and was the taller of the decedent’s two 

assailants; Williams estimated that Appellant was 6’0’’ or 6’1” in height.

Commonwealth’s Exhibit 3, at 3. Defense counsel objected, arguing that the 

prosecutor was “trying to rehabilitate her own witness.” N.T., 4/2/18, at 221. 

The trial court overruled defense counsel’s objection, indicating that the 

prosecutor was permitted to determine if Williams gave a different description 

of Appellant at some point. N.T., 4/2/18, at 222.

We agree with the trial court’s finding that Williams’ statement was 

admissible as a prior inconsistent statement. This conclusion is supported by 

the fact that defense counsel also attempted to use Williams’ prior statement 

to impeach his credibility based on a conflicting description of Appellant’s 

clothing and stature. N.T., 4/3/18, at 47; N.T., 4/5/18, at 191-93.

Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the trial court improperly 

admitted this statement, any resulting error would have been harmless.

Even where the trial court erroneously admitted evidence, this 

Court may still sustain the verdict if it finds the error harmless. 

See Commonwealth v. McClure, 144 A.3d 970, 975 (Pa. Super. 

2016). An error is harmless only if it could not have contributed 

to the verdict. See id., at 975-976. This Court will find harmless

error where the error did not prejudice the appellant, or the 

prejudice was de minimis. See Commonwealth v. Brown, –––

Pa. ––––, 185 A.3d 316, 330 (2018). Similarly, where “the 

properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so 

overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so 
J-A19044-19

- 9 -

insignificant by comparison that the error could not have 

contributed to the verdict,” we will deem the error harmless. Id.

(citation omitted).

Commonwealth v. Akhmedov, __A.3d__, 2019 PA Super 232, at *6

(Pa.Super. July 29, 2019).

In this case, the Commonwealth presented overwhelming evidence of 

Appellant’s guilt. Both Williams and Norman Gay identified Appellant as the 

shooter at trial and in earlier statements to the police. The prosecution 

presented records from a phone that was at the location of the shooting at the 

time it had occurred. The phone contained selfies of Appellant and text 

messages sent from “Meer Meer” a few hours before the shooting occurred. 

N.T., 4/4/18, at 144-45.

The phone’s geolocation records also showed the phone was brought 

back to Appellant’s home after the shooting and eventually taken to a Camden 

hospital, where Appellant admittedly checked in with a gunshot wound to the 

foot. Appellant gave a fake name to the Camden medical personnel, and 

indicated he had been shot in Camden. However, Camden police found no 

evidence of a shooting in the area Appellant reported. When confronted with 

his phone records, Appellant exclaimed that his “life [was] over” and indicated 

that he would take responsibility for the murder if no one else was prosecuted. 

N.T., 4/4/18, at 97.

Moreover, the Commonwealth presented evidence that would allow the 

jury to infer that Appellant had a motive to kill the victim; Appellant admitted 
J-A19044-19

- 10 -

the victim was a member of a rival gang who was suspected to have murdered 

Appellant’s best friend.

As a result, any prejudice that resulted from the admission of Williams’ 

prior statement was so insignificant in comparison to the overwhelming 

evidence of guilt presented at trial. Accordingly, we find Appellant’s claim to 

be meritless and affirm the judgment of sentence.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/21/19