### J - S75004 - 19 NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DION ELIJAH WAYNE Appellant No. 146 WDA 2019 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 21 , 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No . : CP - 25 - CR - 0000697 - 2018 BEFORE: STABILE, KUNSELMAN, and PELLEGRINI, * 

### JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MARCH 17, 2020 Appellant Dion Elijah Wayne appeals from the December 21, 2018 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County (“trial court”), following his jury convictions for possession with intent to deliver ( heroin and/or fentanyl), tamperin g with or fabricating physical evidence, and criminal use of communication facility. 1 

### Upon review, we affirm. The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. As aptly summarized by the trial court: On January 5, 2018, Adam Yurkewicz’ s gr andmother found Yurkewicz unconscious in the bathroom of her residence at 815 Michigan Avenue, Erie, Pennsylvania . The grandmother telephoned 911 and the Millcreek Township Police were dispatched to the residence. Detective Ryan Presner [who was employed as a patrol officer at the time] was the first police officer to arrive at

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* 

### Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 1 

### 35 P.S. § 780 - 113(a)(30) and 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4910(1) and 7512(a), respectively.

### J - S75004 - 19

- 2 - the scene. Upon arrival, Detective Pruner observed Yurkewicz on the floor. Yurkewicz bad a “ bluish - purple tint ” and was surrounded by firefighters who were checking for a pulse. Presner also observed a partially loaded syringe in the bathroom sink. Yurkewicz was placed in an ambulance where Presner went throug h Yurkewicz’ s pockets and recovered a cell phone and a pack of cigarettes which contained a folded - up piece of paper holdi ng a white, chalky substance. Yurkewicz was transp orted to UPMC Hamot Hospital where he died early the following morning, on January 6, 2018. It was determined Yurkewicz died from an overdose of fentanyl. Presner turned over Yurkewicz’ s cell phone to De tectives Hardner and Morelli of the Special Investigations Unit of the Millcreek Police Department when they arrived at the scene. Detective Hardner examined the call log and text messages on the cell phone to determine whether a transaction involving dru gs had occurred. He read text messages exchanged during the morning of January 5, 2018 between Yurkewicz’ s cell phone and the telephone number “814 - 449 - 9983” (hereinafter 9983). Detective Hardner found 9983 was enter ed in Yurkewicz’ s contact information under the name “ Louis ” . Based upon the content of these messages and Detective Hardner’ s experience in narcotics investigations, he determined 9983 was a “ phone number of interest” with regard to the inve stigation surrounding Yurkewicz’ s death. Detective Anne Styn extracted contents of the cell phone including the text messages, call logs, photographs, a web history, Facebook and Snapchat accounts associated with Yurkewicz, and a Gmail account with the email address Yurks42589. At trial, the Commonwealth pre sented testimony from Yurkewicz’ s fiancée, Kayla Turk. T urk was familiar with Yurkewicz’ s cell phone and testified she was present when Yurkewicz was sending text messages from his cell phone the morning of January 5, 2018. Turk also identified Commo nwealth Exhibit 18 as a list of personal text messages between herself and Yurkewicz on January 5, 201 8 . The Commonwealth’ s witness Marlene Yurkewicz, the decedent’ s grandmother, testified as to calls she made to Yurkewicz’ s cell phone on January 5, 2018, that had been recovered in Yurkewicz’ s cell phone records. At trial, Detective Hardner testified concerning Commonwealth Exhibit 13, a transcription of text messaging between Yurkewicz’ s cell phone and 9983, the aforementioned number of interest, from th e morning of January 5, 2018. Detective Hardner testified these texts were highly indicative of drug dealing. Detective Hardner testified about the content of the text messages as follows: MR. SELLERS: All right. Again, Detective, tell the jury which of these messages come from Adam Yurkewicz and which of them go to the number identified as Louis. HARDNER: Adam Yurkewicz is the blue messages, and the Louis phone number is the one in yellow.

### J - S75004 - 19

- 3 - MR. SELLERS: And can you read them for us? HARDNER: Yes. Adam s ays, yo. The guy responds, sup. He says, WYA, where you at. He says, over east. He says, on my way. MR. SELLERS: Next slide. HARDNER: What you needed? He responds, 60. Where should I go, then question mark. Bout to be on the east. He responds, 25 German. MR. SELLERS: Next slide. HARDNER: He says, K. Be like 10 to 15. How much for the half. He says, 80 bro. Then, K. MR. SELLERS: Next slide. HARDNER: Then, give me that. He says, yup. He says, bout to pull up. He says, okay. Here. Then, 24 Ge rman between Parade.

. . . . MR. SELLERS: Can you read that for us? HARDNER: K. Here. And then, you good bro. Pings to cell phone towers from Yurkewicz’ s cell phone placed Yurkewicz in the a rea of 24th and German Streets at approximately the same time he received the text messages from 9983 directing him to meet there for the transaction. During the afternoon of January 5, 2018, Detective Hardner texted 9983 from a random telephone number generated by a special application on Detective Hardner’ s cell p hone in an effort to set up a drug transaction with the person who was using the cell phone associated with 9983. Detective Hardner received a telephone call from a male calling from 9983. Further texting between Detective Hardner and 9983 ensued but Det ective Har dn er was unsuccessful in setting up a drug transaction. On January 6, 2018, after learning Yurkewicz died, Detective Hardner used Yurkewicz ’ s cell phone in another attempt to reach 9983. The content of the text messaging of January 6, 2018 betwe en Detective Hardner, from Yurkewicz’ s cell phone, and the person who was using the cell phone associated with 9983 was introduced into evidence as Commonwealth Exhibit 12. Detective Hardner testified concerning these texts as follows: MR. SELLERS: Okay. Can you read for the jury these text message conversations, and indicate which ones are from you and which ones are from the other number?

### J - S75004 - 19

- 4 - HARDNER: I’ m sending the blue messages, and the messages on the other end are the yellow. HARDNER: I texted, yo. He responded, sup. I said, got 100 just waiting for a ride. He said, okay bro. I said, ready where should I go. MR. SELLERS: All right. Next slide. HARDNER: He said, okay what you got bro. I said 100. And then when I didn ’ t have a response, I sent a que stion mark. And then he said, meet me on 24. I said, K, and then, pulling up. MR. SELLERS: Next slide. HARDNER: Then I said, I’ m in my step - mom’ s blue truck. Consistent with the above texts, Detective Hardner drove to East 24th Street between German and P arade Streets in a blue undercover vehicle and pulled over to the side of the road. Several back - up officers were stationed in vehicles nearby. A white Audi was observed traveling west along East 24th Street in the same block where Detective Hardner was parked. The Audi pulled over and Appellant, the front - seat passenger, exited the Audi and entered a residence at 344 East 24th Street, later learned to be Appellant’ s mother ’ s residence. [Appellant resided next door at 348 East 24 th 

### Street.] Appellant r eturned to the Audi a few minutes later and got into the front passenger seat. The vehicle operator drove the Audi further west along 24th Street, passing Detective Hardner’ s blue vehicle, and pulled over a few car - lengths ahead of Detective Hardner’ s veh icle. At this time, Detective Hardner received a telephone call on Yurkewicz ’ s cell phone from 9983. The male caller instructed Detective Hardner to exit the vehicle and come over to the “ white car ” . Detective Hardner notified the back - up officers who t hen approached the white Audi. From the front of the Audi, Detective Fiorelli, one of the back - up officers, observed through the front windshield Appellant leaning forward in the passenger seat “ making furtive movements with his arms towards the floorboards of the front passenger’ s seat. ” Appellant and the driver, Javar Beason, were arrested. Detective Fiorelli observed a white powdery substance on the right leg of Appellant’ s black sweatpants, which Appellant kept trying to brush off. Detective Fiorelli observed on the floor mat on the front passenger side a chunky substance with powder residue on top. The substances on the floor mat were collected for analysis which revealed the substances contained heroin and fentanyl . During the search of the vehicle, Dete ctive Fiorelli located a folded - up piece of white paper, torn from a larger piece of paper, which had been folded over several times with creases in it. Detective Fiorelli testified this was a very comm on way of packaging heroin or fentanyl. Detective Fiorelli recovered an iPhone in a red and black

### J - S75004 - 19

- 5 - ca se from a cupholder in the center console between the driver’ s and passenger ’ s seats. During the search of Appellant, the police found a wallet containing $65.00 in U.S. currency, Appellant’ s ID, a cell phone, and another $1,020.00 in U.S. currency “ in a stack. ” During the search of Beason, the poli ce recovered $70.00 and Beason’s cellphone. The items recovered during the searches were brought to the poli ce station. There, Detective Hardner called 9983 from his personal cell phone whereupon the iPhone in the red and black case rang. Detective Hardner determined this iPhone was the cell phone associated with 9983, the same number which Detective Hardner h ad engaged in communication with from Detective Hardner’ s cell phone on January 5, 2018 and from Yurkewicz ’ s cell phone on January 6, 2018. At trial, the Commonwealth witness Detective Styn testified regarding Verizon call and text records from 9983. Detective Styn confirmed the report from Verizon included text message exchanges between 9983 and unidentified third parties on January 5 and January 6, 2019. Detective Fiorelli testified from Verizon records as to the contents of these text message exch anges. The texts described other drug transactions with 9983, some set up to occur in the vicinity of 24th and German Streets. The texts clearly contained references to the use and exchange of narcotics. Commonwealth witness Detective Benacci, an expert witness in drug transactions and sales, testified the texts between 9983 and third parties and between 9983 and Yurkewicz were evidence of drug dealing. Detective Fiorelli also testified about a text exchange of a personal nature between 9983 and a third party during the relevant timeframe. In the texts, the third part y addressed Appellant by name, “ Dion, ” and 9983 responded “sup.” Trial Court Opinion, 4/8/19 at 1 - 8 (footnotes and record citations omitted). Appellant was arrested and charged with drug d elivery resulting in death, PWID (fentanyl), possession of drug paraphernalia, possession (heroin/fentanyl), tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, PWID (heroin and/or fentanyl) and criminal use of communication facility. 2 

### Following a multi - day trial, a jury found Appellant guilty of only PWID (heroin

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 2 

### 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2506, 35 P.S. § 780 - 113(a)(30) and (16), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4910(1), 35 P.S. § 780 - 113(a)(30), and 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512(a), respectively.

### J - S75004 - 19

- 6 - and/or fentanyl), tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, and criminal use of communication facility. On December 21, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 50 t o 107 months and 15 days in prison. Appellant filed post - sentence motions, which the trial court denied on January 2, 2019. Appellant timely appealed. On February 4 , 2019, the trial court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement within 3 0 days. Appellant complied. 3 

### In response, the trial court issued a detailed Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. On June 6, 2019, upon Appellant’s application, we remanded this case to the trial court to permit Appellant to a mend his Rule 1925(b) statement. In h is amended Rule 1925(b) statement, Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions. On August 15, 2019, the trial court issued a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s sufficiency claims . On appeal, Appe llant presents three issues for our review. [I.] Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law in admitting the text messages received by and sent from the cell phone recovered from the white Audi in violation of Commonweal th v. Koch [, 106 A.3d 705 (Pa. 2014)] as they were not properly authenticated? [ 4 ]

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 3 

### He filed his Rule 1925(b) statement on February 28, 2019, well within the 30 - day deadline established by the trial court’s February 4, 2019 order. 4 

### We have explained: Our standard of review over evidentiary rulings requires us to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of

### J - S75004 - 19

- 7 - [II.] Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of PWID, tampering with/fabricating physical evidence, and criminal use of communication facility? [ 5 ] 

### [III.] Whether Appellant’s claims on appeal should be dismissed/quashed due to the fact that Appellant filed an untimely 1925(b) statement? [ 6 ] 

### Appellant’s Brief at 3 (unnecessary capitalizations omitted) .

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 

### manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill - will, or suc h lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous. Commonwealth v. Henkel , 938 A.2d 433, 440 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted), appeal denied , 955 A.2d 356 (Pa. 2008). 5 

### “A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law.” Commonwealth v. Widmer , 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact - finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact - finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances esta blished by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact - finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be ev aluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Antid ormi , 84 A.3d 736, 756 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied , 95 A.3d 275 (Pa. 2014). 6 

### As noted in the text, Appellant filed a timely Rule 1925(b) statement and, as a result, we need not decide his third issue on appeal.

### J - S75004 - 19

- 8 - A fter careful review of the record and the relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court accurately and thoroughly addressed the merits of Appellant’s issues on appeal . See Trial Court Opinion, 4 / 8 /19, at 10 - 21; Supplemental Opinion, 8/15/19 at 2 - 8 . With respect to Appellant’s first issue, we conclude that t he trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant’s authentication challenge 7 

### and admitting into evidence the text messages recovered from the cell phone in the white Audi. As t he trial court concluded: There was sufficient testimony from witnesses with knowledge demonstrating the cell phone was what it was purported to be – Appellant’s cell phone. Detective Fiorelli testified that the iPhone in the red and black case was recove red next to Appellant’s seat in the vehicle, and the iPhone was connected to the number 9983. There was significant contextual clues and circumstantial evidence corroborating that Appellant was the author of the text messages at issue. This included: the texts between Yurkewicz and 9983 . . .; the contents of texts between third parties and 9983 using slang terms consistent with drug dealings, where 9983 set up the location for the transaction in areas near Appellant’s home; and third party texts identify ing Appellant by name to which he responded affirmatively. Most significantly, at the time and place of the undercover drug deal between the author of texts from 9983 and Detective Hardner, Appellant arrived in a white Audi in possession of heroin and fen tanyl. Trial Court Opinion, 4/8/19 at 14. Relating to Appellant’s sufficiency challenges, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that , based upon the record evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the Commo nwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed PWID, tampering with or fabricating physical evidence,

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 7 

### “Authentication generally entails a relatively low burden of proof.” Koch , 106 A.3d at 713.

### J - S75004 - 19

- 9 - and criminal use of communication facility. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s December 21 , 2018 judgment of sentence. We furth er direct that a copy of the trial court’s April 8 , 2019 and August 15, 2019 opinion s be attached to any future filings in this case. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 3/17/2020Circulated 02/27/2020 02:04 PM

(") ... ..... 

### n C } n 

# = 

# , - ,.. . • , · - - - " 

# - - · - - - · •.. , : 

## · = P 1 

### ... . . �

- · - ; � , - :::;:_ :) rr t -:; 

### 3: 

### - i::: , 

# � : "

. . :;;. ;; t

. . . r · · ;, - · C) r- - l 

### . . : , - q I - c o

. . . . . .. . --:_; · � C J :: Y ) • · . .

· · · - 

### J : : � r 

# � , , _ . , ( "'- ) ' . . . . -- - C ) ' 

# - - - - . '. . l ) 

### ' ' " .) C J � ... J (,' > 

### IN 1HE CO URT O F CO MM ON P LEAS O F E RIE C O UNTY , 

### P ENN S YLVANIA C RIMINAL D M S I ON N O . 6 9 7 - 2 0 1 8 

### v . .

O P INI O N C O MM ONWEAL 1H O F P ENN S YLVANIA

D I ON E LUAH WAYNE



### Thi s matter i s be fo re th e C o urt o n Appe ll ant ' s 1 92 S (b ) Co nci se S tatement 

### o f Matters 

### C o mp l ain ed o f o n Ap pe al . F o r th e 

### reaso ns set 

### fo rth be l o w , the 

### j udgm ent o f scntmce 

### should be 

### affirm ed . 1 

### F A CTUAL B A CK GRO UND 

### On J anuary S

, 2 0 1 8 , 

### A dam Yurk ewi cz ' s gran dm o ther fo und 

### Yurk ewi cz 

### UDCODSCious in th e b athroo m o f h er re s i d en ce at 8 1 5 

### Mi c hi g an Av enue, Eri e, 

### P ennsy lvania. Tramcript 

### o f Pro c e e d ing s, Day 2, N

o v e m b e r 1 4, 2 0 1 8 (l'

r. Day 2 ). pp . 7 0- 7 7

. 

### The 

### gnmdmotber te l ephoned 9 11 an d th e Mi ll c ree k T o wnship P o li ce 

### were di spatc hed 

### to the 

### resi dence . T ran.tcrlpt 

### o

f Pro c e e d ing s, 

### D ay 1 , N

o v e m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 (l'

r . Day 1 ) p p . 1 1 7 - 1 2 0. 

### Detec ti ve 

### R

yan PJeSDer 2 

### w as th e fir st po li c e o ffi cer to 

### arri v e at th e scen e . Upo n arri val , Detecti v e Prcsner 

### o bserved Yurke wi cz o n th e fl o o r . Yurke wi c z had 

### a ' 'b lui sh - p urp l e tint " and was 

### surro unded by 

### fire fi ghter s wh o were 

### c h ec kin g fo r a p ul se . T r. Day 1 , p . 1 1 8 . 

### Presner also 

### o bsened a partial ly l o ad ed s yri n g e in 

### th e b athroo m s ink . T r. Day 1 , p

p . 1 2 0- 1 2 7

.

1 Th e H o no rab l e W i lli am R. C unnin gham pres i ded at the j ury bia1, sentmced Appe llant, IDd issued 1be 1 925(1, ) Ord e r . Ju dg e C unnin gh am al so ad dressed the post -sentence motion. Due to lhe recent 

### remwae:m 

## o r Judee C unn in gh am , th i s m atte r w as re ass i gn ed to th e un d ers i gned for pi eparmoo. o f lhe 1 92S( a) Opinion. 2 D e te c ti v e Pre sn e r w as emp l o y ed b y th e Mil l cree k T o wnship P o li ce Depmtme nt as a patro l o fficer ll lhe time.a. 

### D is c ove ry o f A da m Y urkew ic:. ' s c e ll p l, o n e - J an ary S , 2 0 1 1 Yurk e wi c z w as p l aced in an amb ul an ce wh ere 

### Presner went 

### thro ugh Yurkewi cz ' s p oc k e ts an d r ec o v ered a c e ll p h o n e an d a p ac k o f c i g arettes whi c h co ntained a f o l ded-up 

### piece o f p a p er ho l din g a whi te , c halky sub stan ce . 

### Tr . 

### Day l , pp . 1 2 8 - 1 3 1 . Yurt e wi cz was 

### tnmspolted 

### to UP M C H am o t H o s p i tal wh ere h e di ed early the f o ll owing m o fflin& o n J anuary 6 , 2 0 1 8 . I t was d et e rmin ed Yurk e wi c z di ed fro m an o v erd o se o f f entany l. 

### Se e T

r . 

### Day l , pp . 

### 1 5 0- 1 8 1 . P r e s n er turn ed o v e r Yurke wi c z ' s ce ll p h on e 

### to Detecti ves Hanlner and 

### Fi on: lli o f 

### the S p e c i al Inv e sti g ati o ns Uni t o f th e 

### Mill creek P o li ce Departm ent 

### when they arri ved at 

### the 

### scene. T r . 

### D ay 1 , pp . 1 3 0 - 1 3 1 . Detec ti v e H ardn er 

### examined the 

### call l o g 

### and text 

### messages on lhc ccll p h o n e 

### to d ete rmin e wh e the r a transacti on inv o lvin g 

### drugs had occurred. 

### Tr . 

### Day l , 

### p. 1 84 . H e r ead te xt m e s sag e s e x c hang ed d urin g th e m o rnin g o fJ anuary 

### 5, 2 0 1 8 

### between Yurkcwi cz ' s cell p h o n e an d th e te l ep h o n e numbe r " 8 1 4 -44 9 - 99 8 3 " (here inafter 99 8 3 ) . T r . 

### Day l, 

### pp. 1 84- 1 85 . D e te cti v e H ardn e r fo un d 99 8 3 was e ntered in Yurk ewi cz ' s co ntact info rmati on 

### under the name

" L o ui s " . T

r . 

### Day 1 , 

### p . 2 3 2. B ased u po n th e co ntent o f

these m essag es 

### and 

### Dcta:ti � Hardner' s e xp e ri e nc e i n narc o ti c s inv e sti gati o ns , h e d etermin ed 99 8 3 was a "pho ne nmnber o f 

### intaat' wi th re gard 

### to th e inv e stig ati o n surro un din g Ymk ewi c z ' s 

### death . Detecti v e Anne S tyn exlnlded c o ntents o f th e c e ll p h o n e in c ludin g th e te xt 

### messages , call l o gs, photo graphs, a 

### web history , F ac ebo o k an d S n a

pc hat acco unts assoc i ated wi th Yurk ewi c z, an d a Gmail acco unt 

### with the email ad dr e s s Yurk s 4 2 5 8 9 . T r . 

### D ay 2, 

### p . 1 3 1 . 

### b . C o mm un ic ati o n s s e nt

f ro m an d rec e ive d o n Y

lll'UWicz ' .s cdJ 

### pl, o w - 

### J .. _,, S , 2 1 1 1 At tri al , th e C o mm o nw eal th presented testim o ny fro m Yurk ewi cz ' s fiancce, Kayla T urk. T r . 

### D ay 2, pp . 1 0 6- 1 1 9 . Turk was f ami li ar wi th Yurt e wi c z ' s ce ll pho ne and 

### testified she was p r e s e nt wh e n Yurk e wi c z w as sen din g te xt m essag es fro m his ce ll p ho ne 

### the 

### morning o f

### J anmry 2

### 5, 2 0 1 8 . 

### T

r. D ay 2, pp . 

### 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 ; 1 1 6 - 1 1 7 . T urk 

### also i d entifi ed Co mm o nweal th 

### Exhibit 1 8 

### as a li st o f p er s o nal te xt m e ssag e s betw een h erse lf 

### and Yurlc ewi c z o n J an uary 

### 5, 2 01 8 . 

### T r. Day 2, 

### pp. 1 11 - 11 4 . The C o mm o nw e al th ' s wi tn ess Marl ene Yurke wi c z, 

### the decedent ' s gnmdmotbcr , te s ti fi e d as to c al l s s h e mad e t o Yurk ewi c z ' s ce ll p ho ne o n J an uary 

### 5, 2 01 8 , that had 

### been r ec o v ere d in Yurk e wi c z ' s ce ll p h o ne reco rds . 

### T r . Day 2, pp . 

### 75 - 7 6

; 1 3 4 . At tri al , D etec ti v e 

### Hardn er te stifi ed co n cerning Co mmo nweal th 

### Exhibit 1 3 , a tr an s c rip ti o n o f te xt m e s sa gin g be tw ee n Yurk ewi c z ' s ce ll p hone and 

### 99 8 3 , the aforanmtioncd numb er o f inte r e st, fro m th e m o rnin g o fJ an uary 

### 5, 2 0 1 8 . 

### T r. Day 1 , p . 

### 2 3 2 . 

### Detecli ve Hardncr te s tifi e d th e s e te xts w er e hi ghly indi c ati v e o fdrug d eal ing . 

### De tecti ve Hanlner tcstificd 

### about lhc c o nte nt o f

th e te xt m es sag e s 

### as fo ll o w s : MR . S E L L E RS : All ri ght. A gain, Detecti v e , te ll 

### the j ury 

### whi ch o f 

### these m e s s ag e s c o m e fro m A dam Yurk e wi c z an d . whi c h o f 

### them g o to 

### the 

### number i d e nti fi ed as Lo ui s . HARDNE R : A dam Yurk e wi c z i s th e b lue m essag es, 

### and the Loui s 

### phone numb e r i s th e o n e in y e ll o w . MR . S E L L E RS : An d can y o u read th em fo r us ? HARDNE R: Y e s . A dam say s, y o . 

### The guy respo nds , 

### sup . 

### H e says, 

### WY � wh e r e y o u at. H e say s, o v er east. H e say � o n my way . MR . S E L L E RS : N ext s li d e . HARDNE R : What y o u n eed ed ? H e respo n ds, 6 0 . 

### Where sho ul d I 

### go , then que sti o n mark. B o ut to be o n th e east. H e respo n ds, 2 5 

### German. MR . S E L L E RS : N ext s li d e . HARDNE R: H e says , K . B e l ike 1 0 to l 

### 5 . H o w muc h fo r 

### the half. H e 

### says, 8 0 b ro . Th e n, K . MR . S E L L E R S : N e xt s li d e . HARDNE R: Th e n , gi v e me that. H e say s, 

### yup . H e says, bo ut 

### to p ull 

### up . 

### He s ays , o kay . H e re . Th en, 2 4 

### German 

### between P arade . 

### 3

### MR . S E L L E R S : C an y o u read 

### that fo r us ? HARDNE R : K . H er e . An d th en, y o u g ood bro . T r. Day 1 , pp . 

### 2 3 2 - 2 3 4 . P in g s to ce ll 

### p h o n e to w ers 

### fro m Yurk ewi c z ' s ce ll 

### p ho n e p l aced 

### Yurk ewi cz in the ma o f 

### 2 4 th an d G erman S tree ts at 

### a pp ro ximate ly th e sam e tim e he 

### recei v ed the text 

### messages 6om 

### 998 3 dire ctin g 

### him to 

### m e et th ere fo r th e transac ti o n . T r . Day 

### 1 , pp . 

### 2 3 2 - 2 3 4; Tr . 

### Day 2, pp . 

### 2 2 6- 2 2 7. c . C o mm un ic a tio ns b etw e en D ete ctiv e H artbtn ' s c dl 

### pl, o

M (fro,,, 11 ,.....,,, 

### ge n e rate d n u mbe r

) an d " 99 8 3 " - J an uary 5, 2 0 1 8 

### D urin g th e aft ern o o n o f J an uary 

### 5, 2 0 1 8 , 

### Detecti v e Hanmer 

### texted 99 8 3 from a 

### random t e l ep h o n e number g en e r ated b y a spec i al app li cati o n o n Detecti v e H ardner' s ce ll phone 

### in an 

### e ff o rt to se t 

### u

p a 

### dru g transac ti o n wi th the perso n who was usin g the ce ll 

### phone associa1cd 

### with 9 9 8 3 . T r. D ay l , 

### p p . 1 8 5 - 1 8 8 . D ete c ti v e H ardn er rece ived a te l ep ho n e call 

### from a mal e 

### caD ing fro m 9 9 8 3 . F urthe r textin g be tw een Detecti v e Hardner and 99 8 3 

### ensued but · 

### Detective H amner 

### w as un s uc c e s s ful in s e ttin g u p a dru g transacti o n. ti. 

### C o mm un ic atio ns betw e e n Y ur kewicz ' s 

### all pl, OM (

lltilizd by 

### Ddtdhe H a r, Jn e r ) an d " 99 8 3 " - J an u ary 6 , 2 0 1 8 

### On J an uary 6 , 2 0 1 8 , after 

### l earnin g Yurk ewi c z di ed, 

### Detecti v e Hanlner 

### used Y wkew i cz :r 

### c e ll p h o n e in an o the r atte mp t to 

### reac h 99 8 3 . T r. Day 

### l , p p . 1 8 9 - 1 9 1 . The 

### content 

### o f the text 

### m e s s a gin g o f

J an uary 

### 6 , 2 0 1 8 

### be tw ee n Detecti v e Hardner , 

### fro m Yurk e wi c z 9 

### s ce ll 

### phone, 

### and 

### the pe r s o n wh o was 

### us in g th e ce ll p h o n e assoc i ated wi th 99 8 3 was 

### introduced into 

### evi dence as



### 4

### C o mm o nw ealth E xhib i t 1 2 . Tr . 

### Day 1 , p . 

### 2 0 1 . Detecti v e Hardner testi fi ed 

### cona:ming 

### 1hcsc te xts as fo ll o ws :

MR . S EL L E RS : O kay . C an yo u read 

### f o r the j ury 

### these text 

### message co nv e rsati o ns , an d in di cate whi c h on es are fro m y o u and 

### whi ch o nes an: 

### from th e o th e r number ? HARDNE R : I' m s e ndin g th e b lue m essag es , and 

### the 

### m essages on the 

### o ther en d are th e y e ll o w . HARDNE R : I te xted , y o . H e respo n ded, sup . I sai d, g ot 1 00 j ust 

### waibng 

### f or a ri d e . H e sai d, o kay b ro . I sai d , ready wh ere sho ul d I g o . MR . S E L L E RS : Al l ri ght . N e xt s li de . HARDNE R : H e sai d, o kay what y o u g o t 

### bro . I sai d l 00 . And then when 

### I di dn ' t hav e a re s po ns e , I sent a questi o n mark. 

### And 

### then he sai d, meet me on 2 4 . 

### I s ai d, K , an d th en, p ul lin g 

### up . MR . S EL L E RS : N e xt s li d e . HARDNER : Th e n I sai d, I' m in my step- m om ' s b lue truc k. 

### T r. 

### D ay 1 , pp . 

### 2 0 1 - 2 02 . 

### e . R e c o v ery o

f t h e c e ll p h o n e ass oc iated with 

### tl, e • lllllber 

### "ff l J " - 

### J a ,,.,., 6, 2 0 1 8 

### C o ns i st e nt wi th th e abo v e 

### texts , De tecti v e H amner dro v e to 

### East 

### 2 4 111 

### S treet bctwi,ea 

### G erm an an d P ar ade S tre e ts in a b lue un d erco v er v ehi c l e an d p ull ed o v er to 

### the 

### si de 

### o f the road. 

### T r. 

### D ay 1 , pp . 

### 1 9 1 - 1 9 7

. S e v e ral b ac k - u

p o ffi cers were 

### stati oned 

### in v e hi c l es nearby . 

### T r. Day J , 

### p. 1 9 4. A whi te Audi w as o b serv ed trav e lin g w est al o ng East 

### 2 4 111 

### S treet 

### in the same b l ock 

### where D e tec ti ve H ardn e r w as park ed . 

### T r. Day 

### 1 , pp . 

### 1 9 5 - 1 9 6

; 

## T r. Day 

### 2, pp . 

### 1 3 - 1 4; 1 5 1 - 1 5 2 . The 

### Au di p ul l ed o v e r an d Appe ll ant, th e fro nt - seat passeng er , exi ted 

### the Audi and 

### enten:d 

### a ICSidmce 

### at 3 44 E ast 2 4 th 

### S tree t, later l earn ed t o be 

### Appe ll ant ' s m o ther ' s resi dence . 3 

### Appelhmt retumc:d 

### to

3 Th e p o li c e l ater l e arn e d Ap pe ll ant re s i d ed n e xt d oo r to his mo ther at 34 8 East 24 6 S1reet with his pmdmodrcr . 

## n- . D ay 2, pp . 2 4 6

- 2 4 7 . 

### 5

### th e Au di a f ew minut e s l at er an d g o t into th e front passen g er seat. 

### The 

### vehi c l e opcndur 

### drove th e Audi furth e r w e st al o n g 2 4 th S tree t, pas sin g Detecti v e H ardn er ' s b lue vehi c le , and 

### pull ed o v e r a fe w c ar - l en gths ah ead o f D e tec ti ve H ardn er ' s v e hi cl e . 

### T r. Day J , p . 

### 1 9 5 . At 

### this � Det e cti v e H ardn e r re ce i v ed a te l ep h o n e call 

### on Yurke wi cz ' s ce ll p hone tio m 998 3 . 

### T r. Day I , p . 

### 1 9 6. 

### Th e m al e cal l e r instru c ted De tecti v e Hardner 

### to exi t the 

### v e hi c l e and 

### come o ver to the



### ' 'whi t e c ar " . 

### T

r. Da y 

### 2, pp . 

### 1 8 9 - 1 9 7

. 

### Detec ti v e Hardner 

### no tifi ed the 

### bac k -up o ffi cers who then a pp ro ac h e d th e whi t e Au di . F ro m th e fro nt o f th e Au di , Detec ti v e F i o re ll i, o n e o f the 

### bac k - up o ffi � 

### observed thro u gh th e fro nt win d s hi e l d Ap pe ll ant l eanin g f orward 

### in the 

### passeng er seat "making 

### furtive m o v em e nt s wi th hi s arms to w ard s th e fl oo r boards o f the front 

### passeng er ' s seat. " 

### T r . Day 

### 2 . p. 

### 1 5 3 - 1 5 4 . 

### App e ll ant an d th e dri v er , J av ar B easo n, were 

### arrested. Detecti ve F i ore lli 

### observed a whi t e p o w d ery s ub stan ce o n th e ri ght l e g o f Appe llant ' s b l ac k sweatpants, 

### whi ch 

### Appe llant kept 

### tryin g t o b rus h o ff

. 

### T r . D ay 2, p . 

### 1 5 6

. 

### De te c ti ve F i o re lli o bserved o n the 

### fl oor mat on the 

### ftont p as s e n g e r s i d e a c hunky s ub stan ce wi th po w d e r res i d ue o n top . The 

### subscances on the 

### fl oor mat 

### w ere co ll e c t e d fo r analy s i s whi c h rev eal ed th e substan ces co ntained 

### hero in and 

### fmtany l. 

### T r. Day 2, pp . 

### 2 3 3 - 2 3 5 . 

### Durin g th e searc h o f th e v e hi c l e , Detec ti v e F i ore lli l ocated a fo l ded -up piece o f whi t e p a p er , to m fro m a l arg e r p i ece o f pape r , whi c h bad 

### been fo l ded o ver several 

### times 

### with c reas e s in i t. D et e cti v e F i o re lli te stifi ed thi s was 

### a 

### very co mm o n 

### way o f p,cka gi ng 

### heroin 

### or fe ntanyl . 

### T

r . D ay 2, pp . 

### 1 5 7

- 1 61 . 

### Detecti v e F i o re lli reco v ered an iP ho ne in 

### a red and black 

### case fro m a c u p h o l d e r 

### in th e c enter co n so l e betw een th e dri v er ' s an d passenger ' s seats. 

### T r. Day 2, pp . 

### 1 6 2 - 1 64. 

### D urin g th e se arc h o f Appe llant, th e po li ce fo und 

### a wall et 

### containi ng S6 S . OO in 

### U . S . c urre n c y , Ap pe ll ant ' s ID , a ce ll p h o n e , an d an o th er $ 1 , 02 0 . 00 

### in U . S . 

### cunmcy "in a stack. " 

### T r.

6Da y 

### 2, p

p . 1 64 - 1 6 6

. Du ring th e se arc h o f B e as on, th e po li ce reco v ered $ 7 0 . 00 

### and Bcason ' s c e llp h on e . Tr

. 

### D ay 2, pp . 3 9 - 4 0; 1 6

4 . Th e i t e m s rec o v e red d urin g th e searc h es 

### were b ro ught 

### to the po li ce 

### station.. There, De t e c ti v e H ardn e r c al l e d 9 9 8 3 fro m hi s 

### perso nal ce ll p h o n e 

### wh ereupon the iPbone 

### in the red 

### and b la ck c as e ran g . 

### T

r. Day 2, 

### p

p . 1 66 - 1 6 7 . Detec ti v e Hardn er d etennined 

### this iPbone was 

### the ce ll p h o n e as so c i at e d wi th 9 9 8 3 , th e sam e number whi c h Detecti v e Hanlner 

### bad c:ngagt"J1 in c ommuni c ati on wi th fro m D e tecti v e H ardn e r ' s ce ll p ho n e on J an uary 

### S , 2 0 1 8 

### and 

### from Yurk e wi c z ' s ce ll p h o n e on J anuary 6 , 2 0 1 8 . 

### T r. Day 

### J , p . 1 6 7

. 

## f. C o mm u n ic a tio ns b etwe e n " 9 9 8 3 " and 1111 uk

ntijkd tJ, irtJ 

### partia - 

### J a

_,, S an d J an u a ry 6 , 2 0 1 8 At tri al , th e C o mm onw eal th wi tn e ss De tecti ve S tyn testifi ed iegarding V crimn call 

### and t e xt r e co rd s fro m 9 9 8 3 . 

### T r. Day 2, p

p . 1 2 1 - 1 2 9. Detecti v e S tyn 

### co n.fumed the ieport 

### from V eri z o n in clud e d text m e s sag e e x c han g e s be tw ee n 99 8 3 and uni dentifi ed third 

### parties on 

### J anuary 5 an d J anuary 6 , 2 0 1 9 . D e t e c ti v e F i o r e lli te st ifi e d fro m V erizo n reco rds as to the co ntents o f 

### dlCSe text message e x c h ang es . 

### T

r. D ay 2, p

p . 1 68 - 1 8 6

. Th e te xts d escribed o ther drug transacti o ns 

### with 998 3 , some s e t u p to o c c ur in th e v i c ini ty o f 

### 2 4 th an d 

### German S treets . 

### The tex1s c l early contained ref erences to th e use an d e x c han g e o f narco ti c s . 4 C o mm o nweal th 

### wi tness Detecti v e Bmacc i , an expert wi tn e s s 

### in dru g tr ans act i o ns an d sal e s , te sti fi ed 

### the te xts 

### between 99 8 3 

### and thud parties 

### and b e twe e n 9 9 8 3 an d Yurk e wi c z w ere evi d en ce o f drug d ealing . 

### 7r. Day 

### 2, pp. 

### 2 5 1 - 2 9 3 . Dctecli ve F i o r e lli al s o t esti fi ed abo ut a text ex c han g e o f a 

### perso nal nature 

### between 998 3 

### and a 

### dmd party

4 S e e Tr . D ay 2, pp . 1 78 - 1 79 an d Co mm o nw ealth E xhib it 2 8 ; Tr . Day 2, pp. 1 8 3 - 1 8 6 and Coi o 11 iOll " Clbb Exhibit 3 0 7

### d

urin g th e re l e v ant tim e fram e . In th e 

### te xts , th e 

### third party 

### addressed Appe ll ant by 

### name, "Dio n, " an d 99 8 3 re s po n ded " s u

p . " 5 

### P ROCE D URAL B A CK GRO UND F o ll o wi n g hi s arre st, Ap pe ll ant was 

### c harged · wi th Drug 

### De li v ery Resul ting 

### in � P o s s e s s i o n W i th Intent t o D e li v er ( f entany l ) , P o ssess i o n o f Drug 

### P araphcmal ia, Possessi on (h e ro in an d/o r f

entany l ) , T amperin g W i th o r F abri catin g Physi cal E vi dence , P ossession W ith Int e nt t o D e li v e r (h e ro in an d/o r f entany l ) an d C riminal U se o fCo mmuni cati on F acility . 6 On 

### N o v e mbe r 1 5, 

### 2 0 1 8 , fo ll o win g a three-day j wy tri al , 

### Appe llant was 

### convi cted o f: T amp erin g W i th o r F ab ri cating Phy s i cal E vi d en ce , P o ssessi o n W i th 

### Intent to De liver (hero in an d/o r f entany l ) an d C riminal U se o fCo mmuni cati o n F aci li ty . 7 On 

### D ec e mbe r 2 1 , 2 0 1 8 , Appe ll ant was 

### senten ced to 

### an aggregate peri od 

### o f S O - 

### 1 0 7 m o nths an d 1 5 

### days o finc arc erati o n as fo ll o ws :

C o unt F i v e : T ampe rin g W i th o r F abri catin g P hysi cal E vi dence - 8 months 

### t o 2 3 m o nths an d 1 5 

### day s o fin carcerati o n, co nsecuti v e to Count 

### Seven. C o unt S ix : P o s se s s i o n W i th Intent to 

### De li v er (h ero in and/o r f entany l ) - 

### 2 1 m o nth s t o 5 4 

### mo nths o f in carcerati o n , co nsec uti v e to 

### any 

### other sentr:nce 

### c urre ntly be in g se rv ed . C o unt S e v e n : C riminal U se o fCo mmuni cati o n F acility - I S m onths to 

### 3 0 m o nths o f in c arcerati o n, co nsec uti v e to 

### Co unt S ix . On 

### D ec e mbe r 2 7 , 2 0 1 8 , Appe ll ant fi l ed a po st - sentence mo ti on and 

### a Petiti on to 

### W i th draw as C o un se l. Th e C o urt deni ed th e po st - senten ce m oti on on J anumy 2, 

### 20 1 9 . On 

### J anuary 2 3 , 2 0 1 9 , Appe ll ant fil ed a N o ti ce o f Ap peal . On F ebruary 4 , 2 0 1 9 , the 

### Co urt 

### dirc:ctcd

5 S e e T r . D ay 2, pp . 1 72 - 1 75 an d C o mm o nw ealth E xhib it 2 7 6 1 8 P a . C . S .A . § 2 5 0 6 ; 3 5 P a. C . S .A . § 7 8 0- 1 1 3 ( a)( 3 0 ) ; 3 S Pa. C . S . A . § 7 8 0- 11 3 ( aX 1 6) ; 1 8 Pa. C . S .A. §4 9 1 0( 1 ); 3 5 P a . C . S . A . § 7 8 0- 1 1 3 ( a)( 3 0 ) ; an d 1 8 P a. C . S .A . § 7 S 1 2( a) , respecti v e ly . 7 1 8 P a . C . S .A . § 4 9 1 0( 1 ) ; 3 5 P a. C . S . A . § 7 80- 1 1 3 ( a)( 3 0 ) ; and 1 8 Pa. C . S . A. § 7 S 1 2 ( a), a espeaive ly . 

### 8Ap pe ll ant 

### to fi l e a l 92 5 (b ) S tatem ent o f M atters Co mp l ained o f o n Appeal 

### within 2 1 

### da ys.

App e ll ant fi l e d a S tate m e nt o f M atters C o mp lained o f on Appeal o n F ebruary 28 , 2 0 1 9 . 1 C o n c urre ntly , Ap pe ll ant ' s c o unse l fil ed an o ther P eti ti on 

### to W ithdraw 

### a Co unse l. 

### On 

### March 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 , th e C o urt gr ante d th e P e ti ti o n 

### to W i thdraw an d 

### directed Appe ll ant to o blain 

### new l egal c o un se l o r act as hi s o wn c o unse l fo r any 

### future pr oceedings . P ara p hras e d, Ap pe ll ant ' s S tate m ent o f 

### Matters Co mp l ained o f OD Appeal 

### identifies the fo ll o win g i s sue s : 1 . Wh e th e r e vi de nti ary erro r occ urred in : a) admi ttin g into evi den ce te xt m essag es sent 

### to 

### and 

### from the ce ll p h o n e o f d ecedent, A dam Yurk ewi c z; b ) admi ttin g into evi d en ce text m essag es sent to and 

### &om the ce ll p h o n e Ap pe ll ant

used ; an d c ) " re fusin g 

### to admi t De f en dant ' s ' Exhib i t B ' text messages " 

### &om a third p arty to deced ent ' s ce ll p h o ne . 2 . Wh e th er th e re was s uffi c i ent e vi d en ce fo r 

### the j ury to convi ct 

### at Co unt S ev e n, C riminal U se o fC o mmuni cati o n F ac ili ty . 3 . Wh e th e r th e Co urt " f ail ed 

### to h o l d a 

### pro per b earing o n the De fendant ' s M o ti o n in L imin e . " 

### D I S CU SS I ON I . Untim e ly 1 9 2 5 (b ) S tat e m e nt Ap pe ll ant h as w ai v ed re vie w o f th e appe llate c l aims as the I 925 (b ) S tatanc:nt 

### was untim e ly . Th e C o urt i s s ued a 1 9 2 5 (b ) Ord er o n F ebruary 4 , 2 0 1 9 , 

### directing Appe llant to fil e 

### and s e rv e a 1 92 5 (b ) C o n c i s e S tatem e nt o f Matters Co mp l ain ed o f o n Appeal 

### wi thin 2 1 days. 

### This w as n o t do n e . Appe ll ant ' s S tate m ent o f 

### Matters Comp l ained o f OD 

### Appeal was not 

### filed 

### IDdil F eb ruary 2 8 , 2 0 1 9 . Th e c laim s are wai v ed . 8 The 1 92 5 (b ) S tate m ent w as d u e fo r fi lin g on M o n day , F ebruary 25 , 2 0 1 9 .



### 9

### Un d er th e P e nns y lv ani a R ul e s o f Appe l late Proced

ure , a Judg e i s permitted to grant 

### an ext ens i o n o f tim e to 

### fi l e 

### a S tate m ent " (u ] po n app li cati o n o f the 

### appe l lant and for good 

### cause s h o wn " . P a . R. A . P . 1 92 5 (b ) ( 2 ) . T o pre serv e c l aims f o r appe ll ate 

### revi ew , Appe llants must 

### comply wh en eve r th e tri al c o urt o rd ers th em to 

### fil e a 

### S tatem ent o f Matters 

### Comp lained o f on 

### Appeal pur s uant to 

### R

ul e 1 9 2 5 o r th e re sul t i s auto mati c wai v er . See 

### C o m mo nw e alth v . 

### Lord. 7 1 9 A .2d 3 0 6 , 3 0 9 (P a . 1 9 9 8 ) ; al s o 

### C o m m o nw e alt

h v. C asti llo . 8 8 8 A . 2d 7 7 5 (P a. 

### 2 00 5 ) . H ere, the 1 92S (b ) w as untim e ly an d n o requ e st t o exten d th e tim e fo r filin g was 

### su b mi tted to 

### the Co urt. Tbere fift, 

### th e i s s ue s rai s ed in Ap pe ll ant ' s S tate m ent o f 

### M atters Co mp l ained 

### o f on Appeal 

### are wai ved . P a . R. A . P . 1 9 2 5 (b ) ; 

### H

ess v. F o x Ro t hs c h il d, LLP , 92 5 A . 2d 7 9 8 , 8 04 (Pa. 

### S uper . 2 00 7) . A s s umin g a r

gu e nd o 

### th e re i s n o wai v er d

ue to 

### th e untim e ly I 

### 92 S (b ) S � 

### the is.,ues 

### rai s ed in Appe ll ant ' s 1 9 2 5 (b ) S tate m ent shall be 

### addressed ad 

### s e riatim . Il . C l a im s o f E vi d e nti ary 

### E rro r Ap pe ll ant m ake s multip l e c l aims o f evi dentiary erro r regardin g the 

### Co mt ' s 

### rulinp o n the 

### a dmi s s ibi li ty o f ce rtain te xt m e s sag e ex c han g es . See 

### 1 92 5 (1, ) St ate m e nt , 

## 1 1 I, 

### 2 and 

### J . Ap pe ll ant ' s c l aim s are m eri tl e s s . A . Re l e v ant L eg a l P rin c ip l es 

### E x c ep t as o th erwi s e pro vi d ed by 

### law , al l re l e v ant evi d en ce i s adm i ssib l e . P a. R. E . 402 . Th e thre s h o l d in quiry wi th admi ssi o n o f evi d ence i s whether the evi dence 

### i s re l e v ant. Evi d en ce i s re l e v ant ifi t 

### l o gi cally ten ds to 

### estab li sh a mataia1 

### f act in th e cas e , ten ds to 

### make a f act at 

### i ssue mo re o r l ess pro babl e, 

### or s u p po rts a reas o nab l e inf

eren ce o r presmnpti o n regarding the existmcc 

### o f a materi al f

act . 

### In addi ti o n, evi dence i s o nly admissib l e where the pro b ati v e v alu e o f

th e e vi den ce o utwei ghs i ts 

### pre j udi ci al impact.

10

### C

o m m o nw e a lt

h v. S to kes, 7 8 A . 3 d 644 , 6 5 4 (P a. S uper . 2 0 1 3 ) ( internal ci tati o ns 

### and quotation m ark s o mi tt e d) . E vi de n c e i s no t unfairly pre j udi c ial s imp ly 

### becau se i t 

### may be 

### harmful 

### to the de fe n dant ' s cas e . 

### I

d . Al s o , as a

pp ro p ri ate, e v i d e n ce must 

### be pro perly auth enti cated . " (T]he proponent must pro d u ce e vi de n c e suffi c i ent to 

### su ppo rt a fin din g that the i tem 

### is 

### what the 

### pro po nent c laims i t 

### is . " P a . R. E . 9 0 1 ( a) . Thi s can in c lu de te stim o ny b y a wi tness wi th kno w l edg e o f 

### the 

### i tem that the item i s wh at i t i s c l aim e d to 

### be . P a. R. E . 90 1 

### (b) ( 1 ) . T e xt m e s s ag e s may 

### be auth enti cated b y : ( 1 ) testim o ny o f the 

### autho r or sender; (2 ) c irc um s tanti al e v i de n c e , in c lu ding di stin cti v e c haracteri sti cs 

### tending to i denti fy the 

### IIUlbor or s e n d er o r re fe r e n c e s to e v e nts p recedin g o r fo ll o wing the m essag es ; 

### o r ( 3 ) any 

### o ther facts 

### or asp e ct s o f th e m e s sa g e s that s i gni fy th e y are 

### what the pro po nent c laims 

### them 

### to be . 

### C o m m o nw e alt

h v. M u " ay , 1 7 4 A. 3 d 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 5 6- 5 7 (P a. S uper . 2 0 1 7) , 

### ap pe al dt!ni«.I, 1 87 A. 3d 2 04 (P a. 2 0 1 8 ) ; 

### s e e a l

s o P a . R . E . 90 1. 

### 1 . T ext m es s a g es s e nt f ro m an d rece iv ed o n Y arkewkz ' 1 

### c:ell p h o ne F ir s t, Appe ll ant c l aims 

### i t was e rro r 

### to admi t te xt 

### m essag es dated J an uary 

### S , 

### 2 0 1 8 which w er e s e nt fro m an d re c e i v e d o n Yurk e wi c z ' s ce ll p h o n e , whi c h was 

### ass i gned the 

### number 8 1 4- 5 2 0 - 3 5 4 0 . 9 Ap pe ll ant c l aim s e rro r 

### occ urred becau se "the Co mm o nweal th was 

### unable to auth e nti cate th e te xt m e s sag e s . . . as th e y w ere unab l e 

### to pro v e 

### the autho r( s ) o f the text 

### messages s e nt fro m . . . [ an d) re cei v ed b y ce ll # 8 1 4- 5 2 0- 3 5 40 . 

### 1 92 5 (b ) S tale me nt , 1 1 . Ap pe ll ant ' s first c l aim o f e vi denti ary 

### error i s wai v ed 

### as vague . If 

### no t wai ved, Appe Uhmt 9 S e vi d e nti ary c l aim i s wh o lly wi th o ut m eri t. Assuming 

### ar gue ndo erro r occurred, i t was barmles., erro r .

9 I t is un di s p ute d th e d ece d ent, A dam Yurk ewi cz, was th e o wner o f the ce ll p hone assoc ialed with 1be IIIDbel' 1 1 4- 5 2 0 - 3 5 4 0 . 1r

. D ay I , p . 2 2 . 

### 11Ap pe ll ant ' s e vi d e nti ary cl aim i s wai v ed as 

### vague . In th e 1 92 5 (b ) S tatcmcot, Appe l lant

o nly p ro vi d e s Yurk e wi c z ' s ce ll p h o ne number wi th n o co nte xt o r ref eren ce to specific enoa 

### in th e r ec o rd . A c o n c i se state m ent whi c h i s too v agu e to all o w 

### the co mt to i dentify 

### the 

### issues rai s e d o n a

pp eal i s th e fun c ti o nal equi v al ent o f n o con c i se statement 

### at al l. 

### C otnlllOR'We alt

h v . 

### R e e v es, 9 0 7 A . 2 d I , 2 (P a. S u per . 2 0 0 6 ) , 

### ap

pe a l de n i e d, 9 1 9 A . 2d 9 5 6 ( Pa. 2 00 7). 

### The co urt' s re vi e w an d l e g al analy s i s c an be f atal ly impaired wh en 

### the co mt 

### has to guess 

### at 

### the 

### issues 

### raised. I d If a c o nc i s e state m e nt i s too v agu e , th e co urt may 

### find wai v er . 

### I d Appe l lant ' s c laim o f e vi d enti ary erro r i s n o t spec ifi c e n o u gh fo r th e C o urt to adequate ly 

### add.reM, and tben: fore the cl aim i s w ai ve d as v a gu e . I fthi s c l aim i s n o t w ai v e d fo r v agu e n e ss , Appe ll ant ' s c l aim i s wi tho ut 

### merit. Any c laim that te xt m es s ag e s s ent fro m an d rece i v ed b y Yurk ewi c z ' s ce ll pho ne 

### were not 

### properly auth e nti c at e d must f

ai l. Th ere w as m o re th an 

### suffi ci ent tes timo ny 

### from wi messes with kn o w l e dg e d e m o nstratin g th e c e ll p h o n e was what i t was p urported to 

### be - Yurkewicz ' s ce ll p h o n e . Thi s in c lud ed te stim o ny fro m Yurk e wi c z ' s 

### fi mde , 

### Kay l a T urk, who 

### confinned text ex c h an g e s b etw e e n h er s e lf an d Yurk e wi c z o n J anuary 

### 5, 2 0 1 8 

### and Yurk ewi cz ' s 

### gnmdmo thcr , M arl e n e , wh o c o nfirm e d th e p h o n e cal l s sh e an d Yurk e wi c z 

### had the m o rning o f

### J an uary 

### S , 2 0 1 8 ; te sti m o ny fro m D et ec ti v e Pre sn er that h e had reco v ered 

### the ce ll p ho ne 

### at 

### issue fro m Ymkewicz ' s p oc k et ; an d te stim o ny fro m Detecti v e S tyn re gardin g the 

### data, inc luding 

### perso nal 

### social media ac c o unts an d em ail as s o c i ated wi th Y urk ewi c z, e xtracted from 

### the ce ll pho ne . Al s o , th e re w as s i gni fi c ant c irc umstanti al e vi d e n c e c o rro bo rating that n o t onl y was 

### i t Yurk e wi c z ' s c e ll p h o n e , b ut that Yurk e wi c z was in d eed 

### the autho r o f the 

### text messages 

### at issue . Thi s in c lud e d e vi d e n ce , pre vi o us ly di s cussed h ere i n, o f text m essag es wi th 99 8 3 indi cati ve o f a dru g tr an s a c ti o n an d p in g s fro m Yurk e wi c z ' s ce ll p ho ne putti ng 

### him in the area o f 2 4 1111 

### and 1 2Ge rm an wh en th e d e al wi th Appe ll ant was se t t o occur . When Yurk ewi cz ' s 

### body was f ound, a l o ad e d s yrin ge was fo un d 

### in th e n ear b y s ink an d a pac k et o f f entany l was f

ound 

### in bi s 

### pocket. Th e c irc um s tanti al e vi d e n ce suffi c i e ntly i d enti fi e s Yurk ewi cz as the auth o r o f

### the text musagcs b ase d o n th e re f

er e n ce s t o th e e v ents precedin g an d fo ll o win g the text 

### messages and 

### the s urro un din g f

a cts o f th e case . Th e te xt m e ssag e s sent fro m an d recei v ed o n Ymt ewi cz ' s ce ll p h o n e wer e pro pe rly auth e nti c ated an d th e re was no erro r 

### in the ir adm i ssi o n . Appell ant ' s c laim o ferro r mu st be di s mi s s e d . As s umin g 

### a r

gu e nd o th e text m e s sag e s o n Yurk ewi c z ' s ce ll p ho ne 

### were not 

### properly auth enti cate d , i t was harml e s s e rror to admi t th e m. A primary p mpose i n introducing 

### the text m e s s ag es fr om Yurk e wi c z ' s ce ll p h o n e was t o estab li sh a 

### line o f co mmuni cati on 

### between Ap pe l lant an d Yurk e wi c z, linkin g Ap pe ll ant to Yurk ewi cz ' s d eath . Appe ll ant was acquitted o f th e c harg e r e l atin g t o Yurk e wi c z ' s d e ath, Co unt One - 

### Drug De li v ery Res ul tin g 

### in 

### Death. Also , App e ll ant was acqui tted o f th e fo ll o win g c harg e s 

### ari sing fro m 

### all eg ed acti viti es o f 

### J ammy S , 2 0 1 8 : C o unt T w o - P o s se s s i o n W i th Inte nt t o De li v er ( f entany l ) , Co unt 

### Three - P osseaion o f Dru g P ar a

p h ern al i a. an d C o unt F o ur - P osse ss i o n (hero in/ fentany l ) . There f ore , the i denti ty o f th e auth or o f t e xt m e s sag e s o n Yurk e wi c z ' s ce ll p ho ne 

### is o f n o co nsequence and no 

## JR.iudice o cc urre d t o Ap pe ll ant b y th e ir admi s s i o n . 

### 2 . T e xt m es s a g es se nt f ro m an d rece iv ed o n th e ce D p • on e woeiated w i th 9 9 83 . S ec o n d , Ap pe ll ant c l aims i t w as erro r to admi t text m essages 

### dated J anuary 

### S , 2 0 1 1 and J an uary 6 , 2 0 1 8 whi c h w e re s ent fro m an d rece i v ed o n a ce ll p ho ne 

### wi th a number o f l 1 4-44 9-- 9 9 8 3 . Appe ll ant c l aim s erro r occ urred bec ause ' 'the Co mm onweal th was unab l e 

### to 

### authc:nti calc th e te xt m e s sag e s . . . as th e y w ere un ab l e 

### to p ro v e th e autho r( s ) o f 

### the te xt 

### messages sent 

### from

. . . [ an d ] re c e i v e d b y c e ll # 8 1 4 -44 9 - 9 9 8 3 . " 1 92 5 (b ) S tale m e nt . 

## 11 2. 1 3Ap pe ll ant ' s s ec o n d c l aim o f e vi d enti ary erro r 

### is al so 

### wai ved as vague . 

### Further .

App e ll ant ' s e vi d e nti ary c l aim i s wh o lly wi th o ut m eri t Ap pe l lant ' s c l aim i s wai v ed as v ague . Ap pe ll ant ' s 1 92 S (b ) S tatement docs not 

### i dentify wh e r e th e s pec i fi c i s s u e s c o mp l ained o f re garding th e ce ll p hone number 8 I 4-44 9- 998 3 are fo un d in th e re co rd o r th e ir s i gni fi can ce in th e o utco m e o f the case . Appe llant� s c laim o f e v i d e nti ary erro r i s n o t spec i fi c e n o u gh fo r th e C o urt to adequate ly 

### address, and tbeftf ore the c l aim i s wai v ed as v a gu e . 

### S e e P a. R . A . P . 1 92 5 (b ) ; 

### C

o mmo nw e alt

h v. Re eves, 907 A. 2d 

### at 2 . As s umin g 

### a r

gu e n d o th e c l aim i s n o t wai v ed as vague , the asserti o n 

### the text 

### messages s e nt fro m an d re c e i v e d b y 9 9 8 3 w e re n o t p ro perly auth enti cated is 

### meri tl ess. 

### Thete was s uffi c i e nt t e stim o ny fro m wi tn e s se s wi th kn o w l edg e d em o nstrating the ce ll phone was 

### what 

### it was p urpo rte d to be - Ap pe ll ant ' s ce ll p h o n e . Detecti v e F i o re lli 

### testifi ed 

### that the 

### iPbonc in the r e d an d b l a ck c as e w as rec o v e red n e xt to Ap pe ll ant ' s 

### seat in 

### the v e hi c l e , and 

### the i.Phone was c o nn e c te d to th e numbe r 9 9 8 3 . Th e r e w e re s i gni fi cant co ntextual c lues and 

### circumsaantial e vi d e n c e c o rro bo ratin g th at Ap pe ll ant was th e auth o r o f the 

### text messag es 

### at issue . Thi s in c lu d ed : th e te xts be tw een Yurke wi c z an d 99 8 3 and the c i.reumstances 

### surrounding Yurk e wi c z ' s d e ath di sc us sed abo v e ; th e co ntents o f te xts 

### between 

### thiJd parti es and 998 3 

### using s l an g t erm s co n s i ste nt wi th drug deal in g , wh e re 99 8 3 set up 

### the l ocati o n fo r 

### the 1rBDsadi ons 

### in ar eas n e ar Ap pe ll ant ' s h o m e ; an d 

### third p arty texts i d enti fyin g Appe ll ant 

### by name to which 

### be r e s po n d e d a ffirmati v e ly . M o st s i gnifi cantly , at th e tim e and p lace o f th e underco ver 

### drug deal be tw e e n th e auth o r o ft e xts fro m 9 9 8 3 an d Detec ti v e H ard.Der , Appe l lant 

### arri ved 

### in a 

### whi1e Audi in po s s e ss i o n o f

h e ro in an d f

entany l. Ap p lyin g th e r e l e v ant l e g al prin c ip l e s , th e to tali ty o f 

### the 

### evi dence was mon: 

### than su ffi c i e nt to i d e nti fy Appe ll ant as th e auth o r o f th e 

### text m essag es fro m 99 8 3 

### based on 

### the 

### 1 4re fe re n c e s to th e e v ents prec edin g an d fo ll o win g th e te xt m essages and the surro undi n g 

# .as o f

th e c as e . Th e c irc um stanti al e vi d e n ce e stab li s h ed Appe ll ant 

### authored the texts 

### &om 99 13 . The te xts w e re p ro pe rly auth e nti c ate d an d th e re was n o erro r in th e ir admi ssi o n . Appe llant ' s c laim o f e rro r must 

### be di smi s s ed . Ap pe ll ant as s e rts th e c as es o f 

### C o m m o nw e a lth v. Koc h , 3 9 A. 3 d 996 (Pa. S uper . 2 0 1 1 ). 

### a jj' d , 10 6 A . 3 d 7 0 5 

### (P a . 2 0 1 4 ) , an d 

### C o m m o nw e a lt

h v. M ange l , 1 8 1 A. 3 d 

### 1 1 54 , 1 1 5 9 (Pa. 

### S uper . 2 0 1 8 ) re qui r e 

### a di ff

er e nt c o n c lus i o n . Ap pe ll ant ' s asserti o ns 

### are unpers uasi v e . 

### In Koc � 

### on an i s su e o f fir st 

### imp re s s i o n, th e P e nns y lvani a S u peri o r C o wt 

### co nsi dered what was required 

### to auth enti c ate te xt m e ssag e s . 

### C o m m o nw e a lt

h v. K o c h , . 3 9 A . 3 d 

### at 1 00 3 . 

### The 

### S uperior Court c o n c lud ed te xt m e s sa g e s are d oc um e nts sub j ect to th e same requirem ents f o r 

### authenti city as 

### none l ec tro ni c d o cum e nts . 

### Ko c h at 1 004 . Th e C o urt d etermin ed suc h authenti cati o n 

### rcquha mon: than m er e co nfirmati o n that th e number be l o n gs to 

### a parti cul ar person. 

### Addi lional

" [ c ] irc wn s tanti al e vi d e n ce , whi c h te n ds to 

### co rro bo rate th e i denti ty o f th e 

### sender , 

### is 

### n:quilm. " 

### K o c h at 1 0 0 5 . In 

### K

o c h , th e S u

peri o r C o urt de te nnin ed 

### text 

### m essag es were admi tted 

### in 

### error wh e re th e C o mm o nw eal th ' s 

### wi tn e ss ac kn o w l edg e d 

### he co ul d 

### no t co nfirm the 

### defendant was 

### the auth o r o f th e te xts and 

### c o n c e d e d t he de fe nda nt d id no t wri te s o me o

f t he mess ages . N otab ly , in 

### K o c h , th er e w ere 

### n o c o n te

x tu a l c lu es te nd

ing to re ve al t

he ide nti ty o

f t he tllll ho r and 

### no nide na t h e d e fe n d a nt h ad wri tten t

h e te x t m ess ages ( " G l aringly absent 

### in this case i s any evi dence te n din g to s ub s tanti at e that Ap pe ll ant wro te th e drug - re l ated te xt m essag es . " Koch 

### at I OO S) . 

### In th e ins tant c as e , th e r e was s ub stanti al ci rc umstanti al e vi d en ce po inting 

### to Appe llant as 

### the 

### author o f t e xts fro m 9 9 8 3 . 

### M a nge l i s l arg e ly ina

p p li cab l e to th e instant facts as i t spec i fi cal ly concerned auth e nti cati o n o f s o c i al m edi a . 

### C o m m o nw e a lt

h v. M ange l , 1 8 1 A . 3 d 

### at 1 1 5 9 . H owever , 

### the 1 5

### C o urt i n 

### M ange l a p p li ed th e S upe ri o r Co urt ' s reaso nin g 

### in 

### K oc h in detaminin g the auth e nti c ati o n o f s o c i al m edi a e vi d en ce require s " direct o r circumstanti aJ 

### evi dence that tends 

### to c orro b orat e th e i d e nti ty o f th e auth o r o f

th e co mmuni cati o n 

### in questi on, such as 

### testimony &om th e p er s o n wh o s e nt o r r ece i v ed th e co mmuni cati on, 

### o r c o ntextual c lues in t he COllf1lf1lnical 

### te nd ing to re ve a l t

h e id en ti ty o f t h e s e nd e r. " M ange l at 

### . 1 1 6 2 (

### emp has is added) . Apin, the 

### fads an d h o l din g o f 

### M

ange l d o n o t su

ppo rt Ap pe ll ant ' s c l aims und er 

### the 

### facts o f the 

### instant case . Ap pe ll ant ' s c l aim must 

### be di s mi s sed . 

### 3 . C o nt e nts o f ' E xhib i t B ' an d " J ake B . " Ap pe ll ant c o nte n d s i t was 

### erro r 

### to re fuse 

### ' 'to admi t De f endant ' s 

### ' Exhibit 8 ' , text m e s s a g e s from ' J ake B ' 

### to th e d eced e nt ' s ce ll p h o n e " . Appe ll ant appean 

### to c laim 

### ' F.xln mt B ' w o ul d h av e " de l in eat [ ed ] a sep arate so urce o f ill e g aJ narco ti cs " . 1 92 5 (b ) 

### St a tement , 

## 1 J . Ap pe ll ant ' s c l aim i s w ai v ed . F urth er , i t l ac ks a 

### factual bas i s . 

### Assuming argue Nlo 

### the c l aim i s n o t wai v e d, n o e rro r oc c urr ed . Th e c laim i s wai v ed as v agu e an d un d e rd ev e l o ped . Appe ll ant pro vi des n o 

### ICfcrenccs to th e re c ord o f any atte mpt t o introd uce ' E xhib i t B ' o r th e Co urt ' s rul in g 

### thereon . Appe l iant fails t o i de nti fy th e s i gni fi c an c e o f any su c h te xt messag es o th er 

### than 

### to suggest 

### the y 

### de linc::at.e a separ at e so urc e o f ill e gal dru g s . Ap pe ll ant f ail s 

### to i d entify ho w any o ther 

### so urce o f 

### illepl n arco ti c s w o ul d hav e c h ang ed th e o utco m e o fthi s case . Appe ll ant was 

### acqui tted o f 

### the 

### charges re l atin g t o th e d e ath o f Yurk e wi c z. Th e C o urt cann o t ad equate ly 

### address this 

### issue f or l eek o f sp ec i fi c i ty . Th e c l aim i s w ai v ed . P a. R. A . P . 1 9 2 S (b ) . S imi l arly , Ap pe ll ant ' s c l aim that th e C o urt re fused 

### to admi t 

### ' Exhi bit B ' i s 

### factually ina c c urate an d b e li ed b y th e rec o r d Ap pe ll ant pro vi d es no re f eren ces 

### to the 

### record o f

any



### 1 6attemp t to intro d u c e ' E xhib i t B ' o r th e C o urt ' s rul in g th ereo n . 1 0 E ve n i f ' E xhib i t 

### B ' 

### had been o ff ered into th e reco rd 

### and the Co urt re fused 

### i ts 

### adm i ssi on, 

### th ere w as n o e rro r . ' E xhib i t 

### B ' c o ntain ed e x cerp ts fro m Detec ti v e S tyo ' s report 

### regarding the co nte nts o f Yurk ewi c z ' s ce ll pho n e . Ini ti al l y , 

### th e C o urt di d no t permi t Appe llant to 

### queslion D e te c ti v e S tyn abo ut any t e xt m e s sag e s fro m " J ak e 

### B " o n th e bas i s o f re l e vancy . 

### Tr . Day 

### 2 . pp . 

### 1 3 4 - 1 3 5 . H o w e v e r , th e Co urt 

### s u bs e q u e n tl y pe rm i tte d A

p pe llant to q ues ti o n De te ctiw Styn 

### re g a rding ' Exh i b i t B ' o v e r th e C o mm o nw eal th ' s o b j ec ti o n : MR . H O P KIN S : De tec ti v e , di d y o u p ull 

### the inf o rmati o n co ntained 

### in D e f en d ant' s E xhibi t 

### B fro m th e p h o n e o f

### Mr . Yurk ewi c z? D E TE C TIVE S TYN : Y e s . M S . AN G L IN : An d Jud g e , I' m g o in g to o b j ect t o any re f

erence 

### to 

### De f

ense ' s Exhib i t B . W e h av e n o o b j ecti o n 

### to E xhib i t 

### A, 

### but B we do hav e 

### a pro b l em wi th . MR . H O P KIN S : I haven ' t ask ed h er to read fro m i t o r say 

### anything more abo ut i t . Just that sh e di d p ull that inf o rmati o n fro m the 

### pho ne . THE C O URT : That ' s 

### fin e , as i t re l ates to that que sti o n . MR . H O P KIN S : 

### Thank y o u . T r . 

### D ay 2, 

### p . 1 3 6

. Th e qu e s ti o ning r e garding ' E xhib i t B ' co ntinued : MR . H O P KIN S : O kay , so l oo kin g 

### at De f en dant ' s Exhib it 

### 8 , are you ab l e 

### to te ll 

### us wh eth e r o r n o t 

### any a d diti o n al m essag es that 

### bad been de l eted 

### sdll - h ad bee n o v e rwri tten 

### a ft e r th e 

### thi rd o f J anu ary? D E TE C TN E S TYN : I s th ere a pag e 

### numbe r fo r that? I' m so rry . MR . H O P KIN S : W e ll , th e m e ssag e s be gin o n th e s ixth 

### page , but 

### the questi on i s , sin c e 

### a ll o f 

### th e m es s a g es 

### o n D e f en dant ' s E xhib it B are 

### IIIUked d eleted 

### - i s th at ri ght ?

1 0 Th ere i s n o in di c ati on in th e rec o rd that ' Exlul> it B ' was o ff ered as an c :xlul> it or die Court rdbscd i1s m1am1ion. T r. D ay 2, pp . 13 2 - 142 . 1 7D E TE CT IVE S TYN : 

### Y es . MR . H O P KIN S : - - ar e y o u ab l e to t e ll us wh eth er o r no t 

### there WC1e 

### further m e s sag e s 

### from th e p h o n e number li sted 

### in De f endant ' s 

### Exhibi t B 

### after the third that w ere d e l e ted, b ut di dn ' t - w eren ' t reco v erab l e ? D E TE C TIVE S TYN : N o , I w o ul d n o t be ab l e to te ll y o u 

### that. 

### MR. H O P KIN S : S o th e p h o n e co nv ersati o n 

### in thi s co ul d ' v e co ntinued ? D E TE C T IVE S TYN : 

### Co rrect . MR . H O P KIN S : B ut b ased o n th e p ho n e o v e rwri ting areas, we 

### don ' t 

### kno w? D E TE C TIVE S TYN : C o rrec t. MR . H O P KIN S : Y o ur H o n o r , I w o ul d 

### again see k to g o 

### further . T HE C O URT : 

### Th at ' s a m att e r o f

### p ure spec ulatio n . MR . H O P KIN S : T o be cl ear , j ust g o ing wi th 

### what we d o have th e records f or THE C O URT : I' v e already rul ed o n that. MR . H O P KIN S : O kay . 

### T r . 

### D ay 2, p . 1 3 9 - 1 4 0 (

em p has i s a dde d ) . Ap pe ll ant ' s c o un s e l e v e n e li c i ted testim o ny fro m Detecti v e S tyn 

### the texts on ' Exhibit B ' w e r e d e l e ted fro m Yurk e wi c z ' s ce ll p h o n e . 

### T r . Day 

### 2, p . 1 3 9. A fair reactin g o f Appe llant ' s c ro s s-e x ami nati o n rev e al ed al l m e s sag e s li sted o n ' E xhib i t B ' were de l eted 

### and ' Exhi bit B ' sh o wed n o m e s sa g e s w e re retri ev ed afte r J an uary 3 , 2 0 18 . Gi v en 

### the 

### lati tude afforded to Ap p e ll ant ' s co un se l 

### in r e g ard t o qu e sti o nin g Detecti v e S tyn 

### abo ut ' Exhibi t 

### B ' . Appe l lant was fr e e to adv an c e any th eo ry that m e s sag es fro m a 

### third party so urce may 

### have been 

### de leted or o v e rwri tte n 

### in Yurk e wi c z ' s ce ll p h o n e . Th e o nly l imi tati o n p laced on Appe llant ' s cross,. e x amin ati o n o f D e t e c ti v e S tyn w as th e 

### inab ili ty to questi o n Detecti v e S tyn abo ut " J ake B " , a t o p i c th e C o urt d et e rmin ed w as irre l e v ant an d spec ul ati v e . Appe ll ant ' s c l aim i s 

### meritlea. 1 8A s sumin g 

### ar gu e n d o erro r occ urred 

### in prec luding re f erence to " J ak e 

## e n durin g qu e s ti o nin g o f D e t ec ti v e 

### S tyn, thi s w as harml es s erro r . 

### P er the 

### 1 92 5 (b ) S tatancnt, 

### it 

### appears Ap p e ll ant ' s i nte nti o n wi th ' E xhib i t 

### B ' ( e x cerp ts fro m Detec ti v e 

### S tyn ' s rq,ort 

### regarding the co nt e nts o f Yurk e wi c z ' s ce ll p h o n e ) was to 

### su gg est " J ak e 

### B " as 

### a possib l e so un:e o f 

### ill egal n arc o ti c s fo r Yurk e wi c z . Thi s i s o f n o m o m ent . Appe ll ant was 

### acquitted o f Count 

## One» Drug D e li v e ry Re s ul tin g 

### in D eath (Yurk e wi c z ) . F urth erm o re , th e texts re f erenced 

### in 

### � Ex ln "bit 

### B ' were d e l e te d an d n o t e xt s re fe re n ced o n ' E xhibi t 

### B ' were 

### dated after J anuary 

### 3 , 2 0 1 8 . 

### There f ore, no pre j u di ce oc c urre d an d any c l aim ed erro r was harml ess . Ap pe ll ant ' s c l aim must 

### be di sm i ssed . 

# m . S u ffi c i e n cy o f th e evi d e n ce f o r co nvi cti o n o n c o - t Sev e n - Crillmlal 

### U 1e o f C o mmun i c ati o n F a c ili ty . Ap p e ll ant as s e rts th e e vi d ence w as insuffi c i ent fo r th e j ury to convi ct 

### at Count Seven, C riminal U s e o f C o mmuni c ati o n F ac ili ty , because 

### ' 'the Co urt sho ul d no t have erroneously adm i tt ed th e unauth e nti c ate d te xt m e ssag es " . See 

### J 92 5 (b ) S ta tem e nl , 

## 1 4 . This c laim is 

### witho ut m eri t an d s h o ul d 

### be di s mi s sed . 

### A . S u fr 1e i e n cy o fth e E vi d e n c e S tan d ard Wh e n ev aluatin g a c h all e n g e to th e suffi c i e n c y o f

### the e vi den ce , the Comt must ddcrmine wh e th er , v i e win g th e e vi d e n ce 

### in th e li ght m o st f av o rab l e to the C o mm o nweal th as 

### the verdict winn er , to g e th er wi th al l re as o nab l e inf eren ces fro m that evi d en ce , the tri er o f 

### f act coul d have fo un d eac h e l em e nt o f th e crim e c harg ed was estab li shed bey o nd 

### a reasonab l e 

### doubt. C o m m o nw e a lt

h v . 

### H a r grave, 1 4 5 A . J d 2 0 , 2 2 (P a. S uper . 2 000 ) , 

### appe al de rMd, 

### 1 60 A2d I S i (P a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( intern al c i tati o ns o mi tted) ; 

### C o m m o nw e a lt

h. v . 

### Bruns o n, 9 3 8 

### A.2d 

### I O S 7 , 1 0 5 8 (P a . S u p er . 2 0 0 7 ) ; 

### C

o mm o nw e a lt

h v . 

### C ham b e r s, 5 99 A . 2 d 

### 6 3 0 , 6 3 3 (Pa. 1 99 1 ) . 

### The C o mm o nw eal th m ay s us tain i ts b urd en o f proo f b y m eans o f wh o lly 

### circumstantial evi dence . 1 9

### C

o m m o nw e a lt

h v. H o p kins, 7 4 7 A . 2 d 9 1 0 , 9 1 3 (P a. S uper . 2 000 ) . 

### The facts and 

### circums1ances e stab li s h ed b y th e C o mm o nweal th n eed n o t p rec lud e ev e ry possibili ty o f i nnocence , and any que s ti o n s o r d o ub ts are t o be r e so lv ed b y th e f act - find er , unl ess 

### the 

### evi dence is so 

### weak 

### and. in c o n c lu s i v e that, as a m atte r o f l aw , n o p ro bab ili ty . o f f act can be 

### drawn 

## man tbe combined c irc um s tan c e s . 

### C

o m m o nw e a lt

h v. H o p kins, supra at 9 1 3 - 1 4 . V i e win g th e e vi d e n ce ag ainst thi s staadard, Appe l lant ' s co ntenti o n is wi tho ut meri t. 

### B . Rev i ew o f E vi d e n ce f o r S uffic i e n cy Claims Ap pe ll ant ' s c l aim o f s uffi c i e n c y o fth e e vi d en ce i s m eri tl ess an d must 

### be di sm i ,sed, 

### The fa c tual b as is fo r C riminal U se o f C o mmuni cati o n F ac ili ty at C o unt Sev en i s 

### that on 

### the morning o f 

### J anuary 6 , 2 0 1 8 , Ap pe ll ant, 

### us in g p h o n e number ( 8 1 4 ) 44 9 - 99 8 3 , 

### bad contact wi th an un d erc o v er o ffi c e r re g ardin g a dru g transac ti o n at th e 3 00 b l oc k o f

### F.ast 2 4 111 S treet, C ity o f � E ri e C o unty , P e nns y lv ani a . 

### I n f o rma ti o n. T o s u stain a c o nvi cti o n fo r C riminal U se o f Co mmuni cati o n F acility ( 1 8 

### Pa. C . S .A . 

### § 7 5 1 2 ) , th e C o mm o nw e al th must e stab li sh 

### the d e fendant : I ) 

### kno win gly an d 

### intmti onally used a c o mmuni c ati o n f

ac ili ty ; 2 ) kn o win gly , intenti o nally o r rec kl ess ly faci l itated an 

### undc:rlying f e l o ny ; an d 3 ) th e un d e rlyin g f e l o ny oc c urred. 

### C

o mm o nw e alth v. 

### M

oss . 8 5 2 A.2d 3 7 4 , 3 82 (Pa. S up e r . 2 0 0 4 ) . A " c o mmuni c ati o n f ac ility' ' i s d e fin ed as " a p u b l ic o r pri vate 

### insllrumen1ali ty 

### used o r u s e ful in th e tr ans mi s s i o n o fs i gns , s i gnal s, wri ting, imag es , so unds, 

### data or 

### inte lli gence o fany n ature tran s mi tted in wh o l e o r in p art, in c ludin g, b ut n o t l imi ted to , 

### te lephone, wiR, radi o , e l e c tro m a gn e ti c , p h o t oe l e c tro ni c o r p ho to-o p ti cal systems o r 

### the 

### mail . " 1 8 

### Pa. C . S .A. 

### § 7 5 1 2 ( c ) . Th e e l em e nts o f th e c ri m e w ere sati s fi ed . H ere , 

### the reco rd, 

### vi ewed in the li ght most fav o ra b l e 

### to th e C o mm o nw eal th, estab li shed be y o nd a reaso nab l e do u bt 

### that Appe llant

2 0kn o win gly an d inte nti o nal ly us e d th e ce ll p h o n e assoc i ated wi th 99 8 3 

### to engage 

### in a 

### drug

tr an sa cti on wi th un de rc o v e r D etec ti v e H anm er o n J anuary 6 , 2 0! 8 . As reco unted 

### previ ously , the re c o rd es tab li s h e d Ap pe ll ant 

### had co ntact wi th Detecti v e H anm er 

### regarding a drug transacti o n o cc urrin g at 

### 2 4 11t S tre et betw e en Germ an an d P arad e S tree ts . At 9 : 1 9 a. m . on J an umy 6 , 2 0 1 8 , D ete cti v e H ardn e r t e xt ed " Y o " to 99 8 3 us ing Yurk ewi c z ' s ce ll phone . 

### Se e 

### Common. ww:alth E xhib i t 1 2 . At 9 : 5 4 a . m . , Ap pe ll ant respo n d ed 

### " sup " an d a co nv ersati on ensued 

### regarding 

### the dru g tr an s a cti o n . At 1 0 : 44 a. m . , Ap pe ll ant 

### directed Detecti v e H mdner 

### to " m eet me on 2 4 " at whi c h po int De te c ti v e H ar dn e r an d b ac k - up o ffi cers trav e ll ed 

### toBest 2 4 • S treet 

### between German an d P ar a d e S tre e ts . At 1 1 : 04 a m . De tecti v e H anm er 

### texted " Pull in 

### up " . A 

### white Audi was o bs e rv ed dri vin g d o wn East 

### 2 4 th S treet an d bri e fly sto pp in g at Appe llant ' s mother ' s 

### home l o cat ed o n th e sam e b l o c k . Appe ll ant e xi ted the v e hi c l e , entered hi s mother ' s 

### rcsidcoce, and s h o rtly th e re after re turn ed t o th e v e hi c l e . The whi te Audi m o ved further do wn the slft'.et and p ark e d on th e s i d e o f th e 

### road in fro nt o f De tecti v e H ardn er ' s ve hi c l e . S hortly 

### 1bcreafter , D et e cti v e H ardn e r r ec e i v ed a p h o n e call fro m 99 8 3 wi th a mal e vo i ce directing 

### him 

### to come to th e ' 'whi t e c ar' ' . Ap pe l lant mad e susp i c i o us m o v e m ents in th e v e hi c l e j ust pri or to arrest. Heroin an d fe ntany l w ere fo un d o n th e fl oo r mat be l o w th e seat wh ere h e 

### bad 

### been sitting. Al s o , Ap pe ll ant w as co nvi ct ed o f th e f e l o ny o ff ense o f P o ssessi o n W i th 

### lntmt 

### to 

### Dc liw:r ( f entany l ) wi th re g ar d to thi s spec i fi c transacti o n . Th ere 

### was suffi c i ent evidence f or 

### the 

### j ury to c o n c lu d e th e e l em e nts o f C o unt S e v en, C riminal U se o f Co mmuni cati o n F acili ty , 

### were e s tab li s h ed bey o n d a r eas o nab l e d o ub t . Ap pe ll ant ' s c l aim must fail .



### 2 1

### IV . M o ti o n in L im in e

Ap pe ll ant c l aim s erro r oc c urred in n o t h o l din g 

### a " pro per hearin g" o n 

### the M oti on 

### in L i min e . Ap pe ll ant c l aim s thi s re s ul ted in th e admi ss i o n o f o th erwi se ina dm i ssib l e text 

### messages. See 

### 1 92 5 (b ) S ta tem e n t , ,i 

### 5 . Ap p e ll ant ' s c l aim i s 

### wai ved as v ague . E v en 

### if th e c laim 

### is no t wai ved, 

### it 

### is who lly wi th o ut m e ri t. Ap pe ll ant ' s c l aim i s w ai v ed fo r v ague ness . Appe ll ant f ai l s 

### to 

### po int to any 

### requin:ment 

### o r rul e o f l aw that was n o t fo ll o w ed . Th e Co urt i s unab l e 

### to anal yze thi s issue . Thus, Appe llant ' s c l ai m mus t f

ai l. 

### S e e P a . R. A . P . 1 9 2 S (b) ; 

### C

o m m o nw e alt

h v . 

### R e eves, 90 1 A . 2d at 2 . As s um in g 

### a r

gu e nd o Ap pe ll ant ' s c laim i s n o t wai v ed, i t i s 

### who lly w i tho ut 

### merit. " A m o ti o n 

### in l imin e i s a p ro ced ure fo r o b tainin g a rul in g o n 

### the admi ssibi l i ty o f 

### evi dence prior Ill or 

### d u ring tria l

, b ut b e f o re t h e e11 id en ce h as H

te ll 

### o ff en d . " C o mmo nw ealt

h "· John.ron, 5 82 A .2d 3 3 6 , 3 3 7 (P a. S u

pe r . 1 9 9 0 ) , 

### a

jj' d , 5 3 4 P a. 5 1 , 6 2 6 A . 2d 5 1 4 ( 1 99 3 ) , ci ting L . Pack e l & A.B . P o ul i n, 

### Pe n nsy lva n ia E

v id en c e§ 1 0 3 . 3 (1 9 8 7) ( emp has i s ad ded) . 

### Essenti ally , a 

### motion in 

### Um. me i s a v e hi c l e to o btai n a ru lin g o n an e vi d enti ary 

### issue an d 

### a tri al co urt ma y 

### reserve its ruling until 

### tri al , in whi c h 

### c ase th e p arti e s 

### are p ro hib i ted 

### fro m ref errin g 

### to th e evi dence during 

### trial until the c o urt m ak e s i ts rul in g . S e e 

### C o m m o nw e a lt

h v . 

### M e tze r , 6 3 4 A . 2d 2 2 8 , 2 3 2 

### n , 3 (Pa. 

### S uper . 1 99 3 ) . In th e p re s e nt case , th e i s s ue s 

### rai sed in Ap pe ll ant ' s M o ti o n 

### in 

### L imine were fully c o n s i d e red b y th e C o urt and th e C o urt mad e d e fini ti v e rulings o n the issues 

### outside o f the p re s e n c e o f

th e j ury . On O c to ber 3 1 , 2 0 1 8 , Appe l lant 

### fi l ed a M o ti o n in 

### L iminc , seeking a ruling th at te xt m e s sag e s dat ed J anuary 

### 5, 2 0 1 8 sent 

### fro m an d 

### rece i ved o n 

### a ce ll phone 

### associated with 8 1 4 - 5 2 0 - 3 5 4 0 ( Yurk e wi c z ) , an d 

### te xt 

### m essages dated J anuary 

### 5 

### and J anuary 6 , 2 0 18 sent 

### fiom 2 2

### an d rec ei v ed o n a c e ll p h o n e as s oc i ate d wi th 8 1 4-44 9 - 9 9 8 3 ( 99 8 3 ) , 

### were inadm i ssib le f or lack 

### o f auth e nti c ati o n an d as in admi s s ib l e h earsay . Appe ll ant requested an evi dentiary 

### bearing on the 

### re qu e sts . O n N o v ember 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 , be fo re v o i r di r e , 

### th e C o urt th o ro ughly addlased 

### the 

### c laims in 

### th e M o ti o n in L imin e . T r . 

### D ay 1 , pp . 

### 6

- 3 6 . The 

### C o urt co ns i dered l egal argument 

### by the 

### C o mm o nwe al th an d Appe ll ant . 

### I d . Th e C o urt d etermined th e Co mmo nwaltb met 

### its "tbn:sbo l d b urd e n " in pro ff

erin g a bas i s fo r auth enti cati o n o f th e text m essages, advising 

### it 

### woul d n o n e the l e s s be in c umb ent u po n th e C o mm o nweal th 

### to pro ffer suffi c i ent circumstantial evidence 

### at tri al t o e stab li s h auth o rs hip . S e e T r . 

### Day 1 , pp . 2 3 - 2 4 . On 

### N o v ember 1 3 , 2 0 1 8 , d urin g tri al b ut be fo re th e co ntents o f the texts were 

### ptamted 

### to th e j ury , th e C o urt h e l d a s i d eb ar re gardin g text 

### m essag e ex c han g es o n Yurkewi cz ' s phone 

### on J anuary 5 , 2 0 1 8 . T

r . 

### D ay 1 , pp . 2 2 7

- 2 3 0. 

### Th e Co urt f

ound th ere 

# was suffici ent 

### circumstantial e v i d en c e t o auth enti c at e th e te xts . 

### I d D urin g a re ce s s o n N o v e mbe r 1 4 , 2 0 1 8 , th e C o urt 

### addressed wi th co unse l Appe ll ant ' s o b j e c ti o n re gardin g auth enti cati o n o f te xt m essag e ex c hang es o n 99 8 3 . 

### T r. Day 

### 2 . pp. 61 --69 . Th e C o urt d e te rmin e d th e te xt m e s sag e , " Di on " , 

### fro m a 

### third party 

### to 99 8 3 was 

### admi ssib l e for 

### th e l imi ted p urp o s e o f c o nn ec tin g o r l inking th e ce ll p h o n e wi th Appe l lanL 

### T r. Day 

### 1 , pp. U-65 . Th e C o urt al s o rul ed th e te xts be tw ee n th e dates 

### o f J anuary 

### 5 and J anuary 6 , 2 0 1 8 , betwa:n 

### thinl p arti e s an d 9 9 8 3 re gardin g a c han ge in th e dru g su pp ly , were 

### re l ev ant and 

### admi ssib l e . 

### T r. Day 1 . pp . 

### 68 - 6 9 . Th e rec o rd d e m o nstrate s th e C o urt appro pri ate ly 

### ad dressed all o fAppe llant ' s 

### c laims i n th e M o ti o n in L imin e . Ap pe ll ant ' s c laim i s wh o lly with o ut 

### m eri t

2 3

### C O N CLU S I O N

F o r fo re g o in g re as o ns , th e j u dgm ent o f senten ce s ho ul d be 

### affirmed. 

### The C iak o f Courts 

### i s h ereb y dir e c te d to 

### tran smi t 

### th e 

### reco rd to 

### th e 

### S uperi o r C o urt . B Y THE C O URT :

D at e



### c c : D i stri ct Att o rn e y ' s O ffi ce 

## l\Jl?U , , , ll e f ender, � s rQffi � , :,;a., :\· ·· D am o n H o p kins , E s q .



### 2 4C O MM ONWEAL TH O F P ENN S YL VAN IA 

### v . D I O N E LUAH WAYN E 

### C RIM INAL D IV I S I ON N O . 6 9 7 - 2 0 1 8 . .. . . · - - , . .

:

_ ..- : (.. . J

U l 

### IN THE C O U RT O F C O M M ON P L E A S O F E RIE C O UN T Y , P ENN S Y L VAN I A'. � :. r · ri 

## J = � ::; ·,.. .. .....

S UP P L E MENTAL 1 9 2 5 { a) O P IN I O N This matter i s be fo re 

### the C o urt o n Ap pe ll ant ' s Am e n d e d S tat e m e nt o f Matt e r s 

### Complained o f o n Ap peal fi l ed o n June 2 8 , 2 0 1 9 . F o r 

### the re aso n s s e t fo rth in thi s C o urt ' s 

### 1 92S ( a) Opini o n fi l ed o n Ap ri l 

### 8 , 2 0 1 9 an d th e re as o ns se t fo rth b e l o w , th e j u d gm e nt o f s e nt e n c e 

### sho uld be affirm ed . B A C KG RO UND 

### On J anuary 2 3 , 2 0 1 9 , Ap pe ll ant fi l ed a N o ti ce o f Ap p e al . O n F eb ruary 4 , 2 0 1 9 , th e 

### Court directed Appe ll ant t o fi l e a l 9 2 5 (b ) S tate m e nt o f M att er s C o mp l ai n e d o f o n Ap p e al wi thi n 3 0 

### days. 1 Appe l lant fi l ed a S tatem ent o f M att e rs C o mp l ain e d o f o n Ap peal o n F e b ruary 2 8 , 2 0 1 9 . 

### On Apri l 8 , 2 0 1 9 , thi s C o urt fi l ed 

### the 1 9 2 5 ( a) Op ini o n in thi s matt e r . Th e o p ini o n 

### is i ocorpotated h ere in 

### b y re f eren ce . On Jm1 e 1 4 , 2 0 1 9 , Appe ll ant fi l ed an Ap p li c ati o n fo r Re li e f wi th th e S u p e ri o r C o urt o f P ennsy lvania, requesti ng l eav e t o ame nd th e 1 9 2 5 (b ) . On Jun e 2 0 , 2 0 1 9 , th e S u p e ri o r C o urt o f 

### P ennsy lvani a remanded th e reco rd 

### to thi s C o urt 

### to al l o w Ap pe ll ant t o fi l e an am e n d ed 1 9 2 5 (b) , 

### and directed thi s C o urt to p repare a s u p p l e m e ntal 1 9 2 5 ( a) O p in i o n . O n Jun e 2 8 , 2 0 1 9 , Ap p e ll ant

I D is Cowl IIOfes an error 

### was made in its o ri g in al 1 9 2 5 ( a) Op ini o n in c al c ul atin g Ap pe ll ant ' s o ri g in al 1 9 2 5 (b ) SUllaDenl untime ly . Appe l lant was granted 3 0 day s , n o t 2 1 day s , to fil e th e l 9 2 5 (b ) S tat e m e nt b y O rd er o fF eb r u ary 4 , 20 1 9 . The 1 925(b ) SWeme nt, fi led o n F ebruary 2 8 , 2 0 1 9 , w as th e re fo re tim e ly .fi l ed an 

### Amended S tatem ent o f M att ers C o mp l ain ed o f o n Ap p eal . Thi s O p i ni o n i s i n r e s p o ns e

thcmo . 2 P arap � Ap pe ll ail t ' s Am e n ded S tatem e nt o f M atters C o mp l a i n ed o f o n Ap p e al r ai s e s i ssues 

### regarding the suffi c i enc y o f th e e vi d e n c e , t o - wi t : 

### I . Whether th ere w as suffi c i e nt evi d e n ce fo r 

### the j ury to c o nv i c t at C o unt S i x , P ossessi o n W i th Inte nt to De l i v er (h ero in an d/o r f entany l ) ; 2 . 

### Whether th ere w as s uffi c i e nt evi d e nce fo r th e j ury t o c o nv i c t at C o unt F i v e , T am perin g W i th o r F ab ri cat in g P hys i cal E v i d e n c e ; an d 3 . Whether th ere w as suffi ci ent e vi de n ce fo r 

### the j ury t o c o nv i c t at C o unt S ev e n , C rimi nal U se o f

C o mmuni cati on F ac i l i ty . 

### D I S C U S S I O N The standard o fre vi e w fo r th e s uffi c i e n c y o f the e vi d e n c e 

### was p re v i o us ly s e t fo rth i n th e Co mt ' s ori ginal 1 92 5 ( a) Op ini o n :



### When ev aluating a c hall e n g e · 

### to th e s uffi c i en c y o fthe e v i d e nc e , th e C o urt must d etermine whe th er , vi ewin g th e evi d en c e in th e l i ght m o s t fav o r ab l e to 

### the C o mm onw eal th as th e v erdi c t winne r , to g e the r wi th al l reas o n ab l e inf eren ces fro m that e vi d e n ce , th e tri e r o f fa c t c o u l d h av e fo un d e a c h e l em ent o fthe crim e c harg ed 

### was estab li s he d be y o n d a re as o nab l e d o ubt . 

### C o mm o nw e alt

h v. H ar grav e, 1 4 5 A . 3 d 2 0 , 2 2 (P a . S u p e r . 2 0 0 0 ) , 

### a

p p e a l de n i ed, 1 60 A . 2 d 8 5 l (P a . 2 0 0 0 ) ( intern al c i tati o ns o m i tted) ; 

### C o mmo nw e a lt

h. 

### v. B ru ns o n, 9 3 8 A . 2 d 10 5 7 , 10 5 8 (P a . S u p e r . 2 0 0 7 ) ; 

### C o mmo nw e alt

h 

### v. C ham b e r s, 5 99 A. 2 d 6 3 0 , 6 3 3 (P a . 1 9 9 1 ) . Th e Co mmo nwealth may 

### sustain i ts b urde n o f p ro o f b y m e an s o f wh o lly circumstanti al evi d e nce . 

### C o m m o nw e a lt

h 

### v. H o p kins, 1 4 1 A . 2d 9 10 , 9 13 (P a. S uper . 2 000 ) . Th e f a c ts an d · c irc um stan c e s e stab l i she d b y the Co mmo nw eal th 

### need n ot p rec lu d e ev e ry po s s ib ili ty o f inn o c e n c e , an d any questi ons o r d o ub ts are t o 

### be r e so l v e d b y th e fa ct - fi n d e r , unl e s s th e 

### evi dence i s so w eak an d in co n c lus i v e that, as a m atte r o f l aw , n o pro bab ili ty o f f

a ct can 

### be drawn fro m th e co mb in e d c irc um s tan c es . 

### C o mmo nw e a lt

h 

### v. H o p kins, s u p ra at 9 1 3 - 1 4 . 

### Opini o n, A pri l 8, 1 0 1 9 at 

### 1 9 - 1 0. 2 Tbc Amcodcd 1 92S(b ) Statem ent fl i ed on June 2 8 , 2 0 1 9 d i d n o t in c orpo rate b y r e f er en c e th e a ll e gati o n s in th e original 1 925(1, ) Staleme nt fi l ed on F ebruary 2 8 , 2 0, 1 9 . 

### 2 ,

### When vi ewed 

### against thi s stan dard , Appe ll ant ' s ad di ti o n al cl ai m s r e g ardin g th e



### suffi ci ency o f

the evi den ce must f

ai l. Appe ll ant ' s c l aim s wi ll be ad dr e s s e d 

### a d se ri a tim . 

### 1 . S a fflc ie • cy o fth e evi d e n c e f o r c o nv i c ti o n o n C o unt 

### S ix - P o s s e s s i o n W i tlb. I ntent t o De liv e r (h e ro i n an d/o r f ent any l ) . Appe ll ant asse rts th e evi d en ce w as ins uffi c i ent fo r th e j ury t o c o nv i ct at C o unt S i x , P osseai on Wi th Intent t o De li v er (h ero in an d/ o r fe ntany l ) , be cau s e " . . th e C o mm o nw e al th fai l ed to present suffi c i e nt e vi d e n ce that th e co ntro ll e d s ub stan ce w as e v e r in th e p o s s e s s i o n o f Appe l lant, 

### that the Appe ll ant was aw are o f i ts p r e s e n c e , an d/ o r th at th e App e ll ant p o s s e s s e d th e contro ll ed substance wi th th e int ent t o d e li v er i t o r furni s h i t t o an o th e r . " S e e 

### A m e n d e d 

### Sl a1 emen1 o f 

### Matte r s C o m p la ine d o f o n A p pe a l , 

## ,r B 9. Thi s c l aim i s wi th o ut m e ri t an d s h o ul d b e di sm i ssed. Appe ll ant ' s c l aim o f suffi c i en c y o fth e e vi d e n c e i s m e ri tl e s s an d mu st b e di s m i s s e d . Th e 

### factual basi s f

or P ossess i o n wi th Int ent 

### to D e li v er (h e ro in an d/ o r fe ntany l ) at C o unt S i x i s th at o n J anuary 6 , 2 0 1 8 , Appe ll ant, di rec tly o r b y virtu e o f hi s co mp li ci ty , di d d e li v e r o r p o s s e s s wi th intent to de li v er hero in an d/ o r f entany l t o an un d e rc o v e r M ill c r e e k T o wn s hip P o li ce O ffi ce r posing as A dam J . Yurk ewi c z at th e 3 00 b l oc k o f East 2 4 1h S tre e t , C i ty o f E ri e , Eri e C o unty , 

### Pennsy lvania. l

n fo rmaJ i o n. T o sustai n a co nvi cti o n fo r P o s se ss i o n W i th I nt e nt t o D e li v e r ( 3 5 P a . C . S . A . § 7 8 0 - l I 3 ( aX 3 0 )) , 

### the Co mm o nw eal th must e stab li s h th e d e fe n dant: I ) p o s s e s s e d a co ntro ll e d 

### substance and 2 ) intend ed to de li v er i t. S ee 

### C o m m o nw e a lt

h 

### v. L i ttle, 8 7 9 A . 2 d 2 9 3 , 2 9 7 (P a . S uper . 2 00 5 ) . All o fthe f acts an d c irc umstan c e s s urro un din g th e po s s e s s i o n are r e l e v ant and th e e l ements o f the crim e may 

### be estab li s h ed b y c irc um stanti al e v i d e n c e . 

### I d " Th e C o mm o nw ealth may meet i ts b urden o f p ro vin g a po s se s so ry c rim e 

### by s h o win g a c tual p o s s e s s i o n , co n s tru c ti v e 3possessi o � o r j o int co nstructi v e po ssess i o n . 

### C o m m o nw e a lt

h v. H a ll , 1 9 9 A .3 d 9 5 4 , 9 6 0 ( 2 0 1 8 ) , 

### � al 

### M ni ed. 2 06 A . 3 d 1 0 2 8 (P a. 2 0 1 9 ) ( ci tati o n s o mi tt e d) . " C o n s tru c ti v e p o s s e s s i o n ' ' has b e e n de fined as the " abili ty to e x erc i se a co ns c i o us d o m ain o v e r " an i t e m an d r e quir e s p ro o f that th e def endant 

### had kno w l ed g e o fth e e xi sten ce an d l o cati o n o f th e i t em . 

### C o m m o nw e a lt

h v. H a ll , 1 9 9 ; 

### A. . Jd at 

### 9 6

/ . 

### When " . . . m o re than o n e pe rs o n h as ac ce s s to th e co ntr ab an d , ' th e C o mm o nw e al th ' must introd

uce e vid en ce d e m o ns tratin g e i th e r [ th e d e fe n dant ' s ] p arti c ip ati o n in th e dru g - r e l ated acti vi ty o r 

### evi denct co nn ec tin g [ th e d e f en dant] t o th e . . . are as wh e r e th e dru g s w e r e k ep t ' . " 

### I d . : The e l ements o f co ntro l can be pro v e n c irc um stanti al l y b y e x ami nin g th e t o tal i ty o f th e 

### c ireumstances . I

d . The e l ements o f th e cri m e w ere sati s fi ed . H e r e , th e r e c o rd , v i e w e d i n th e li ght m o s t fav orab l e to 

### the Comm o nweal th, e stab l i sh ed be y o n d a reas o n ab l e d o ub t th at Ap p e ll ant w as i n at l east 

### constructi ve possess i o n o f h ero in an d/ o r fe ntany l , as h e had th e ab ili ty t o e x e rc i s e co n s c i o u s 

### do main o v er 

### the drugs , h e 

### was awar e o f th e ir e x i ste n ce an d l o c ati o n wi thi n th e v e hi cl e , an d si gni fi cant evi � exi sted d em o nstratin g Appe ll ant ' s p arti cipati o n in dru g - r e l ated ac ti v i ty . 

### In i ts o ri ginal I 9 2 5 ( a) Op ini o n , th e C o urt e xhaus ti v e ly di s c u s s e d th e o v e rwh e lmin g evi dence estab li sbqig Appe ll ant 

### had en g ag ed in te xt m e s sag e s t o arran g e a dru g tr an s ac ti o n t o occtD' on J an uary 6 , 2 01 8 at 2 4 111 S treet be tw een G e rm an an d P ar a d e S tr e e t s . Th e e vi d e n c e al s o 

### estab li shed Appe ll ant re s i d ed o nly a fe w h o use s d o wn fro m th e l o c ati o n arr an g e d fo r th e dru g deal . Imm edi ate ly ' 

### after th e final te xts arran gi n g th e d e li v e ry o f th e dru g s , th e whi te Au d i Appe l lant was trave l in g in sto p ped in fro nt o f hi s m o th er ' s r e s i d e n c e an d Ap p e ll ant e x i te d fro m 

### the fto nt passen g er seat o f th e v e hi c l e . S h o rtly th e rea ft er , Ap pe ll ant r e - e nt e r e d th e Au di an d th e v ehi c l e mo ved a li ttl e furth er d o wn th e ro ad . 

### T ra ns c ri p t o f Pro c e e d ing s, D a y 2, N o v em b e r 1 4, 2 0 1 8 (f r . 

### Day 2 ) pp . 

### 2 4 6- 2 4 7

. I t 

### was at thi s ti m e th e p h o n e cal l di r ec tin g th e un d e rc o v er o ffi c e r

4to the "whi te 

## car"\ was rece i v ed . 

### T r. Day 2, pp . 

### 1 8 9 · 1 9 7

. A s o ffi c e r s w e re a

p p ro ac hi n g th e ve hi c l e t o e ff � an arres t, Ap pe ll ant was o b s e rv ed l e anin g fo rw ard i n th e p as s e n g e r s e at "making furti v e m+v em e nts wi th his arms t o w ards th e fl o o r b o ard s o f

th e fro nt p as s e n g e r ' s s e at " 

### T r. Day 2, pp . I 5J

JJ 54 . Wh e n Ap pe ll ant was re m o v ed fro m th e fro nt p as s e n g e r s e at o f th e whi te ! Audi fo r arrest, he k ep t tryi n g to brus h o ff a "whi t e po w d e ry s ub s tan c e " fro m th e ri ght l e g o f h i s I I sweatpants . 

### T

r . 

### .l)qy 2, p . 

### 1 5 6

. Upo n a s ear c h o f th e v e hi c l e imm e di at e ly fo ll o win g Ap p e ll ant ' s j am:st, a " c hunky � ubstan ce wi th po w d e r re s i d u e o n t o p ' ' w as l o c ate d o n th e fl o o r m at on th e I l fro nt passeng er 

# si ctb o fth e Au di . 

### I d S ub sequ e nt t e s tin g re v e al e d th e s ub s tan c e r e c o v e re d fro m 

### I the passeng er fl � co ntai n ed h e ro in an d fe ntany l. 

### T r. D ay 2, pp . 

### 2 3 3 · 2 3 5 . A f o l d ed - u p whi te pi ece o f paper , co ns i stent wi th a co mm o n w ay o f p a c ka gin g he ro in o r f entany l , w as al s o reco vered fro m th e passe n g e r fl oo r o f th e v e hi c l e . 

### T r. Day 

### 2, pp . 

### 1 5 7• 

### 1 61 . Th e s earc h o f Appe ll ant ' s perso n reco v ered , am o n g o th e r thi n g s , $ 1 , 0 2 0 . 0 0 o f U S c urr e n c y " i n a s ta c k , " 

### T r . Day 

### 2, pp . 

### 1 64 · 1 6 6

. 

### When vi ewed in th e li ght m o st fav o rab l e 

### to th e C o mm o nw eal th , th e e vi d e n c e w as suffi ci ent 

### to 

### estab li sh bey o n d a reaso nab l e d o ub t that Ap pe ll ant w as in c o ns tru c ti v e p o s s e s s i o n o f hero in and/ o r f

eatany l an d inte n d ed t o d e l i v er th e dru gs . Ap p e ll ant w as th e p as s e n g er i n th e 

### white Audi that arri v ed at 

### 2 4 th S tree t be tw ee n G e rm an an d P ar ad e S tr ee t s o n J anuary 6 , 2 0 1 8 t o compl ete a dru g 

### d$1 . I t is al so in di s p utab l e that a s ub stan ce w as fo un d o n th e p ass e n g e r ' s s i d e fl oor mat o f 

### the Audi that 

### tested po s i ti v e fo r h e ro i n an d/o r fe ntany l. A l th o u gh h e w as n o t th e o nly occupant o f



### the v e hi c l e , Ap pe ll ant had at l eas t e qual a c ce ss 

### to th e dru gs an d th e dru g s w e re 

### fo und 

### in cl ose 

### pro ximi ty t o wh ere Ap pe ll ant w as s i ttin g in th e v e hi c l e . Th e whi t e p i e c e o fp a p e r , 

### consi stent wi th 

### dn1g p ac kagi n g, was al so ri ght be l o w wh e r e Ap p e ll ant h a d b ee n s i tti n g . Appe l lant ' s be havi or was s us pi ci o us , as s u d d e nly u po n r eal i z in g th e p o li c e w ere cl o s i ng 

### in h e 

### 5

### began makin g " furti v e m o v e m e nts wi th bi s arm s " in th e dire cti o n o f th e fl oo r bo ard . N o dru g parapbemal ia was fo un d indi catin g th e dru g s we re fo r pe rs o n al us e . An 

### unu s ua lly l arg e s ta c k o f cash 

### was f

ound in Appe ll ant ' s poc k e ts . Th ese f a cts an d c irc um s tan c e s es tab li s h ed Ap pe ll ant posse ssed the 

### hero in an d/ o r f entany l wi th th e int e nt t o d e li v e r in v i o l ati o n o f the 

### s tatut e . Appe Uant ' s c laim must f

ai l. l. 

### Safliden ey o f th e evid e n ce f o r co nvi c tio n o n C o unt F iv e - T amp e ri n g W i th o r F a b ri catin g P hy s i ca l E vi d e n c e 

### Appe Uant asserts the 

### e v i d e nce w as ins uffi c i ent fo r th e j ury t o c o nvi c t at C o unt F i v e , T ampering W i th or F abri cating 

### P hys i c al E vi den c e , bec ause " . . . th e C o mm o nweal th f ail e d to estab l ish 

### that the 

### Appe ll ant was e v en in po s se s s i o n o f h e ro in/ fe ntany l at th e tim e o f hi s arre st . . . [ and ] 

### fai l ed to 

### establ i sh that th e Appe ll ant di d anythin g t o d e stro y and/ o r c o n c e al h e ro in/ f entany l 

### from being di sco v ered in the v e hi c l e . " S ee A m e nd e d S ta tem e n t o f M a tte r s C o m p la in e d o f o n 

### A ppe al , 

## 1 B I O. 

### Thi s c l ai m i s wi th o ut m e ri t and s ho ul d be 

### di smi s s ed . Appe l lant ' s c l aim o fsuffi c i en c y o fthe e v i d enc e i s m e ri tl e s s an d mus t be 

### di smi ss e d . Th e factual 

### basis fo r T ampe ri n g wi th o r F ab ri cating P hys i cal E vi d e n c e at C o unt F i v e i s that o n J an uary 

### 6 , 2 0l 8 , Appe ll ant empti ed h ero in an d/o r f entany l from 

### a fo l d ed whi t e p i e ce o f p a per onto the fl oor o f the 

### v e hi c l e at the 3 00 

### b l oc k o f 

### East 2 4 th 

### S tre et , C i ty o f Eri e , Eri e C o unty , P ennsy lvania. I

n f orma ti o n. 

### In 

### re l evant part, 

### a pe rso n i s guil ty 

### o f T ampe rin g W i th o r F ab ri c atin g P hys i c al E v i d e n c e i f, be l ieving that an o ffi c ial proceedin g o r inv e sti g ati o n i s pen din g o r abo ut t o be 

### in sti tute d , h e conceals or remo v es any thin g wi th the int e nt t o imp air i ts v e ri ty o r av ai l ab ili ty i n su c h procccding o r investi gati o n . 1 8 P a. C . S . A . § 

### 4 9 1 0 ( 1 ) . 

### 6

### The e leme$ ts o f th e crime 

### were sati s fi ed . H er e , th e re co rd, vi e w e d in th e li ght m o s t

fav orab l e to 

### the C o mmo nw ealth, estab li s hed bey o nd a re aso nab l e do ub t th at Ap pe ll ant atte mpt ed to 

### conceal o r impair 

### th e av ai l ab ili ty o f co ntrab an d in co nn e c ti o n wi th a pe ndin g i nv es ti g ati o n . As 

### discussed abo ff

, the 

### evi d ence estab li s h ed Ap pe ll ant co ns tru cti v e ly p o s s e s s e d h e ro in an d/o r f entany l with the intent to di strib ute i t. 

### At th e tim e o f the 

### dru g d e al , wh e n Ap pe ll ant re al i z e d h e had 

### been caught in 

### a dru g 

### sting , h e hurri edly 

### atte mp te d t o di spo s e o f th e dru g s b e fo re th e p o li c e reac hed the 

### v e hi c l e . Ap pe ll ant was o b se rv e d m akin g " furtiv e amt 

### m o v e m e nt s " t o w ard th e pas.,cngcr si de 

### fl oorboard o f the 

### v e hi c l e , wh e re s ub sequ e ntly h e ro in an d/o r f entany l w e re fo un d . The 

### evidence was 

### suffi c i ent fo r th e j ury 

### t o c o n c lude the 

### e l em ent s o f C o unt F i v e , T ampe ri n g W rtb 

### or 

### F abri cating P hys i cal Evi d en ce , w e re estab li sh e d be y o nd a re as o n ab l e d o ub t. Appe ll ant ' s c laim must fai l. 3 . S a fflden ey 

### o fth e evid e n ce f o r c o nvi cti o n o n C o unt Se v e n - C rim in a l U s e 

### o f 

### C o • • an ication F a c ili ty . 

### F inal ly , Appe ll ant asserts 

### the 

### e vi den ce w as ins uffi c i e nt fo r th e j ury 

### to 

### c o nvi ct at 

### C o unt Seven, Criminal 

### U se o f C o mmuni cati o n F ac ili ty , because "th e 

### C o urt s h o ul d n o t hav e erroneously admi tb:d the 

### unauthenti cated te xt m es sa g es " . S ee A m e n d e d S ta te m e n t o

f M a tte r s 

### C o mpla ine d o

f o n .A p pe al , 

## 1 B l 1 . Thi s c laim i s wi th o ut m eri t an d s h o ul d be di s mi s se d . Appe l lant ' s c l aim o f suffi c i en c y o f the 

### e vi d en ce as to C o unt S e v e n , C rim inal U se o f Communi cati o n F ac ili ty as w e ll as the 

### c l aim o f e vi denti ary erro r re g ardin g th e te xt m e s s ag e s 

### were ful ly addlased in 

### th e C o urt ' s o ri gin al 1 9 2 5 ( a) Op ini o n . S e e O p in i o n , A pr il 8, 2 0 1 9, 1 0- 1 6

; 1 9 - 1 1 . 

### The 

### Co urt ' s analy s i s an d reaso nin g as to 

### thi s repeate d c l ai m i s in c o rp o r at e d h e re in a s if set 

### f orth in i ts 

### entirety . Appe ll ant ' s cl aim must be di s mi s sed . 7

### C O N C LU S I ON

F or f ore g o in g reaso ns , th e j u dgm e nt o f se nt e n ce s h o ul d be affi rm ed . Th e C l e rk o f C o urt s is hereby 

### directed to transmi t th e reco rd to 

### th e S u pe ri o r C o urt .

B Y THE C O URT : 

# t /t5 / 2 0 1 9 Da te r 

## 1

cc : 

### Distri ct A � mey ' s Offi ce Emily M erski , 

### Esq . , Pub li c De f en d e r ' s O ffi c e

8