### J. S16036/16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee :

: v. : : WALEEM JENKINS, : : Appellant : No. 2586 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 12, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP - 51 - CR - 0010227 - 2011 BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 11, 2016 Appellant, Waleem Jenkins, appeals from the November 12, 2013 Judgment of Sentence entered in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s Opinion, which found Appellant’s claims were either waived or without merit. The trial court’s Rul e 1925(a) Opinion includes a thorough and complete narrative of the facts and procedural history in this case. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/21/15, at 1 - 8. While we will not go into exhaustive detail here, some of the relevant facts are as follows. A jury convicted Appellant of Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance after officers of the Philadelphia Police Department’s Narcotics Field Unit observed Appellant selling narcotics to a confidential informant (“CI”) on two separate occas ions, and found narcotics and other

### J. S16036/16

- 2 -

incriminating evidence on Appellant’s person while searching him incident to arrest. Id. at 2 - 3. At trial, the Commonwealth called three members of the Narcotics Field Unit as witnesses. The first was Officer Carlos Bu itrago, who observed Appellant selling narcotics to the CI on both occasions. Id. at 2 - 4. Officer Buitrago testified that after the second narcotics sale, Officers Linwood Norman and Reginald Graham arrested Appellant, and Officer Graham searched Appella nt’s person. Id. at 4. Officer Norman’s involvement in the case was limited to this minor role assisting Officer Graham with Appellant’s arrest. Officer Norman did not search Appellant, was not present for the first controlled buy, and did not testify at Appellant’s trial. The Commonwealth then called Officer Graham, who also personally observed both narcotics sales and confirmed he was the officer who arrested Appellant, searched Appellant, and recovered incriminating evidence including narcotics from Appellant’s person. Id. at 4 - 5. Finally, the Commonwealth called Sergeant Thomas Meehan, who supervised the investigation of Appellant, and provided the prerecorded buy money the CI used to purchase narcotics from Appellant. Id. at 5 - 6. Appellant te stified in his own defense at trial, denying his involvement in the sale of narcotics. Appellant testified that he worked for a cousin’s moving company and that, on the date he was arrested, he was in the area

### J. S16036/16

- 3 -

visiting friends. Id. at 6 - 7. He denied tha t any of the evidence recovered from his person was his and suggested that it had been planted by one of the officers arresting him. Id. After the jury’s conviction, Judge Brinkley sentenced Appellant to three and one - half to seven years of state incarce ration, to be followed by three years of probation. At some point after Appellant’s conviction and sentencing, the federal government indicted Officer Norman on corruption charges. Id. at 9. None of the allegations in Officer Norman’s indictment, howev er, pertained to his involvement in Appellant’s arrest. A federal jury later acquitted Officer Norman of all charges. Appellant filed a post - sentence motion. After its denial, Appellant timely appealed. On appeal, Appellant raises the following five i ssues: a. Whether Appellant is entitled to a new trial based on after discovered evidence? b. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct in his closing statement? c. Whether the [trial court] erred in allowing the Commonwealth to use a letter of employ ment during cross - examination and in allowing the letter to be read to refresh the jury’s memory during deliberations? d. Whether the [trial court] erred in excluding evidence that police officers in a separate case involving Appellant had been indicted? e. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence?

### J. S16036/16

- 4 -

Appellant’s Brief at 5 (capitalization removed). The Honorable Genece E. Brinkley has authored a comprehensive, thorough, and well - reasoned Rule 1925(a) Opinion, citing to the record and rel evant case law in addressing Appellant’s claims on appeal. We affirm on the basis of that Opinion. In his first issue, Appellant raises an after - discovered evidence claim based upon Officer Norman’s indictment on corruption charges. To prevail on a mot ion for a new trial on the basis of after - discovered evidence, Appellant was required to produce admissible evidence, discovered after trial, that: (1) could not have been obtained prior to the end of trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative evidence; (3) is not merely impeachment evidence; and (4) is of such a nature that its use will likely result in a different verdict on retrial. Commonwealth v. Lyons , 79 A.3d 1053, 1068 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted) . As the reviewing court, “this Court affirms unless the determination constitutes abuse of discretion.” Id . Based on our review of the record, the arguments presented by Appellant, and the relevant case law and statutes, we agree with the trial court that Appellant’s after - discovered evidence claim warrants no relief because of Officer Norman’s de minimis involvement in the case against Appellant and because none of the other officers involved in the investigation into Appellant have been accused of wr ongdoing.

### J. S16036/16

- 5 -

Furthermore, as the trial court has thoroughly addressed the issue in its opinion, we adopt the trial court’s discussion as dispositive of Appellant’s claim. See Trial Court Opinion at 8 - 9. Accordingly, we grant no relief on this issue. Appe llant bases his second claim, one of prosecutorial misconduct, on the Commonwealth attorney’s statements in closing arguments referring to himself as “a gladiator” and to the courtroom as “the coliseum.” Appellant’s Brief at 15 - 16. The trial court found that Appellant waived this issue, and we find this position to be correct. See Commonwealth v. Cox , 983 A.2d 666, 685 (Pa. 2009). Appellant did not object to any of the allegedly improper statements at trial. N.T., 6/6/13, at 26 - 28. Furthermore, as th e trial court has thoroughly addressed the issue in its opinion, we adopt the trial court’s discussion as dispositive of Appellant’s claim. See Trial Court Opinion at 10 - 12. Accordingly, we grant no relief on this issue. Appellant’s third and fourth issu es both challenge the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of certain evidence introduced or excluded at trial. “Questions regarding the admission of evidence are left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we, as an appellate court, will n ot disturb the trial court's rulings regarding the admissibility of evidence absent an abuse of that discretion.” Commonwealth v. Russell , 938 A.2d 1082, 1091 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). An abuse of discretion is more

### J. S16036/16

- 6 -

than a mere error of judgm ent; rather, an abuse of discretion will be found when “the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill - will, as shown by the evidence or the record.” Commonwe alth v. Busanet, 817 A.2d 1060, 1076 (Pa. 2002) (citation and quotation omitted). Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to read a letter of employment to the jury during cross examination and again during deliber ations. The trial court found that Appellant waived his claim with respect to the use of the letter during cross examination, and we find this position to be correct. “To preserve a claim for review, the defendant must make a timely and specific objectio n to the introduction of the challenged evidence at trial.” Commonwealth v. Gray , 867 A.2d 560, 574 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). Appellant did not object to the reading of the letter and, thus, waived the issue. N.T., 6/5/13, at 175 - 79. Likew ise, we conclude Appellant’s claim regarding the reading of the letter to the jury during deliberations has no merit, as reading the letter assisted the jury in determining credibility. Furthermore, as the trial court has thoroughly addressed both of Appe llant’s claims regarding the letter in its opinion, we adopt the trial court’s discussion as dispositive of Appellant’s claims regarding the letter. See Trial Court Opinion at 12 - 15.

### J. S16036/16

- 7 -

Appellant’s next evidentiary claim is that the trial court erred in excl uding evidence that two police officers who had no involvement in the instant case, but who had previously arrested Appellant for a wholly unrelated matter, were indicted on allegations of planting drugs and robbing drug dealers. Once again, based on our review of the record, the arguments presented by Appellant, and the relevant case law and statutes, we conclude Appellant’s claim has no merit. Furthermore, as the trial court has thoroughly addressed Appellant’s claims regarding the letter in its Opinion , we adopt the trial court’s discussion, which found the evidence was irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and likely to cause confusion. See id. at 15 - 16. Finally, Appellant claims that the jury’s guilty verdict in this case was against the weight of the e vidence presented at trial. “A weight of the evidence claim concedes that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, but seeks a new trial on the ground that the evidence was so one - sided or so weighted in favor of acquittal that a guilty verdict shocks one's sense of justice.” Lyons, supra at 1067 (citation omitted). When this Court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a weight of the evidence claim we do not “substitute [our] judgment for the finder of fact and consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, but, rather, [this Court] determines only whether the trial court abused its discretion in making its determination.” Id.

### J. S16036/16

- 8 -

Based on our review of the record, the arguments presented by Appellant , and the relevant case law and statutes, we conclude Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim warrants no relief. Furthermore, as the trial court has thoroughly addressed the issue in its Opinion, we adopt the trial court’s discussion as dispositive of A ppellant’s claim. See Trial Court Opinion at 17 - 18. Accordingly, no relief is due. Therefore, after a careful review of the parties’ arguments, and the record, we affirm on the basis of the trial court Opinion. Judgment of Sentence affirmed. Jurisdicti on relinquished. Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 4/11/2016

# I 

# i

: 1 been indicted; (5) whether the verdict was against the we i ght of the evidence. Co u rt erred in excluding evidence that police officers in a separate case involving D efendant had allowing the letter to be read t o refresh th e jury's memo ry du ring deliberations; (4) whether th i s allow i ng the Commonwealth to u se a Jetter of employment during cross-examination and in prosecutor committed miscondu ct i n his closing stateme n t; (3) whether this Court erred in whether Defendant is entitled to a new trial based o n after-discovered evidence; (2) wheth er the j u dgment of sentence to the Superior Court and raised the following issues on appeal: ( l) D efendant to 3 

### Yi to 7 years state incarceration, plus 3 years probation. Defendant appealed this of Possession with Intent to Delive r a Controlled Substance (PWI D ). This Court sentenced D efendant Waleem Jenkins appeared before this Court for a jury trial and was convicted· 

### OPINIO N MARCH 31 , 2015 BRINKLEY , J
. W ALE EM JENKIN S S U P E RIOR COURT 2586 E DA 2014 

# I F
. il 

# f l 

# I E'f D MAR 31 

## 2 0 15 Cri m inai A ppeal~ 

## Unit F irst Judicial District of PA vs . 

### C P

- 51-CR-0010227-2011 COMMONW EAL TH I N T H E CO U R T O F C O M MO N PL E A S

F IR S T JUDI C I AL DIS T RI CT O F P ENN SY L V AN I A

CRIMIN A L TRI A L DI V ISIO N !

, i Circulated 03/23/2016 04:50 PM2

D epartm ent s i nc e 2 008
. Buitr ago t es ti fied th at , o n Au g u s t 16 , 201 1 , h e and hi s partner, O ffi cer testified that h e had bee n a ss igned to the N arc o ti cs Fi e ld U n i t of the Ph ila d e lph i a P o lice C omm o n wealth calle d Office r Carlos B u itr ago (" Bu i tr a g o") a s its fir s t w itn es s. Bui tr ago Ru sse c k , E s qu ir e, w h ile th e Common w eal th att o rn ey wa s Ke v i n H ard e n , J r ., Esqu ir e. T he T rial be g an i n thi s matter o n Jun e 5, 2013. Def e ndant wa s r epresen t ed at trial by T ob i 

### FACT S S tatement on Mar c h I 7, 2015. fo r an exten s i o n of time to fil e th e Conc i se State m e n t of Err or s , and defe n se co un s el fi l e d the 20 1 5 , after r ece i vin g the additional n ot es o f te s ti mony , this Cou rt grante d D efe nd ant ' s r equ est St at e ment o f Error s so that a d diti o nal n o tes of t es tim o n y may b e tran sc ri b ed
. O n Mar ch 12 , trial based upo n after-d i s c o ve r ed e v i d e nc e and r e q u e s t e d an ex te n si o n of tim e to file the Conc i se p ursuant to P a . R
. A.P
. I 925(b)
. On D ec e mber 2 I , 2 0 14 , defen s e coun se l file d a motio n for a new D ecemb e r I , 2 0 I 4, th i s Cou rt orde r e d d efense co un sel t o file a Conci s e S tateme nt of Erro r s D efen d ant. O n Au g ust 29 , 2 0 14 , D efendant filed a Noti ce o f Ap p eal to the Sup e rior C o urt. On th i s Court reinstated Defendant 's appell at e ri g ht s 

### n un c pro tu n e and ap p o i n t e d n ew c ounse l fo r file a noti c e o f ap peal and De fe ndant wa s not app o int e d appellate c o un s el. On July 3 1 , 2 014, an d as ked thi s Co urt t o appoi n t ap pe ll at e coun se l for h i m . Trial coun s el sub s equ e n tly fai l e d to sentenc in g heari ng , Defendan t s tate d th at he w i s he d t o ap p eal h i s senten c e to the S up e ri or C o u rt jury
. On June 10 , 2013 , D e fend an t was found g uil ty of PW I D
. On Nov emb er 1 2 , 2 0 1 3 , thi s 

# I C o urt sentenced him to 

### 3Yi to 7 ye ars st ate inc ar c erati o n , p l u s 3 year s probation
. At his of a Communicati o n F a cili ty . Fr o m Jun e 5 t o Ju n e 6 , 2013 , a trial was h eld in th e p re s enc e o f a On Au g u s t 1 8 , 201 1 , D e f e ndant w a s arr es ted and char g ed with PW I D an d Crimi n al U se 

### PRO C E D URAL H I ST O R Y ' ,I

### 3

Reginald Graham ("Graham"), met with a co n fi d e n tial i n fo rm ant ("CI " ) and gave the C I $ 4 0 in p rereco rd e d buy mo n ey after searchi n g him to make sure th at h e was not carry i ng any
con tr aban d or currency. (N.T
. 6/5 /2013 p . 50-6 0 ). B ui trago testified that C I t old hi m there was a black male selling narcotics i n the vic i n ity of the 240 0 b l ock of Carpente r Str eet and th at th i s person wo u ld de l i ver drugs if contacte d by te l e ph o n e at (267)23 0 -1174. Buitrago testi fied that he told CI to p l ace a call to that n u mbe r , w hi ch C I did i n his presence. Buitrago furthe r testifi ed that CI aske d for two packets an d then wal ke d to th e southeast co m er of 24 1 h an d Carpe n ter, while he remained behin d and observed. Bui trago stated that he remai ned approximately 25-30 feet away from CI and that no th i ng impe d e d his view of C I. Buitrago testified that he saw Defen d an t walk westbound on Carpenter towar d s 2 4 1 h Street and approach CI. Bu i trago further testifi ed th at Defendant an d C I h ad a b rief
co n versation, following which C I han d ed Defendan t the p r ereco rd ed buy money and Defe n dan t hand e d C I s m all objects i n retu rn. Bu i trago testified th at C I r eturned to h i s location as Defe nd ant wal ked o u t of view and, upon retu rn i n g , C I handed h i m two brown Z iploc packet s contain i ng a white c hunky substance. B u i trago testi fied that he field-tested th e substance he
rece i ve d from C I an d it tested positive for cocaine. Buitrago stated that he attempted to l ocate Defendant, bu t was unable to find him. I d. at 62

- 66. B u i trago testi fied that he decided to arrange a " buy b u st " on August 18, 2 0 11, in wh i ch C I wo u l d p urchase narcotics from Defe n dant and Defendant wo u ld be arr ested i mmediat ely. Bu i trago testifi ed that, at approximately 3 :00 p.m. o n the 1 

### gth, h e met w i th C I and gave him $ 4 0 i n p r erecor d e d b u y mo n ey after he searc h e d C I for curre n cy and contraband. B uitrago tes tifie d th at he i ns tructe d C I t o place a call to the same number that he phoned on the l 6 1 h and C I p l aced the call in his presence. Buitrago testi fied that C I was released on th e 1900 block of Carpe nt e r4

Street w hil e he re m ai n e d appr ox imate l y 2 5-30 fe e t a w ay and Grah am wa s ac ro ss th e s tr ee t from C I. Buitra go te s tified that he o b s erved D e fendant , we arin g a bl ac k s hirt and tan s hort s , walk westb o und o n C arpent e r Street t o war d s 1 9 th Stree t an d approach CI. Buitra g o fu rth e r testified that the two h ad a brie f c o nve r sati o n , aft e r w hi c h C I handed D e f e ndant th e prer e c o r ded buy
m o n ey and re ce iv e d s m all o bj ec t s fr o m D e fendant in return . Buitra go s tat e d that 

## e r r e turne d t o hi s l ocation, at which tim e C I handed h im two cl e ar Z i plo c p a cke t s contai nin g a white ch u nky
s ub s tan c e. Id
. at 7 0- 7 3. Buitra go t es tifi e d that h e s i g nal e d t o o th e r m e mb e r s o f th e N arc o ti cs Fi e ld U n it t o arres t D e fendan t , at w hi c h p o int Grah am and Offic e r Lin w o o d N o rman (" No rman ") stopp e d and
arre s t e d D e fendan t. Bu i tr ag o s t at e d that Gr ah am s earched D e fe nd ant and r e cover e d one clear
s an dwi c h bag th at c o nt ai n e d s ev e nt ee n cl ear Z ipl oc pa cke t s , ea c h of w hi c h co nt ain e d the s am e whit e c hunky s ub s tan ce as the p ac k e t s h e rec e i ve d earl i e r fr o m C I , fro m th e front ri g ht p oc ke t of Defend ant's s h o rt s. B u i tra g o further te s ti fie d th at Gr aham rec o v e r e d a s eparate clear s andwic h bag th at c o n tai n e d a b all of th e w hit e c hunky s ub s tanc e , unu s ed p ac ket s, and a ra z or blad e w ith whit e po w der r es idu e o n it from th e s am e p oc k e t. Buitra go t es tifi e d th at Gr aham addi ti o n all y
recov e red the prer e cord e d buy m o n ey, $57 in Uni t e d State s cu rre ncy , and a c e ll phone bearin g th e s ame numb e r th at 

## e r had call e d
. Bu i tra go s tat e d that h e c onfirm e d th e ce ll ph o ne ' s numb e r b y dialin g it w ith hi s o wn ph o n e, at w hi c h p o int th e c ell ph o ne ran g and s h o wed Bui tr a g o 's
numb e r o n the caller identification. Id
. at 7 3 -7 7. The C o mmon wealth c all e d Graham a s it s n ex t w itne ss. Graham t es ti tied th at he had b ee n a ss i g n e d t o the N ar co tic s Fi e ld Unit fo r appr o ximat e l y thirt ee n year s, and h a d been a Phi l a d e lphia Police Offi c er for app r oximate l y e i g h tee n y e ar s. Graham t es tified that, on Au g u s t 1 6 , 2 01 1, he parti c ipated i n a n ar c oti cs i n ves ti gation in th e ar e a o f2 400 Carpente r Str ee t with his5



### i I 

# I

.. narcotics evidence i s r e covere d , h e wo u ld revie w and approv e th e pap e rw o rk th e o ffi c er s t es tified th at , w hen an o fficer und e r hi s s u pe rvi s i o n u se d prere co rded bu y mone y, h e w ould hav e 

## I to authori ze th e ir u se of the mon ey and th e n , o nce pr ov ided wi th the m o n ey, th e o ffi ce r wo uld
m ake a ph o t oco p y of th e m on ey and m ark th e m o n ey the y we r e g i v en. Mee han stat e d th at , w h e n Gr aham wi th th e prer eco rded bu y m o n ey th ey u se d in their in ves ti gati on o f De fe nd ant. M ee h an forth by the Philad e lphi a Poli ce D e partm e nt. Meehan te s tifi e d th at h e pr ov ided Bui tra g o and M e ehan s tat e d hi s rol e w a s t o e n s ure th at hi s o ffic ers fo ll owe d th e po lic i es and pr o t oco l s se t investigation of D efendant in a s up e rvi s ory role, and that h e w a s pres e nt fo r D e fe ndant ' s arr es t. t es tified that he wa s a se r g eant in the N ar co ti cs F i e ld U n i t , th at h e partic ip ated in th e The Common w ealth c all e d Th om a s Meehan ( " Meehan ") as it s n ex t witn ess. Mee h an from Def e ndant' s per so n . Id
. at 112-16. white re s idu e o n it, $57 i n U nit e d S t ate s c urrenc y, th e prere co rd e d bu y m o ne y, and a c e ll ph o n e tes tified th at he re cove r e d on e c l ear ba ggy co ntainin g 17 pa c kets o f aJl ege d c ra ck coc ain e, 

# I another clear baggy co ntainin g numerou s chunks o f alle g ed cr a ck cocai n e, a raz o r blade with B u i trago flicked the car's headli g h ts , at which point he arre s ted Defend ant. Grah am further while he s p o ke w ith D efe nd an t. Grah am t es tified th at C I r eturn e d t o Bu i trago's v ehicle and for s mall objects. Gr ah am further testifi e d that h e was appr oxi m atel y 20 t o 25 fe et a w ay fr o m CI o b s erved C I and D ef

e nd ant h ave a conver s ati o n and th e n e xc h an g e th e pr e rec o rd e d bu y m o n ey blo c k o f C arpenter S tr e et and D e fendant appr o ach e d C I on foot. Grah am t es ti fie d that he which time C I made a phone call and a s ke d for two pa c ket s. Graham s t at e d CI we nt to th e 19 00 s mall o bj ec t s. Graham tes tifi e d th at , o n Au g u s t 1 8, 2 01 1, he and Buitr ago agai n me t w i th C I, at c o nversati on , after which C I hand e d D e f e ndant the prerecord e d bu y m o ne y in e xc h an g e fo r p artner , Bu itr ago . Grah am t es tified th at he o b s e rve d D e fend an t an d C I h av e a bri ef6

There was a stipulation, by and between counsel, that if police chemist Phillip Sajju ("Sajju") v.:'as called to testify he wou l d testify that he an alyzed the two clear Zip l oc packets that were purchased by CI on August 1 8, 2011. The packets had off-white chunks inside of them, and the chunks tested positive for Schedule II cocaine base. Sajju would further testify that he received an additional clear plastic bag containing 17 clear Ziploc packets with off-white chunks in them, that those chunks were analyzed and that they tested positive for Schedule II cocaine base. Sajju would further testify that he analyzed another clear plastic bag containing a chunk of an off-white substance, which tested positive for cocaine base. Sajju would testify that the razor was not analyzed for any narcotics. I d. at 148-49. There was a further stipulation, by and between counsel, that, if po l ice chemist Timothy Pelletier ("Pelletier") was called to testify, he would testi fy that he tested the two Ziploc packets containing off-white chunks that were purchased by C I on August 16, 2011 and that those two packets tested positive for cocaine base
. Furthermore, both Sajju and Pelletier wou l d testify that they were trained as police chemists, that they were certified by the Philadelphia Police Department, and that their conclusions were to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Id. at 150. After the stipulations, the Commonwealth rested. I d. at 152. Defendant testified on his own behal f. Defendant stated that he did not remember what he did on August 16, 2011 but he believed he was at work at some point during that day
. Defendant stated that he worked for Thomas Family Moving , a moving company owned by one submitted to him and he would ensure that all evidence was accounted for. Meehan testified that he reviewed the property receipts of the evidence recovered from Defendant on August l 6, 20 l l and August l 8, 2011 and that he signed the receipts th e same day they were submitted. Id. at 134

- 40.

### 7

that his phone number had a 570 area code, and h e did not recognize th e 267 nu mbe r th at CI else from th e time h e left his friend's h o u se to when he was arrested
. D efen d an t fu rther t estifie d any n ar co ti cs or a razor b l ade on him. Defendant testi fie d that he di d not i n teract with anyo n e m e," t o w hi c h B uitr ago replie d , "We got you now." Defen d ant state d that he was not carryi n g h e said to Bu i trago, " H ol d
. Th at's n ot mi n e. I'm not going fo r th at. You n ot go i ng to d o th at to testifi ed th at Bu itra go h ad a Z ipl oc ba g and some money in his h an d. D efe nd ant furthe r t esti fie d yo u g ot so m e th i n g," and p u ll e d hi s hands away fr om Defendant in a cu p p i n g mo ti o n . De fe ndan t search h im wh il e a ski n g h im wh e r e th e g un s we re . Defen d an t testified Buitr ago th e n s ai d "O h, De fen dan t fu rth e r t estified th at B u i tr a go p u t his h and s in De fe n d an t ' s p ocket s and b eg an t o h e l d hi m agai nst the wall , three ve hicl es p ull e d u p to the sce n e and m o r e m en appr oac h e d him
. 

# I Defe nd an t te sti fie d th at h e recogn i ze d one of th e men w h o ap pr oac h e d h i m as Buitr a go. stated that the two me n r e p eat ed l y asked him, "Where th e g un s at?" an d th at , as th e tw o me n b l ac k mal es who we r e h o l ding h im, altho u g h h e cou l d n ot identi fy ei th er of the m . D efe nd an t t o walk t o hi s aun t's ho u se at 2 3rd 

### an d Tasker Stre et. D efendant stat e d that h e w alke d d ow n 1 9th 

# I u ntil he go t to C arp en t e r Stre et, at w h ic h ti m e h e turne d rig h t towar d s 2 3rd_ 

### D efe nd an t testi fie d 

# I that h e was · o n C arp e n te r S tr ee t w h en someone came up to h i m from beh i n d and pushe d hi m 

# I again st a w all. I d. at 152

- 58. D efe nd ant testi fied th at, once he was pushe d agai n st the wall , he saw that it w a s two fri en d w h o li ve d n earby and w alke d to he r h ouse near th e co rn er of 19th 

### and C hri s tian
. 

# I D e fend ant t estified th at h e staye d at his frien d 's house fo r appr oxim ately 4 5 mi nut es and th e two of them watc h e d te l e v is i o n . D efe n dan t testi fied th at , after h e left hi s frie nd 's h o u se, he d ec ided 

# I of hi s co u s i ns. D efen d ant tes tifie d th at, o n Au gust I 8, 20 I I , h e was at 1 6 2 1 Chri s ti an Street with h is co u s in an d that some time betwee n I 

### :30 p .m. to 2:00 p . m . on that d ay h e calle d a fem al e

### 8

78, 96 A.3 d 10 31, 10 37 ( quoti ng Commonwealth v . L yons, 622 Pa. 91, 79 A.3d 1053, 1058 u se w ill likely result i n a diff ere n t verdi ct on retrial. Commo n wealth v. T rin i d a d , 20 1 4 PA S u per cumu lati ve evi d e n ce; (3) i s n ot merely impeachment evide n ce; and (4) is of such a natu re that its t o th e e nd of trial wi th the exe r cise ofreasonab l e di li gence ; (2) is not me r e l y co rroborative or pro ducible and a d miss ib l e ev i dence di scovered afte r tri al ( 1 ) co u ld not have bee n obtained prior co u rt should gran t a motion for new trial on the gro u nd of after-di scove r ed evide n ce wh e re Defe nd ant i s not enti tl ed to a new tri al based u pon after

- discovered ev i dence. A trial I. D EFE NDAN T I S NOT ENTITLED TO A N EW TRIAL BA SE D U PON AFTER

- DISCOVERED E VID E NCE. DI S CU SS ION V. WH E TH E R TH E VERDI C T WA S AGAINST T HE W E IGHT O F TH E EVID E NC E
. IV. WHETHER THE COURT E RRED IN E XCLUDING E VID E NC E THAT POLIC E OF F IC E R S ~NA S E PARAT E CAS E INVOLVI NG DE FE NDA N T HAD B EE N INDIC TE D. III. WHETHER THE COURT E RRED IN ALLOWING THE COMMONWEALTH TO USE A L E TT E R O F E MPLOYM E NT D U RJNG CROSS

- EXAMINATION AND IN ALLOWING TH E LE TT E R TO B E READ TO REFRESH T HE JURY' S M E MORY DURING D E LIBERATION S
. II
. WHETH E R TH E PROSECUTOR COMMITT E D MISCONDUCT IN HI S CLOS I NG STAT E MENT
. I. WHETH E R D E F E NDANT IS E NTITL E D TO A N EW TRI AL BA SE D UPON AFT E R

- DISCOVERED E VIDEN CE
. I SS UE S D efe nd an t' s tes ti mony. I d. at 1 8 4
. 2 011, b ecau se he l ive d in that neighborhood. Id
. at 1 58

- 67
. The defe n se r ested after calle d
. Defen d ant s t ate d th at i t was poss ib l e he was i n the area of Carpenter Street on Aug u st 16,

### 9

( 2 01 3 ))
. B efo re gran ti ng a new tri al, a co u rt mu st assess wheth er th e alleged aft e r - d iscovere d
e vid e n c e i s of s u c h n atu r e and ch ar ac t er that i t would likely comp el a di fferent verdict if a n ew tri al is gran t ed
. Co mm o nwe alth v. Pa dill as, 2 010 PA Supe r 108, 997 A .2 d 356, 365 (2 0 10) ( ci tin g C ommo nw ealth v. P agan , 5 97 Pa. 6 9, 1 06, 95 0 A. 2 d 270, 292 (2008)). In maki n g that dete rmi nati o n , a c o urt sho uld cons id er the integri ty of th e allege d afte r-d iscovered evi d ence, the motiv e of th os e off

erin g th e ev id e n ce, and the overall s tr ength of th e evi d e n ce s up porti n g th e
co nvi c ti on. I d. ( c iting Co mm o n wealth v. Parker, 49 4 P a . 1 9 6 , 20 0 , 4 31 A.2d 216, 218 (198 1 )). In th e case at bar , D efe nd an t fil e d a post
- sente n ce moti o n for a new trial based u pon aft e r - di sco v ere d ev id e n ce as a r es ult o f Norman's s u bsequent fede r al i ndictment o n corru p tionr e lat e d c har ges . H owe v e r , D efe nd an t i s not e n ti tl ed to a new trial b ase d up on Norman's indi ctm e nt a s th e n atu r e and c h arac t e r o f th e ev id ence w o u l d not comp el a diffe r ent verdict if a
n e w tri al w e r e g r ant e d
. Con tr ary t o Defe nd ant's assertions, No rman's r ole i n his arrest was de minim is. A ccor din g to th e tes ti mo n y prese n te d at tri al , Norman was only one of mu lti p le officers wh o w e r e pr ese nt at th e sce n e wh e n D e f e nd an t w as arreste d o n Aug u st 1 8, 2 0 11. H e was not p rese nt o n Au g u s t 16 , 2 01 1 durin g th e firs t p u r c h ase by th e C I nor di d h e handle the C I on Au g u st 18 , 2 011
. M o r eo v e r, No rm an did n o t sear c h Defen d ant o r i nt eract wi th him othe r than wh e n h e an d B u i tr ago sto pp e d D efen d ant , an d h e di d not testify at D efe n dan t's trial. Fu rtherm o r e , th e r e i s n o all egation th at Buitrago or Gr aham were i n an y way involved with No rman' s all ege d acti v iti es o r th at th ey o th e rw i se e n gage d in co rrup tio n . As the evide n ce of De fe nd an t 's g uilt pr esen ted at tri al was w h o ll y d eri ve d from th e i nvesti gati o n an d t esti mo n y of B uitr ago an d Gr ah am, and in no p art d e ri ved an y ev id ence provi d ed by No rman , th ere is n o i n d ic ati on that e v idence of No rm an 's s u bse qu en t i n di ctment wo u l d l i kely compel a diffe r en t
v e rdi ct. Th e re fo re , D e fendant i s not e n ti tl e d to a n e w tri al base d up on a fter- d iscove re d evidence.1 0

the g u i lt o r inn oce n ce of th e a ccuse d u nder the controll i n g l aw, or b y m aki ng predi c tions of th e d ive rt th e ju ry fr o m i t s du ty to d eci d e th e case o n th e evi den ce, b y i n jec ti ng i ss u es broa der th an p ass i o n s o r prej u di ces of the jury; 

### ( d ) Th e p rose c u t o r s h o u ld r e fr ai n fr om ar g um ent w h i ch w o ul d gu i l t o f the d e fe n d ant ; ( c) T he p r os e c ut o r s h o uld not use ar gu m ents cal cu l at ed to i nflam e th e e x p res s h is p e r so n al be l i e f or o p i nio n a s t o the tru th or fal s i ty o f an y t esti m o n y o r e v i den c e or the 

# I unpr o fe ssio n al con du ct fo r th e p rose c u to r inte n tionally t o misstat e th e evi d e nc e o r mi s lea d th e j u ry as to th e i n fe r e n ces i t may draw; (b) I t i s u np rofess i onal conduct for the p rosecuto r t o p rov ide s: (a) the pr osec u to r m ay arg ue all reasonable in fe r e n ces fr o m evi d e n ce i n th e r e c o rd
. It is P e nn sy l van i a fo ll ows Sec ti o n 5 .8 o f the Ame ri c an B ar Assoc i ati o n (A B A) S tand ar d s. S e c ti o n 5.8 I n d e fi nin g w h at c on sti tu t es impe rmiss ibl e co n du ct du ri ng cl os in g ar g um ent, (1 997))
. 886 , 90 7 ( 2 00 9 ) ( qu o tin g C o mm o n w eal th v. W a s h i n gto n , 54 9 P a . 12 , 70 0 A
. 2d 4 0 0 , 407 -0 8 conte x t of the closi n g arg um ent as a who l e. Commonweal th v. S mi th, 6 04 Pa. 1 26, 985 A.2 d All eg edl y imp ro p e r r e mark s o f a p rosecu t o r du ri n g c l osi n g ar g um e nt s mu s t be vi ewe d i n th e 88 6, 8 7 8 (20 1 2) ( citi n g C o mm o n wealth v. Bas em ore, 52 5 P a. 5 1 2 , 582 A.2 d 861 , 869 ( 1990 )). evi d e n ce an d e n gage in or atori cal fl air. Commo n wealth v. Cu l ve r, 2 01 2 PA S u pe r 1 72, 5 1 A
. 3 d th e r eco r d o r r easonabl e i nfe r ences ther efro m , a p rosec u to r is permi tt e d to resp o nd to defen se P a. 2 23, 983 A .2 d 666, 6 85 (2009). Whi l e a clos i ng ar g um e n t mu s t be base d u po n evi den ce in o therwi se s u c h a claim wi ll n o t be avai l abl e o n ap pe ll at e r eview. Co mmonw e al th v. Co x , 6 0 3 alleged prosec u to ri al misco n duct, D efe nd ant must object to the mi sco n duc t i n a ti mely mann e r ; stat e ment w h e n h e r e p eate dl y referre d t o h i m s e l f as " a gladi at or "
. I n orde r to raise a cl aim of The Co mm onwealth attorney di d not commit p r osec u to ri al misco n duct du ri n g h is c l os i ng 

### II
. THE P RO S E C UT O R DID N O T C OMM I T M I SC O N D U CT I N H I S CLOS I N G A R G UM E NT
.11

r eferri n g t o him se l f a s a g ladiator w a s not prope rl y pre se rved for app e ll ate revi e w. that the C o mmonweal th attorney committed misc o ndu c t in hi s clo s in g s tatement by repeated l y H ow e ver , d e fen s e coun s e l failed to object aft e r any of these s t atem e nts and th e refor e th e claim g l adiator, my brother ," and " you ' re in th e col i s eum with a g l adiat o r , my broth e r. " I d
. at 27

- 2 8. (N.T
. 6/26/2 0 13 p. 26)
. Shortly th e reaft e r , Mr
. Harden s tated , " you w ent to the coli se um w ith a

"Once you g et in the coliseum with the C o mm o nwe alth , yo u hav e to brin g it. 

### If thi s i s an c i e nt R o me and we' re i n the co lis e um , if y ou s tay out s ide th e coliseum, no j ud g ment. But on c e you de ci de to s tep into thi s co l i se um with a g ladi ator , I'm go in g t o pi c k y our s to ry apart, my brother. " Hard e n stat e d , g l adiator' ' and to the cou rtr o om a s " the coli se um " durin g hi s clos in g s tat e ment. Speci fi call y, Mr. I n the ca s e at bar , th e Commonwealth att o rney made three r e ference s t o him s elf as " a defendant s o that th ey could n ot wei g h the ev iden ce obj e cti ve l y an d rend e r a true v erdi c t. I d. effect was to p rejudic e the jury , fo rmin g in th e ir mind s fi x ed bia s and h os tility to w ard s th e Furth e rmore, a pros e c u tor 's comment s do n o t con s titut e re v er s ible e rror unle ss th ei r u n avoi dab l e ( 2012) (citing Commo n we alth v. Abu- J amal , 55 3 Pa
. 485 , 72 0 A .2 d 7 9, 110 ( 1 99 8 )). hen c e permiss ible comment. C o mmon w eal th v. K e aton , 615 Pa. 6 7 5 , 45 A. 3 d 105 0, 10 7 4 -7 5 in re s pon se to th e defense 's clo s in g ar g ument , it w ill ge n e rall y be d e em e d fai r r es p o n s e and ( qu o ting Comm o n w ealth v. Elli ott, 8 0 .2 d 41 5, 443 (P a. 2 0 13 ). 

### If a c hallen ge d rem ark i s mad e 

# I con se qu e nce s of the jury ' s v erdi c t. C o mm o n w e alth v. Jud y, 20 09 PA S up e r 1 4 8, 9 78 A.2 d 1015, 1 1 0 1 9

- 2 0 (2 009 ) ( c itin g Common w ealth v. Samp so n , 900 A .2d 88 7, 890 ( Pa .S up e r. 2 006 )). 

# I Eve n an o therw i s e improper co mment may be appropri at e if i t i s i n fai r re s p o n s e t o defen s e c o un s el 's r emark s. C ommo nw e alth v. Burno , 9 6 A. 3 d 9 5 6, 97 4 ( Pa
. S uper . 2 014 )12

Comm o nwealth v . Strunk , 2 00 8 PA Su p e r 149 , 9 5 3 A.2d 577, 57 9 (20 0 8 ) (qu o tin g s i l ent and afterward s complain o f matt e r s which , if err o n eo u s, the c o urt wo uld h ave c o rr ec ted
. Commonw e alth v . Fre e man, 573 Pa. 5 32 , 827 A .2 d 3 8 5, 3 95 ( 2 003) ). A party may n o t r e main evid e nc e at trial. C o mmonw e al th v. Gray, 2005 P A Sup e r 22 , 8 6 7 A. 2d 5 6 0 , 574 (2005 ) ( c itin g defendant must make a timely and s p ec i fic o bj e cti o n t o th e intr o du c ti o n o f the ch allen g ed all o wed the Jetter to be read t o the jury durin g delib e rati o n s. To pr ese rve a claim fo r revie w, th e be introduced durin g De fe nd an t 's cro ss -e x amin ati o n . Furtherm o re , thi s Co urt did n o t e rr w h e n i t Thi s C o u rt did n o t err whe n i t allow e d a l e tter o f e mpl oy m e nt fr o m Old C o un try Buff e t t o 

### III. THE COURT DID NOT E RR WH EN IT ALLOW

E D TH E COMMONW

E AL TH TO US E A L

ETT E R OF E MPLOYM

E NT D U RIN

G CROSS - E XAMINATION AND TH E N A LLOW

E D T H E L ET T E R TO B E READ TO REFRESH TH E J U R Y'S M E MORY D U RIN

G D EL IBE RATIONS. c o mmit pro se c u t o ri al mi sco nduct in hi s cl os i n g ar g um e nt. e viden c e o bj e ctively and r e nd e r a tru e v e rdict. Th u s, th e Co mm o n wealth att orne y did n o t in th e ir mind s a fi xe d bias and h os tili ty t o ward s Defendan t so that the y co uld n o t w e i g h th e referral s t o him se lf a s a g ladiat o r h a d th e unavo idable e ffe c t o f pre j udicin g th e j ury and formin g Buitrago and Graham fram e d h im
. Furth e rm o re , there i s no indicati o n th at Mr
. 

### H ard e n 's D e fendant ' s i ncon s i s tent t es timon y r eg ardin g hi s empl oy m e nt s t atu s and hi s argum e nt th at d e f e ns e 's ar g um e nt s . N o tably , Mr
. Hard e n r e ferred t o him se l f as a gladi at o r aft er hi g hli g hting adversarial proces s o f a trial and h i s duty t o re s p o nd acc o rdin g l y t o inc o n s i s t e ncie s in th e as a g l adiator and the courtroom a s a c o l i se um , Mr. Hard e n wa s offe rin g a m etaph o r fo r th e enga g i n g in oratorical flair t o re s p o n d t o ar g ume n t s made b y th e defen s e. I n r e ferrin g t o him s elf attorney did not en g age in mi s co n duct by referri n g t o hims e lf a s a g ladiator but wa s merely Even i f the claim was prope rl y pre s erv e d fo r appellate review , the C o mm o nwealth13

Commonweal th v. Clair, 458 P a. 418, 326 A.2d 272, 274 ( 1 974)). A Rule 1925(b) s t at ement i s not a s u bs ti tute for the contemp oraneous objection requ ire d at tri al. Commo n weal th v. A li , 60 8 P a. 7 1 , 10 AJ d 282, 293 (2 0 10)
. C r oss-examination may be employed to t est a wi tn ess' story, to impeac h credib il ity, an d to es t ab li sh a witness's motive for testi fyi n g. T he sco p e o f cross-examination is a matter wi thin the d i screti o n of the trial court and w ill not be r eve r sed ab sent an abuse of that discre tio n . Co mm o nw eal th v. B all ar d , 622 P a. 177, 80 A.3d 380, 394 (2013) (citing Commo n wealth v. Chmi e l , 585 P a. 54 7, 889 A.2d 5 0 1, 527 (2005)). An attorney is entitled to ques tion th e w itn ess abou t subjec t s raised during direct exami nation as well as any facts tending to refu t e infe r e n ces aris in g from matters raised du ri ng direct testimony. Comm o n weal th v. B ricker, 2 0 05 P A Supe r 3 0 7, 882 A.2d 1 0 0 8, 10 1 8-19 (2005) (c i ti ng Commonwealth v. B egley, 566 P a. 239, 276

- 77, 78 0 A.2 d 605, 627 (2 00 I)). Simi l arly, an attorney may d isc r e d it a witness by cross-exami nin g th e w i tn ess abo u t omi ssions or acts that ar e i nco n sistent w i th h i s testi mony. I d. Wh en a jury requests that a po rtion of r ecorde d testim ony be read alou d to refres h i ts
m e m ory, th e matter is within the trial court's discre tion. Co mm o n weal th v. Arring t on, 86 A.3d 8 3 1 , 84 8 ( P a.2 01 4) (c i ting Commonwealth v. P e t erman , 430 P a. 627, 244 A.2d 723 (1968)). A s lo n g as th ere i s no t a flagran t abuse of d iscretion, th is dec i sio n s h ou ld not be overturned on
ap peal. Commonweal th v. Manley, 2 0 09 P A Supe r 2 27, 985 A.2d 256, 173 (citing Comm o n wealth v. G l a dd en, 445 P a.Super. 434, 665 A.2d 1 2 01 , 1205 (1995)). 

### If th e co u rt g r ants the requ est and the rev i ew d oes not p l ace undue e mphasis o n the w i tness's testimo n y, n o
r evers i b l e e rr o r i s commi tted
. Arring t o n , 86 A.3d at 848. In M anley, th e Superior Court held th at th e tri al co u rt d id not abuse its discretio n when it allowe d the co n te n ts of an ex h ib i t to be r ea d to th e jury afte r th e j u ry had requested that they be prov i ded a p h ysical copy of th e exhib i t. 

### See1 4

M anley , 9 8 5 A .2 d at 272- 73. I n arri v i ng at the conclusio n , th e Superior Court n ote d that the tri al
co urt had th e di sc r eti o n to both all ow th e ju ry to h ave an e xhi b it during d e l ibe r atio n and to have tes tim o n y read bac k t o them duri n g d el i be rati o n s. I d. I n th e ca se at b ar , th e Commonweal th cross-examin e d D efendant regar di ng a Jetter writt e n b y James H ar g r ov e , m an age r at O l d Co un try Buff et. Th e J etter, wh i c h was d ate d Se pt e mber 2 , 2 011 , s t ate d that D efe nd an t w as p r ese n tl y empl oye d at O ld Co un try Bu ffet an d h a d b ee n e mpl oye d th e re s in ce J u l y 2010
. D efe n se cou n se l d id not object to the Commonwealth
r ea din g th e J e tter at th e ti me. O n Ju ne 1 0 , 2 01 3, th e j ury r equeste d to see th e lette r . D efe n s e
co un se l obj ecte d to th e J ett e r bei n g rea d to th e j u ry becau se it had not bee n move d i n to evi d e n ce
o r auth e nti cated. Th e Co mm o n wealth ar g u e d th at rea di n g th e J etter to the jury wo u l d not p lace impr o p e r we i g ht o n i t, as th e j ury h a d dete rmi ne d i t was important to assess D efe nd ant ' s
c r ed ibility . Th e Common w ealth fu rth e r ar g u e d th at rea di n g th e J etter wo uld ai d th e j ury i n
m aking th at d e t ermin ati o n . Thi s Co u rt allowe d th e l etter to be rea d to th e ju ry becau se it ha d bee n r ea d to th e j ury duri ng trial and i t w o uld ass i st the ju ry i n reach i ng a ver d ict. 

### (N. T. 6/ 10/2 01 3 p. 4- 11 ). A s d efe n se counse l fail e d t o object to th e J e tt er durin g c ro ss-e x amination , the c l ai m th at th e l e tt e r was i mp rope rl y r ea d durin g c r oss-e xamin ation was not properl y p rese rve d for appellate
r e vi e w . E ve n i f th e c l aim w as pr eserved for app e ll ate re v iew, there was n o e rror i n all owi n g the l e tte r t o be r ea d du ri n g cross -ex aminati o n . D efe nd an t tes tifie d th at he w a s at wo rk for T ho m as Fami l y M o vi ng on Au g u st 1 6, 2 01 1 and th e r efore co uld n o t have bee n on Carpente r Street
se ll i n g dru gs at that time. T h e J ette r , al o n g w i th the biograph ical in formation D efen d an t gave to p o lice at th e H o mi c id e U ni t in w hi c h he stat ed he was unemp loye d , was th e r efore p r ope rl y u se d by th e C ommo n wealth t o t est D efe ndant's story and impeac h his cre di b il ity. Moreove r , th i s15

66, 93, 72 0 A.2d 7 11 , 72 4 ( 1 998))
. v. Jon es, 2 00 3 PA Su p er 22 0 , 8 26 A .2d 9 00 , 9 08 (200 3) (c iting Commo n wealth v . Baez, 55 4 Pa. d is tracting i t s att en tio n away fr om the j u ry's primary concern to co ll at e r al i ssues. Comm o n weal th may nevertheless be exc l u d e d becau se i t s ge n e r al effect on the tri al wi ll be to co nfu se th e ju ry by A.2 d 11 9, 1 51 ( 20 0 8). Furthe rm ore, e vi de n ce, alth ough l og i call y re l evan t o n the u lti mate issue, from i ts du ty of w e i g hi ng th e e v ide n ce imparti ally. Commo n wealth v. Wri g ht , 5 99 Pa. 2 70 , 961 mean s a t e nd e n cy t o s u gges t d ecisio n o n an improper bas i s or di v ert the ju ry's atte ntio n a w ay of u n fair prej u d i ce . P a. R .E
. 40 3. U n fair prej ud ice suppo rtin g exc l usio n of re l evan t evi d e n ce (2 0 13). The co u rt may excl u de r elevan t evidence if it s probati ve valu e i s outweig h ed b y a dan ge r irrelevan t t o the iss u es prese n ted. Commonweal th v . E ll iott, 622 P a. 236, 80 A.3d 41 5, 44 6 v. Williams, 586 P a. 5 53, 896 A.2d 523, 539 (20 0 6)). A tri al cou rt may excl u de ev i de n ce th at is Commo n wealth v . Kin ard, 2014 P A Super 41 , 95 A.3d 279, 28 4 ( 201 4 ) (qu o tin g Commo n wealth less probab l e or supports a reaso n ab l e in fere n ce o r p r esump ti on r egar di n g a m at e ri al fac t. " "if i t l ogically t e n ds t o estab li s h a mat erial fac t i n the case, t e n ds t o make a fact at i ssue mo r e or i nvo l v in g Defe nd ant h ad bee n ind ic t e d. G e n erall y, ev id ence i s a dmi ss ib l e i f it is re l e v an t, th at i s, Th is Cou rt di d no t err w h e n it exc lu ded ev id e n ce that police officers i n a se p ar ate case 

### IV. TH

E COURT DID NOT E RR WH E N IT E XCLUDED E

VIDEN C E THAT POLICE

OFFICERS IN A S E

PARAT E CASE INVOLVING D E FENDANT HAD B E EN INDICTED

. all owed th e J etter to be read to th e j u ry durin g d e l iberati o n s. ass i s t an ce in their de t e rmi n atio n of Defe n dan t 's cr edi b ili ty. The r efo r e, th i s Co u rt p ro perl y jury's memory, and read in g it o n ce mo r e di d no t pl ace u ndu e w e i g h t up o n i t , as the j ury w ant ed de l ib erations. The J e tt er ha d b ee n r ea d p re vi o u s l y i n i t s enti r e ty, w as bei n g use d to r efr e sh the Cou rt did n o t ab u se i t s d isc r eti o n when it all o w e d th e J e tt e r to be rea d to th e jury duri n g

### 16



### In the case at bar , the Commonwealth made a motion in limine prior to the start of trial to preclude any mention by the defense that police officers S ydemy Joanis ( " Joanis " ) and Jonathan Garcia ( " Garcia " ) had been federally indicted. Joanis and Garcia previously had arrested Defendant a few months prior to his arrest in the instant case and were afterwards indicted for planting drugs and robbing drug dealers
. The Commonwealth argued that this evidence was irrelevant because Joanis and Garcia had not been involved in any way in the instant matter and there were no allegations of corruption regarding Buitrago and Graham. The Commonwealth further argued that any relevance the evidence might have was outweighed by its prejudicial effect and the evidence would cause undue confusion, as the allegations did not involve the instant case. Defendant argued that the evidence should be allowed to support an inference that the entire Narcotics Field Unit in South Philadelphia was corrupt and could be used to impeach the credibility of the testifying officers from that unit. This Court granted the motion to preclude any mention of Joanis and Garcia. (N.T. 6/5 /2013 p. 5-12). This Court properly precluded any mention of Joanis and Garcia ' s indictments as the evidence was irrelevant to the case at bar
. As Joanis and Garcia had no involvement whatsoever in the instant case , the evidence of their indictment therefore did not tend to establish a material fact in the case, to make a fact at issue more or less probable or support a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a material fact. Even if the evidence was relevant to the instant case, any relevance it may have had was greatly outweighed by the dangers of undue prejudice and confusion. As there was no allegations that Buitrago or Graham were involved in any corruption, the evidence would divert the jury's attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially by distracting its attention from the jury ' s primary concern to collateral issues. Therefore , this Court properly excluded any evidence that Joanis and Garcia had been indicted
.

### 1 7

CI told the o f

ficers that th e r e wa s a b la c k male se lli n g nar c oti c s in th e vicinity of the 24 0 0 b l ock personally observed D e fendan t se ll dru gs t o CI on tw o s eparate oc c a s ions. B u itrago t estified that In the case at bar, the j u ry heard te s timon y from Bui trago and Graham that they t o prevail. I d
. · justi ce and the aw ard o f a new trial i s impe r ati v e s o that ri g ht may be given another opportunity warranted only w hen the j u ry 's verdict i s s o c ontrary to the e v idence that it shocks one's sense of Commonwealth v . Tharp , 5 7 4 P a. 202, 830 A.2d 5 19 , 528 (2003))
. Rather , a new trial i s concl u sion than the fact-finder. Comm o n w ealth v. Moral es, 9 1 A.3d 80 , 9 1 (Pa
. 2 0 14) (qu oti ng t estimony or because the re v ie w i n g co u rt on the s ame facts might have arrived at a differen t 832 A.2d at 4 0 8 )
. A verdict i s n o t con trary to the we i g ht o f the evidence becau se of a confl i ct i n Commonwealth v . Co ll i n s , 20 1 3 P A Super 15 8 , 70 A
. 3d 1245, 1 251 ( 2 0 13) ( qu oting Champ n ey , whether the trial court palpabl y abu s ed its discretion i n ru ling on the weight claim
. " whether the verdict is agai ns t the wei g ht of the e v idence
... rather, appellate review is limi ted to weight claim bel o w , an appellate co u rt ' s role is not to con s ider the u nderlying qu es tio n of 574 Pa
. 435, 832 A
. 2d 403 , 408 ( 2003 ))
. I n additi o n , " w h ere the trial co u rt has rul ed o n the Luster , 2013 PA Sup e r 204 , 71 A.3d 1029 , 104 9 ( 2013) ( qu oting Commonwealth v. Champney, none of the evidence and to determine the c r e d i b ili ty o f th e w i tnes s e s ." Commonwealth v . weight of the evidence is " ex cl u s iv e l y for the finder of fact w ho is free to believe all , p art, or ( 2013) ( citing Comm o n w ealth v. Widmer , 560 P a. 308 , 7 44 A.2d 7 45 , 751-52 (200 0 )). The sufficient to s u stain th e ve rdict. Co mmon w ealth v . L yo n s , 622 P a. 9 1, 7 9 A
. 3d 1 0 53, 1 0 67 U nder Penn sy l v ania la w, a w ei g h t o f the e v idence claim concede s that the evidence wa s The verdict in this ca s e wa s not a g ain s t th e we i g h t of the evidence pre s ente d at trial. V
. TH E V E RD I C T W AS N OT AGA I NS T TH E W E IGHT O F TH E E VID E NC E
.18

of Carpenter Stree t an d prov id ed th em wi th a spec i fic p ho n e nu mber that co ul d b e call e d to arrange a sal e. B uitrago t es ti fie d that C I called th e p hone n umb er an d a s h ort ti m e lat e r D efe n dant appear ed o n th e scene an d exc h ange d packe t s co n taini ng a c hunky, o ff -w hi te
s u bstance for money with C I. Bu i trago an d Gr aham t es tified D efen d ant w as arr es te d i mmediate l y after th e seco nd occasion, at w hi ch time h e w as searc h e d and the p o li ce fo un d cocaine an d th e p r ereco rd e d buy money th at CI u sed to p u rc h ase th e dru gs o n hi s p e r so n . B uitrago fu rth er testifie d th at they fou n d a ph o n e on D efe n dant's p e r so n w h ich m atche d th e numbe r di al e d by C I t o arrange th e b u y . Th e parti es sti p u lat e d that c h e mists Sa jju an d P e ll e tier woul d t esti fy th at th e substances p u rc h ased by CI fr om D efe nd an t t es t ed p osi ti ve fo r cocain e an d th at th e subs t an ce r e cov ered fr om D efe n d an t li kew i se t estifi e d p ositi ve fo r c o cai n e. M eeh an tes ti fie d that h e s up erv i s ed the i nvesti gatio n and th at Bui trago an d Gr ah am ha d foll owe d prop e r p rotoco l duri ng th e i r i n vestigati o n . Th e ju ry also h ear d t es timon y fr o m D efe nd an t th at he w as at
wo rk for Th o m as F amil y Movi n g on A ugus t 1 6. H oweve r , th e Co mm o n w e alth p rese nt ed
ev i dence th at D efe nd ant pr ev i o u sly h ad t old p oli ce th at h e was une mpl oye d at th e time an d fu rth er clai med th at h e was e mp l o y e d at O ldCo untry Buff e t. T hu s, th e j u ry's ve rd ic t w a s n o t s o
co ntrary t o the ev i dence that i t s h oc ke d one ' s sense of ju s ti ce. T h er efo r e, th e ve rd ic t was not against th e we i gh t o f th e evidence
.

### 1 9

After a review o f th e applicab l e rule s of evide n ce , statutes , case l aw and t estimony , th i s Court committed n o err o r. D efe n dant i s not e n ti tl e d t o a new trial based u pon afte r -d i scove r e d
ev i dence
. The prosec u tor d id n o t commi t miscondu ct in his closing statement. T he Co u rt di d n o t
err in allowing the Commonwealth t o use a letter o f emp l oyment du ring cross - exami n ation of D efendant an d in allowing the letter to be read to refresh the j u ry ' s memory duri ng deli b erati ons . Th e Co urt did n ot err when i t e x c lu ded evidence that o f ficers i n a separ at e case invo l v i ng D e f endan t h a d been i ndic t ed. T he ve r dict was n ot agai n s t the weight of th e evi de nce . Th e refo re, thi s C o urt ' s j u dgment of se nt e n ce sho ul d be u pheld on ap p eal. CONCLUSIO

N