J-S68031-18

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

ERIK LAMONT REED, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 477 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 9, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division 

at No(s): CP-65-CR-0000087-2016

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 18, 2018

Appellant Erik Lamont Reed, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County following his 

conviction by a jury on the charges of first-degree murder and firearms not to 

be carried without a license.1 After a careful review, we affirm. 

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: Appellant shot 

and killed Donald Williams, and represented by counsel, he proceeded to a 

jury trial on August 14, 2017. The trial court has summarized in exhaustive 

and accurate detail the testimony and evidence presented at Appellant’s jury 

trial, and we rely on the trial court’s summarization for purposes of this appeal. 

See Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/1/18, at 2-20.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502 and 6106, respectively. 
J-S68031-18

- 2 -

Following the jury’s guilty verdict for the crimes indicated supra, on 

November 9, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate of life 

in prison, and Appellant filed a timely, counseled post-sentence motion. The 

trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion on March 1, 2018, and this 

timely appeal followed. All Pa.R.A.P. 1925 requirements have been met. 

On appeal, Appellant presents the following issues in his “Statement of 

Questions Involved”: 

I. Whether there was sufficient evidence to disprove 

justification for the verdict of guilty of murder in the first 

degree?

II. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence?

III. Did the trial court err in limiting the defense’s closing 

argument regarding the failure of the Commonwealth to call 

the children of the deceased as witnesses?

IV. Did the trial court err in not allowing testimony from a 

witness who advised [Appellant’s] family to “be careful” 

around the victim?

V. Did the [trial] court err by precluding testimony regarding 

threats made by members of the victim’s family to members

of [Appellant’s] family?

Appellant’s Brief at 4-5.2

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to his conviction 

for first-degree murder.3 Specifically, Appellant contends the Commonwealth 

____________________________________________

2 We have renumbered Appellant’s issues for the sake of effective appellate 

review. 

3 Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to his 

conviction for firearms not to be carried without a license. 
J-S68031-18

- 3 -

failed to disprove Appellant’s justification defense, i.e., defense of others. In 

this regard, Appellant notes that both he and his stepfather, Kahil Dandridge,4

testified they feared that Mr. Williams was going to kill Appellant’s stepfather, 

and, in fact, Mr. Williams had threatened to “fucking kill” him. Appellant’s 

Brief at 27. 

Our standard of review is well-settled. 

[W]e evaluate the record in the light most favorable to the verdict 

winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable 

inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence will be 

deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each 

material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof 

by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the 

Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical 

certainty. [T]he facts and circumstances established by the 

Commonwealth need not be absolutely incompatible with the 

defendant’s innocence. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is 

to be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak 

and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact 

can be drawn from the combined circumstances.

Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722 (Pa.Super. 2013) (citations 

and quotation marks omitted). Importantly, “the jury, which passes upon the 

weight and credibility of each witness’s testimony, is free to believe all, part, 

or none of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Ramtahal, 613 Pa. 316, 33 

A.3d 602, 607 (2011).

____________________________________________

4 At trial, Appellant referred to Mr. Dandridge as his “father;” however, in his 

brief, Appellant refers to him as his “stepfather.” 
J-S68031-18

- 4 -

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, for which the 

Commonwealth was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: a 

human being was unlawfully killed, Appellant was responsible for the killing, 

and Appellant acted with malice and specific intent to kill. See 

Commonwealth v. Houser, 610 Pa. 264, 18 A.3d 1128 (2011). 

With regard to Appellant’s claim that he acted in defense of others, 

Pennsylvania law permits the use of force against another person in limited 

circumstances, such as defense of others. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 506. The 

defense of another relies substantially on the justification of self-defense:

Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The 

use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the 

actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the 

purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by 

such other person on the present occasion.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 505 (bold in original).

As for defense of others, the relevant statute provides as follows:

§ 506. Use of force for the protection of other persons

(a) General rule.--The use of force upon or toward the person 

of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

(1) the actor would be justified under section 505 (relating 

to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to protect 

himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the 

person whom he seeks to protect;

(2) under the circumstances as the actor believes them to 

be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in 

using such protective force; and

(3) the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for 

the protection of such other person.
J-S68031-18

- 5 -

(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the actor is not 

obliged to retreat to any greater extent than the person whom he 

seeks to protect.

18 Pa.C.S. § 506(a) (bold in original). 

Further,

[A]s provided by statute and as interpreted through our case law, 

to establish the defense of self-defense or defense of others it 

must be shown that: a) the slayer or the other he seeks to protect 

was free from fault in provoking or continuing the difficulty which 

resulted in the slaying; b) that the slayer must have reasonably 

believed that he or the other he seeks to protect was in imminent 

danger of death or great bodily harm, and that there was a 

necessity to use such force in order to save himself or the other 

therefrom; and c) the slayer or the other he seeks to protect did 

not violate any duty to retreat or to avoid the danger.

Commonwealth v. Hornberger, 74 A.3d 279, 284-85 (Pa.Super. 2013) 

(citation, emphasis, and brackets omitted). See Commonwealth v. La, 640 

A.2d 1336, 1346 (Pa.Super. 1994) (stating that the claims of self-defense and 

defense of others are generally addressed in the same manner). 

“In cases where [defense of others is] an issue, the Commonwealth is 

required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply 

to the situation in order to sustain the conviction.” Commonwealth v. 

Torres, 564 Pa. 219, 766 A.2d 342, 345 (2001). 

The Commonwealth sustains its burden [of disproving a claim of 

defense of others] if it proves any of the following: that the slayer 

was not free from fault in provoking or continuing the difficulty 

which resulted in the slaying; that the slayer did not reasonably 

believe that [another] was in imminent danger of death or great 

bodily harm, and that it was necessary to kill in order to save 

[another] therefrom; or that the slayer violated a duty to retreat 

or avoid the danger.
J-S68031-18

- 6 -

Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 618 Pa. 262, 55 A.3d 1108, 1124 (2012)

(citation omitted).

Here, in analyzing Appellant’s sufficiency claim, and concluding the 

Commonwealth disproved beyond a reasonable doubt Appellant’s claim of 

defense of others, the trial court relevantly indicated the following:

The Commonwealth introduced sufficient evidence to 

disprove the defense of others beyond a reasonable doubt. While 

Kahil Dandridge stated that he was being choked [by Donald 

Williams] to such an extent that he nearly lost consciousness, 

there were no injuries to his neck. Moreover, Detective Gardner 

and Officer Schubert testified that when [Mr. Dandridge] gave 

them his story of what had happened during the fight, he did not 

inform either of them that he was being choked, or that he was in 

fear for his life. Officer Schubert testified that [Mr. Dandridge] 

informed him that “I got in a fight with him. He missed me. I hit 

him and nobody got shot.” Moreover, Erika Johnson testified that 

after Donald Williams was shot, Kahil Dandridge, who testified 

that he nearly lost consciousness and was afraid he would lose his 

life after Donald Williams choked him, tried to pick Donald 

Williams off the ground, and asked, “Hey bro, are you okay?”

While [Appellant] stated that he shot Donald Williams so 

that he would stop choking [Mr. Dandridge], [Appellant] testified 

that he did not warn Donald Williams that he had a gun, nor did 

he attempt to shoot him in a non-lethal location. When asked why 

he did not shoot him in the hand or foot instead of the chest, which 

[Appellant] knew contained vital organs, [Appellant] simply stated 

that he did not think he had time, and that he was “not thinking 

about where I’m going to shoot him.”

Jennifer Blackwell, the only non-law enforcement witness 

presented who was not part of [Appellant’s] or [Donald Williams’] 

family, testified that immediately prior to hearing a gunshot, she 

heard a woman yell, “Erik, Erik, what is that. No, put that away. 

Put that down. Put that back. No, Erik.” This testimony directly 

conflicted with much of [Appellant’s] and his family’s testimony. 

While [Appellant] testified that he did not have time to think of 

using non-lethal force against Donald Williams, [Ms.] Blackwell’s 

testimony supports the notion that [Appellant] was urged by 

someone on the scene not to shoot Donald Williams at all, and 
J-S68031-18

- 7 -

there was time and opportunity available to not kill him. 

[Appellant] also fled from the scene immediately upon the police 

arriving. While this evidence alone would not be sufficient to 

convict [Appellant], such evidence does raise an inference of guilt.

Thus, the jury’s verdict, and rejection of the defense of 

others justification, was not based solely on disbelief of 

[Appellant’s] testimony, and was supported by sufficient evidence. 

[Appellant] testified that he was aware that Donald Williams’ vital 

organs were contained within his chest where he was shot, and 

that [Appellant] put a revolver against [Donald] Williams’ body 

near the armpit and pulled the trigger. 

Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/1/18, at 23-24 (citations to record omitted). 

Applying our standard of review, we agree with the trial court’s analysis. 

Specifically, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, as verdict winner, the Commonwealth disproved that 

Appellant reasonably believed that another (Mr. Dandridge) was in imminent 

danger of death or great bodily harm and that it was necessary to kill Donald 

Williams in order to save Mr. Dandridge therefrom. See Sepulveda, supra. 

Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s conviction for 

first-degree murder. See Houser, supra.

Appellant next contends the jury’s verdict as to first-degree murder is 

against the weight of the evidence.5 Specifically, he avers the credible 

evidence offered by Appellant and Mr. Dandridge establishes that Appellant 

reasonably believed that Mr. Dandridge was in imminent danger of being 

____________________________________________

5 Appellant raised this issue in his post-sentence motion. He does not contend 

on appeal that the jury’s verdict as to firearms not to be carried without a 

license is against the weight of the evidence. 
J-S68031-18

- 8 -

choked such that it was necessary to kill Donald Williams in order to save Mr. 

Dandridge. He contends “the [j]ury gave such little weight to the obvious 

testimony of justification as to shock one’s sense of justice.” Appellant’s Brief 

at 26. 

When considering challenges to the weight of the evidence, we apply 

the following precepts. “The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the 

finder of fact, who is free to believe all, none[,] or some of the evidence and 

to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Talbert, 

129 A.3d 536, 545 (Pa.Super. 2015) (quotation marks and quotation

omitted). Resolving contradictory testimony and questions of credibility are 

matters for the finder of fact. Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 

917 (Pa.Super. 2000). It is well-settled that we cannot substitute our 

judgment for that of the trier of fact. Talbert, supra.

Moreover, appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the trial 

court’s exercise of discretion in denying the weight challenge raised in the 

post-sentence motion; this Court does not review the underlying question of 

whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. See id.

Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see 

the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest 

consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial 

judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict 

is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable 

reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the lower court’s 

conviction that the verdict was or was not against the weight of 

the evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the interest 

of justice.
J-S68031-18

- 9 -

Id. at 546 (quotation omitted). Furthermore, “[i]n order for a defendant to 

prevail on a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the evidence must be so 

tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the 

court.” Id. (quotation marks and quotation omitted). 

Appellant requests that we re-weigh the evidence and assess the 

credibility of the witnesses presented at trial, a task that is beyond our scope 

of review. The jury, as finder of fact, had the duty to determine the credibility 

of the testimony and evidence presented at trial. See Commonwealth v. 

Collins, 70 A.3d 1245, 1251 (Pa.Super. 2013) (stating that “[a]n appellate 

court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact”). As the 

trial court relevantly indicated:

[T]here was conflicting testimony from both families in this 

case. Although [Appellant] testified that Donald Williams had 

threatened him both days prior to and during the family melee, 

the jury did not believe that he was in actual fear for [Mr. 

Dandridge’s] life when he shot him. Because the jury disbelieved 

[Appellant’s] testimony regarding his justification defense, 

[believed the evidence disputing the defense,] and [Appellant] 

admitted that he did shoot and kill Donald Williams, [the jury] 

found [Appellant] guilty of murder of the first degree. The verdict 

in this case is not so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s 

sense of justice. Thus, the verdict in this case was not against the 

weight of the evidence. 

Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/1/18, at 25. 

We agree with the trial court’s analysis and conclude Appellant is not 

entitled to relief on his weight of the evidence claim. See Talbert, supra.

In his next claim, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion

in limiting defense counsel’s closing argument regarding the failure of the 
J-S68031-18

- 10 -

Commonwealth to call the children of the deceased as witnesses. Specifically, 

Appellant contends that defense counsel should have been permitted to argue 

during closing argument that the Commonwealth’s failure to call Donald 

Williams’ two daughters, who were present during the murder, created an 

inference that the daughters’ testimony would have been favorable to 

Appellant’s claim of justification.6

Initially, we note that we review the trial court’s limitation upon defense 

counsel’s closing argument for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. 

Baez, 554 Pa. 66, 720 A.2d 711, 729 (1998). It is well-settled that an 

attorney’s closing argument is not evidence. Id. “Just as a prosecutor is 

permitted in his. . .closing argument to comment on the evidence and any 

reasonable inference therefrom, so may defense counsel. Additionally, 

defense counsel is entitled, like the prosecution, to question in closing 

argument, the motives and credibility of any witness.” La, 640 A.2d at 1349. 

The missing witness adverse inference rule has been summarized as 

follows:

When a potential witness is available to only one of the parties at 

trial, and it appears this witness has special information material 

to the issue, and this person’s testimony would not merely be 

cumulative, then if such party does not produce the testimony of 

____________________________________________

6 At trial, Appellant requested a missing witness instruction as to Donald 

Williams’ daughters, and the trial court denied the instruction. Further, in 

response to defense counsel’s inquiry, the trial court ruled that defense 

counsel could not argue during his closing argument that the witnesses’ failure 

to testify created an inference/presumption in favor of Appellant. N.T., 8/14-

18/2018, 1111-13. 
J-S68031-18

- 11 -

this witness, the jury may draw an inference that it would have 

been unfavorable.

Commonwealth v. Manigault, 501 Pa. 506, 462 A.2d 239, 241 (1983).

This Court has clarified at least six circumstances where a party is not

entitled to the missing witness inference:

1. The witness is so hostile or prejudiced against the party 

expected to call him that there is a small possibility of obtaining 

unbiased truth;

2. The testimony of such a witness is comparatively unimportant, 

cumulative, or inferior to that already presented;

3. The uncalled witness is equally available to both parties;

4. There is a satisfactory explanation as to why the party failed to 

call such a witness;

5. The witness is not available or not within the control of the party 

against whom the negative inference is desired; and

6. The testimony of the uncalled witness is not within the scope of 

the natural interest of the party failing to produce him.

Commonwealth v. Boyle, 733 A.2d 633, 638 (Pa.Super. 1999) (citation 

omitted).

Here, the trial court concluded that Appellant was not entitled to any 

missing witness/favorable inference as to the absence of Donald Williams’ two 

daughters because the witnesses were equally available to both parties. See 

Trial Court Opinion, filed 5/2/18, at 2. In fact, the trial court noted that 

defense counsel listed the two daughters as potential witnesses, but then did 

not call them. Id. Accordingly, the trial court ruled Appellant was not entitled 

to a missing witness inference. More specifically, the trial court ruled defense 

counsel could not argue during closing arguments that the Commonwealth’s 
J-S68031-18

- 12 -

failure to call Donald Williams’ two daughters created an inference that the 

daughters’ testimony would have been favorable to Appellant’s claim of 

justification. We find no abuse of discretion. See Baez, supra.

In his next claim, Appellant contends the trial court erred in not allowing 

testimony from a proffered witness, Police Chief Eric Doutt, who would have 

testified that he advised Appellant’s family to “be careful” around Donald 

Williams. Specifically, Appellant avers that he should have been permitted to 

introduce testimony from Chief Doutt that Mr. Williams had a history of violent 

actions so that he warned Appellant and his family to “be careful” of 

confrontations involving Mr. Williams. Appellant suggests Chief Doutt’s 

testimony was relevant to establish Appellant reasonably believed that Mr. 

Dandridge was in danger such that Appellant’s killing of Mr. Williams was 

justified. See Appellant’s brief at 17. 

Admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court 

and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth 

v. Arrington, 624 Pa. 506, 86 A.3d 831, 842 (2014). Relevance is the 

threshold for admissibility of evidence. See Commonwealth v. Cook, 597 

Pa. 572, 952 A.2d 594, 612 (2008). “Evidence is relevant if it logically tends

to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or 

less probable or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a 

material fact.” Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 570 Pa. 117, 808 A.2d 893, 

904 (2002) (citation omitted). “All relevant evidence is admissible, except as 
J-S68031-18

- 13 -

otherwise provided by law.” Pa.R.E. 402. “Although relevant, evidence may 

be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair 

prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or by considerations 

of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative 

evidence.” Pa.R.E. 403.

Here, in explaining the basis for its ruling, the trial court relevantly 

indicated the following:

The [trial court] initially notes that both defense counsel and 

the Commonwealth agreed that none of [Mr. Williams’] prior 

criminal convictions were admissible at trial. In a case in which 

self-defense is asserted, only those past crimes of the victim that 

are similar in nature and not too distant in time will be deemed 

probative, with the determination as to similar nature and 

remoteness resting within the sound discretion of the trial judge. 

Commonwealth v. Mouzon, [617 Pa. 527,] 53 A.3d 738, 741 

(2012). 

***

[Here, Mr. Williams’] only violent offenses were a simple 

assault charge in 2009, for which [he] was found not guilty, a 

2000 charge for intimidation of a witness and terroristic threats, 

both of which were withdrawn, and a robbery conviction in 1988 

for which [he] served six months probation. As all parties agreed 

that a 1988 robbery was not so similar in nature and too distant 

in time to be probative, no evidence of [Mr. Williams’] conviction 

was introduced. 

In attempting to admit Chief Doutt’s testimony, the defense 

simultaneously agreed that [Mr. Williams’] prior convictions were 

not probative, while also raising the specter of a violent criminal 

past for the jury. Certainly, as the statement would have been 

elicited from a law enforcement officer, it would have raised the 

inference that Chief Doutt was referring to [Mr. Williams’] criminal 

past. The fact that Chief Doutt would have testified that he 

informed [Appellant’s] family members to “be careful” of Donald 

Williams would also have raised the inference that he had a violent 

criminal history. The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence properly 

delineate and limit the use of a victim’s prior criminal history in 
J-S68031-18

- 14 -

jury trials, so as not to improperly influence a jury. All parties 

agreed that [Mr. Williams’] criminal history was not admissible. 

Thus, even if the testimony was relevant, [the trial court] properly 

determined that the probative value of Chief Doutt’s nebulous 

statement was substantially outweighed by the confusion it would 

have caused for the jury, and its tendency to draw the jury’s 

attention away [from] its duty of weighing the evidence 

impartially.

Trial Court Opinion, filed 5/2/18, at 4-6. 

We agree with the trial court’s sound rationale and find no abuse of 

discretion. See Arrington, supra.

In his final claim, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in precluding 

testimony regarding threats made by members of Mr. Williams’ family to 

members of Appellant’s family. However, in the argument portion of his brief, 

Appellant simply indicates: “After careful review of the [trial court’s] opinion 

and [t]rial [t]estimony[,] the [d]efense withdraws the [a]rgument to the 

question presented above.” Appellant’s Brief at 21. Accordingly, we decline 

to address this issue further.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of sentence. 

We direct the parties to attach a copy of the trial court’s March 1, 2018, 

opinion, upon which we rely for the summary of the jury trial testimony and 

evidence, in the event of further proceedings.

Affirmed. 
J-S68031-18

- 15 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/18/2018
Circulated 11/13/2018 12:55 PM 

TN THF, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 01 WESTMORELAND COUNTY, 

PENNSYLVANIA - CRIMINAL DIVISION 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYTNANIA 

ERIK LAMONT .REED, 

Defend ant. 

No. 87 C 2016 

OPLNION AND ORDER OF COURT 

'Ibis matter comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant's post -sentence 

motions that have been filed in the above -captioned case. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 

The charges in this matter arise from the death of Donald Williams, which 

occurred in New Kensington on December 15, 2015. 

Defendant was charged with one count of murder of the first degree, 18 Pa.C.S,A. 

§2502(a), one count of murder of the third degree, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2502(c), and one count 

of firearms not to be carried without a license, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §610G(a)(1).' A jury trial 

commenced on August 14, 2017. Defendant was represented by Attorney Ralph Karsh. 

Defendant was found guilty of murder of the first degree and firearms not to he carried 

without a license. Defendant was sentenced on November 9, 2017 to life imprisonment 

without the possibility of parole. Attorney Karsh withdrew his appearance after 

At trial, the criminal information was amended to include one count of voluntary manslaughter, 18 Pa.C,S,A. 

§2503(a)(1). 1 
sentencing, and the Court appointed Attorney Timothy Andrews to represent Defendant 

on appeal. Defendant filed post -sentence motions on November 15, 2017, and amended 

post -sentence motions on January 29, 2017. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Sergeant Paul Manke of the New Kensington Police Department testified that he 

was on duty on December 15, 2015 during the 3:00 p.m. -11:00 p.m. shift when he 

received a dispatch that evening stating that a large fight had broken out at the 

intersection of North Street and Taylor Avenue, (TT 252).2 As he was traveling to the 

scene, he received an update that shots had been fired. (TT 253). When he arrived, 

Officers Noble and Stanga were already present. (TI' 253). Sergeant Manke noted several 

groups of people at the scene. He also observed two females crossing North Street, and 

Officer Noble performing chest compressions on Victim Donald Williams. (TT 254). 

At that point, Donald Williams was lying on the northwest corner of North Street 

and Taylor Avenue. (TT 254). Sergeant Manke noted that he appeared to be 

unresponsive. (TT 254). ITe then began to secure the scene, and eventually took over the 

task of chest compressions. (TT 255). He noted that Williams was not exhibiting any 

signs of life; specifically, he was not breathing, and Manke could not detect a pulse. (TT 

257). Shortly thereafter, emergency medical services arrived and took over Williams' 

care. (TT 257). Sergeant Manke related that EMS eventually ceased perforating 

lifesaving measures on Williams, and he was pronounced dead. (TT 258). Sergeant 

2 Numerals in parenthesis preceded by the letters "TT" refer to specific pages ofthe transcript of the testimony 

pm:suited at the trial of tli is matter, held August 14-18, 2017 berbre this Court, which is made apart of the record 

herein. 

2 
Manke testified that he did not locate any weapons on Williams' person, or in the 

surrounding area. (TT 259), Sergeant Manke also performed a search for shell casings 

and firearms, but was unable to locate any evidence. (TT 272). 

Later that evening, Sergeant Marilee learned that there was a suspect in the case, 

and that he had run toward 1403 Taylor Avenue, which was close to the scene. (TT 265- 

66). Officers later performed a sweep of the residence to ensure that no individuals were 

hiding inside. (TT 269). Shortly thereafter, the victim was identified as Donald 

and his residence was identified as 1331 Taylor Avenue, approximately 8 houses away 

from 1403 Taylor Avenue. (TT 270). 

Clayton Paul Ondrizek testified that on December 15, 2015, he was employed as a 

critical care paramedic with New Kensington EMS during the 4:00-12:00 a.m. shift. At 

approximately 10:23 p.m., he was dispatched to an incident occurring at the intersection 

of North and Taylor streets in the city of New Kensington. Ondrizek stated that when he 

arrived at the scene, several police agencies were already present, as well as numerous 

bystanders. (TT 287). Ondrizek then located Donald Williams, who was lying supine on 

the sidewalk with officers tending to him. (IT 288). As he performed his initial 

assessment of Williams, Ondrizek determined that he did not have a pulse and that his 

pupils were non -responsive. (TT 290-91). He also noted that Williams' abdomen was 

extremely enlarged, indicating internal bleeding. (TT 292). When Ondrizek applied a 

cardiac monitor to Williams, he found that there was no electrical activity in his heart, 

(IT 294). Ondrizek then contacted his command physician, who instructed him to cease 

3 
resuscitative efforts on Williams. (TT 294). Ondrizek then determined that Williams was 

deceased. (TT 295). Ondrizek did not identify any weapons on Williams' person, nor in 

the surrounding area. (TT 295). 

Deputy Coroner Sean Hribal testified that on December 15, 2005, he was called to 

assist in a shooting death in New Kensington at approximately 10:34 p.m. He arrived on 

scene at approximately 12:00 a.m. (ET 303). He examined Williams, and noted a 

laceration on his right cheek and an entrance gunshot wound just below the right armpit. 

(TT 306). He did not locate an exit wound. (TT 306). He also did not note any defensive 

wounds. (TT 308). Williams was transported to a local medical facility for X-rays to 

determine if there was a bullet inside Williams' body, prior to an autopsy. (TT 310). The 

tests revealed a singular foreign body located in his left shoulder blade. (TT 310-11). 

Rosclla Williams testified that she was married to Donald Williams for 30 years 

prior to his death. (TT 316). The couple also had five children together: Kaiesha, 

Donnell, Rosella, Doniesha, and Kiara. (TT 317). Rosella testified that in December 

2015, she and her husband resided at 1331 Taylor Avenue, New Kensington with 

Doniesha, Kiara, and her stepdaughter .Tazzmine.3 (1' 1' 318). She stated that all three girls 

were students at Valley Senior High School. (TT 318). At the time, her husband, Donald, 

owned his own restaurant in. New Kensington, which served soul food, (IT 319). 

3 Rosella Williams staled that while she referred to .Tazzmine as her stepdaughter, the two were not biologically 

related; instead, .E.,37.v.rnine was her daughter's longtime friend. (TT 319). 

4 
Rosella testified that on December 15, 2015, Doniesha. was cheering for a high 

school basketball game in the evening. (TT 322). She and her daughters attended the 

game that evening, while Donald drove them to the school and picked them up after the 

game ended at approximately 9:15 p.m. (If 322). Rosella stated that shortly after they 

arrived home after the game, she saw Defendant and a "young lady" walking past her 

home. (TT 324). Rosella's daughters and Defendant and the young lady began 

"exchanging words," and Rosella told her daughters to go hack into the house. (yr 324). 

She did so because: "I know how these teenagers get and just by the tones of their voices 

it just seemed like it might escalate into something bigger." (TT 326). 

Shortly after the three girls went back into the house, they informed Rosella and 

Donald that they were going to walk to the convenience store down the street before it 

closed. (TT 329). At some point thereafter, the girls returned home. Rosella stated that 

"Jazzmine ca -me into the house hysterical telling me and Donald we need to get outside." 

(TT 330). Rosella immediately ran outside, as she remembered that Doniesha and Kiara 

had been feuding with two girls who lived nearby. (TT 330). Donald was'approximately 

two minutes behind her, putting on his shoes before he went outside, (TT 331). 

When Rosella arrived at the street corner, she observed her daughters with the two 

girls they had been feuding with, along with Defendant, the girl he was walking with 

earlier in the day, and Defendant's mother (Erika Johnson) and stepfather (Kahil 

Dandridge). (TT 332). The girls were having a verbal altercation (TT 333). She stated: 

"They're just arguing back and forth, talking about who's going to beat who, who is not 

5 
going to heat who, who is going to do what to who." (TT 333). She also stated that when 

she first saw Defendant, she noticed that he had a gun in his right pocket. (TT 334). 

Rosella then entered into a verbal altercation with Defendant's mother. Rosella testified: 

ADA: What's the defendant's mom doing at this point? 

Rosella: Standing near voicing her opinion about me and my 

girls. 

ADA: How did you take to that? 

Rosella: Um, I asked her, I was like, because she said I heard 

about you. I referred to her and I asked her to enlighten me 

what did you hear about me. She replied, she said, I heard you 

and your girls don't do nothing but go around the town 

stirring up fights and getting into battles with all the kids. 

.ADA: What happened with you and his mom? 

Rosella: We started physically lighting. 

(TT 335-36). 

Rosella admitted that she grabbed Erika Johnson's neck and choked her because 

she believed that she was getting ready to "jump" her daughter. At that point, all of the 

girls had begun fighting. (TT 337). Rosella stated that she did not observe any of the girls 

using weapons, although she noted that she saw her youngest daughter "swing something, 

but I can't figure if it was a belt." (TT 33g). Rosella testified that during the melee, 

Donald Williams was fighting Kahil Dandridge. (TT 339). She stated: "They were fist 

fighting . . . I seen the father swing at Donald and Donald's body turned to the side, and 

then Donald got hack up - not got up, but turned his body back and started swinging and 

punching. At some given point in. time, Fm not exactly sure, the stepfather ended up on 

the ground and Donald was on top of him." (TT 339). 

6 
She stated both Donald Williams and Kahil Dandridge eventually fell into the 

bushes. (TT 342). Shortly thereafter, she heard a "pop sound" while still engaged in a 

light with Erika Johnson. (TT 341). "I heard somebody say, it's a gunshot. For a minute 

my body froze and then I responded and I went over to my husband and he was laying - his chest was laying on the ground forward with his head to the side I went over there 

and was checking him to see if he was okay, and if it's a gunshot where did he get hit." 

(TT 343). She stated that shortly after hearing the gunshot, she observed Defendant 

running hack to his residence. (TT 344). She also noted that he was holding a gun in his 

hand. (1' 344). As he was running, Rosella testified that his mother grabbed him and 

asked, "What did you just do?" (TT 344). She then went to check on Donald, and noted 

that she could not detect a pulse or any breathing, (11 345). 

Jennifer Blackwell testified that in December 2015, she was living near Defendant 

and the Williams's with her three sons. (TT 397). She stated that on the night of 

December 15, 2015, she was at home when she heard a loud fight occurring outside, with 

"just a lot of screaming and yelling." ('IT 400). She called 9-1-1 as she feared that the 

fight would escalate. (TT 401). Shortly thereafter, she heard a woman yell "Erik, Erik, 

what is that. No, put that away. Put that down. Put that back. No, Erik." She then heard 

screaming and a gunshot. (11 401). After she heard the gunshot, she again called 9-1-1. 

(Tr 402). 

Joshua Stanga, patrolman with the City of Arnold Police Department, testified that 

he was working the 4:00 p.m. to midnight shift on December 15, 2015 when he received 

a call for a large group lighting in the middle of the Taylor Avenue. He traveled to the 

7 
location to assist. (TT 418). As he was en route to the location, the dispatch was updated 

to note that shots had been fired. (TT 419), When he arrived at the scene, he observed 

two females standing over a male in the bushes. (TT 420). He cleared the scene and 

checked for the individual's pulse in the hushes. (TT 421). He did not detect any signs of 

life. (TT 423). After Sergeant Manke arrived and took over care for Donald Williams, he 

began to clear the scene and separate individuals, (TT 426). TTe then traveled to 

Defendant's residence and attempted to locate Defendant. (TT 429). Defendant's family 

was on the front porch; Officer Stanga did not note any injuries to Erika Johnson or any 

of the girls. He stated that Kahil Dandrige "had sonic cuts and blood on him," (TT 432), 

Erika Johnson told him that she did not know where Defendant went. (TT 429). Officer 

Stanga then performed a protective sweep of the residence, along with several members 

of the Lower Burrell and New Kensington police departments. (TT' 430). Defendant, nor 

any other individual, was located as a result of the sweep. (IT 437). 

That evening, he aided in securing a search warrant for Defendant's residence. He 

also interviewed Defendant's family members at the police station. (TT 439-40). Officer 

Stanga then issued a BOLO (be on the lookout) alert for Defendant, and infoiined law 

enforcement agencies that Defendant could be armed and dangerous. (TT 444). The next 

day, he traveled back to Defendant's residence at approximately 4:30 p.m. to further 

discuss the events of the previous day with Defendant's mother and stepfather. (TT 440). 

He also canvassed the immediate area, and spoke to neighbors to find any potential 

witnesses. (TT 441). On that date, Officer Stanga spoke to Jennifer Blackwell, who 

8 
described her recollections from the night of the crime. (TT 443). He also took her 

written statement. (TT 444). 

Forensic Pathologist Cyril Wccht testified that he performed an autopsy on Donald 

Williams on December 16, 2015. Doctor Wecht noted two injuries on Williams: a 

gunshot entrance wound below the right armpit and a three-inch laceration on the left side 

of the face. (TT 507). Doctor Wecht noted a heavy deposit of black carbonaceous 

pigment around the gunshot entrance wound, and no stippling. (TT 508). Doctor Wecht 

testified that this indicated that it was a contact wound, meaning that the gun's muzzle 

was in contact with the body at the time it was tired. Ca 508). Doctor Wecht's 

examination of Williams' chest revealed the following: 

[T]he bullet had gone in and then it went between the 7th and 

8th ribs on the right side, producing a little hit of fracturing of 

the bottom of the 7th rib and the top of the 8th rib, the bullet 

going into the intcrco[]stal area between the ribs, and then it 

went through the lower lobe of the right lung. The right lung 

has three lobe components, and then went across into the third 

thoracic vertcrbral body . . . At the third level down the bullet 

had gone down there and completely transected the spinal 

cord. 'The spinal cord is encased by a bony component of the 

vertebral body. It emerged from there and went through the 

left lung and came to rest in the left side of the chest where 

the bullet was recovered. 

(TT 516-17). 

Doctor Wecht determined that Donald Williams' cause of death was a gunshot wound to 

the thorax with perforation of the right and left lung resulting in heniothorax. (TT 519). 

Detective ITugh Shearer testified that on December 15, 2015, he was called to 

assist in the homicide investigation. (TT 547). While performing a walk-through of the 

9 
crime scene, Detective Shearer noted "clumps of hair out in the street, there [were] 

earrings, there was a lighter, there was a vehicle parked near the intersection not far away 

that had clumps of hair on the door handle." (TT 550). Tie stated that no weapons or shell 

casings could be located at the scene. (TT 556). Blood was also identified on the 

sidewalk near the hedges in which Donald Williams and Kahil Dandridge tussled. (TT 

563). The vehicle near the scene was also searched, and hedge clippings were found in 

the backseat. (TT 566). 

At approximately 3:00 a.m. on December 16, Detective Shearer traveled to the 

Arnold police station to photograph the injuries of the Dandridge family. (fl' 580). Upon 

photographing Kahil Dandridge, Detective Shearer did not note any major injuries, 

though he stated that he noticed swelling to the right eye. (TT 584). Kahn. also informed 

him that the blood found on the sidewalk belonged to him, and that he had blood in his 

nose and sinuses that he had spit up on the sidewalk. (TT 588). Based on that 

information, Detective Shearer also collected a DNA sample from Kahil. (TT 589). 

Detective Shearer first photographed daughter Sierra Johnson. He described her 

injuries as follows: 

She had cuts to the interior of her mouth. She had braces in 

her mouth. There was some bruising on the inside front of her 

lip. 'there was also some bruising on the inside in the front 

where her braces were. She had scratches on the right side of 

her face, her right and left biceps, her left elbow, right 

shoulder, lower hack, front of her neck, her left knee, left leg, 

right knee, right lower leg, and she had an impression welt in 

the skin that was about 2 inches by 1/2 inch[] that resembled 

the end of a leather belt or some type of belt that left a pattern 

impression on her left shoulder. 

(TT 593). 
He also noted that all of the injuries appeared to be superficial. ('fT 593). 

Detective Shearer also photographed daughter Mariah Serrano. He testified that 

she had far fewer injuries than her sister, although he noted that she had some swelling on 

her lower right back front contusions. (T1' 594). She also had scratches on her left eye, 

right hand, and right forearm. (TT 594). 

It was also noted by Detective Shearer that he believed that laceration on Donald 

Williams' face came from the thick hedges at the crime scene, as blood was also located 

on some of the broken hedges. (TT 603). Detective Shearer was also present at Donald 

Williams' autopsy, and recovered the bullet that was recovered therein. (TT 625). He 

noted that the bullet was fired front a 9mm revolver. (TT 625). 

The parties stipulated that on December 15, 2015, Defendant did not have a valid 

and lawfully issued license for carrying a firearm. 

Mariah Serrano, Defendant's half-sister, testified that when she and her family 

moved to the Arnold/New Kensington area in 2014, she and her sister Sierra began a 

contentious relationship with Kiara and Doniesha Williams, who attended the same 

school, (TT 771). She stated that the pairs physically fbught on two occasions, and that 

the police were called four or five times. (TT 771). She testified that while all parties 

were injured at some point during these lights, Doniesha and Kiara would sometimes 

bring males with them to the altercations, and that Doniesha and Kiara threatened to kill 

Mariah and her sister. (TT 772). She testified that, specifically, Doniesha and Kiara 

referred to them as "fucking bitches" and said "we'll kill you." (Tr 772). She also stated 
that on occasion, Defendant would walk her and her sister home out of fear of Doniesha 

and Kiara. (TT 773). 

She testified that at approximately 9:30 p.m. on December 15, 2015, she was 

washing dishes when Sierra and her friend, Breanna, ran into the house, grabbed their 

shoes, and ran outside. (T1' 775, 779). She stated that she instantly knew that something 

was wrong because of an incident that happened earlier in the evening wherein Doniesha 

had hit Defendant with a car door while he was walking down the street with his 

girlfriend, Rihanna. (TT 777). Mariah followed them outside along with Kahil Dandridge 

and Erika Johnson. (TT 779). AL that point, Mariah testified that she observed Doniesha 

in a dark car with three or four occupants. (TT 781). She testified that Doniesha shouted: 

"If I have to get out of this car and beat you bitches up, I'm going to fuck you all over if I 

have to get out." (TT. 782). Mariah stated that she then saw Kiara walking down the street 

toward them. (IT 783). She then pulled her belt off and began to wield it like a weapon. 

(TT 783). She informed Mariah: "I'm going to strangle you, I want your head and I'm 

going to beat you like your mother should." (TT 784). 

Mariali testified that her mother sent Breanna into the house to call 9-1-1. (TT 

784). She also stated that Donald and Rosella Williams arrived on the scene shortly 

thereafter, and that Donald Williams told Defendant, "I'm going to kill you nigger, and 

I'm going to beat you." (TT 788). She also stated that Donald began punching her father, 

Kahil Dandridge, before knocking him to the ground. (FI' 788). She stated that while 

Kahil eventually ended up being hit, he was originally aiming for Defendant. (TT 788). 

She testified that at that point, both groups began to fight, and that Kiara was chasing her 

12 
with a belt, yelling "I'm going to beat your ass when this pops off." (TT 790). She 

testified that Rosella "had [Erika Johnson] by her hair and she was just punching her and 

she was fighting her. Over to my right Donald [Willirns] and [Kalil' Dandridge] had 

made it over to the bushes and [Williams] was choking my dad and Sierra was getting . , . 

jumped." (TT 791). She stated that she never saw Defendant with a gun, nor did she 

know that he owned one. (TT 793). 

Sierra Johnson testified that she was afraid of Doniesha and Kiara Williams, and 

that there feuds had resulted in the police coming to their bus stop to make sure that a 

physical fight did not break out. (TT 852). She also testified that she would sometimes 

ask Defendant to accompany her when she walked outside for protection from the two 

girls. (TT 853). She stated that on the evening of December 15, 2015, she had walked to 

her friend Awaun's home in New Kensington. (TI' 855). She stated that when it was time 

to walk home, she called her mother, Erika Johnson, and asked if Defendant could meet 

and walk home with her. (TT 856). Shortly thereafter, Defendant and his girlfriend, 

Rihanna, arrived to accompany her home. (TT 856). Defendant informed her that on his 

way to Awaun's home, Doniesha had tried to swing and hit them with a car door when 

they walked past the Williams' household. (TT 859). After the group returned home, she, 

Defendant, Rihanna, and Breanna walked outside to smoke cigarettes. (TT 860). She 

testified that at the point: 

We were standing there and a car drove up North and turned 

onto their side of the street. I asked my brother [Defendant] 

and his girlfriend, was that the car they was talking about and 

they said yes. We kind of stood there and they backed out and 

turned . . . The window was rolled down and Doniesha called 

13 
my brother over, that's when [Defendant's] girlfriend started 

walking toward the car so [Defendant] followed behind her. I 

didn't know how many people were in the car, so me and my 

friend went inside the house to get some shoes on . . . [Doniesha] was yelling at my brother and his girlfriend, 

telling my brother's girlfriend to shut up and, like, saying that 

she was going to fight her . . Doniesha pulled out her phone 

and she was, like . . . get the fuck out here, it's about to go 

down, 

(TT 859-60). 

Shortly thereafter, Sierra testified that Donald Williams, Rosella Williams, Kiara, 

and Tazzmine arrived on the scene. (TT 863). Sierra testified that as Kiara walked down 

the street toward the group, she began swinging her belt in the air and exclaimed, "Get 

the fuck out of the car, we're going to fuck these bitches up." (T1' 864). She testified that 

Doniesha and four males then exited the car, and the fight commenced. (TT 865). She 

testified that Donald Williams yelled to Defendant, "Pm going to kill you, nigger" as he 

attempted to punch him. (TT 866). She testified that, she saw Kiara chasing her sister 

Mariah with a belt, and that she and Doniesha fought in the bushes. (TT 872). She stated 

that approximately one minute after she heard the gunshot, she was able to extricate 

herself from the bushes, and that the fight only ended when police arrived on the scene. 

(TT 877, 879). 

Erika Johnson, Defendant's mother, testified that she was aware that her daughters 

Mariah and Sierra were feuding with Doneisha and Kiara Williams, and that on the 

evening of December 15, 2015, she traveled outside her home to meet with Defendant 

and Sierra as a result of that feud. (TT 919, 922). Specifically, she stated that Defendant 

called her and stated that there was "an issue" when they passed the Willimns' home that 

14 
evening. Defendant stated "that there were threats being said and he just asked if me and 

Kahil could meet him to get home safely." 922). She testified that she met with the 

group and they made it home without incident. ('F1' 923). She testified that Rihanna, 

Breanna, Defendant, and Sierra were all sitting outside on the porch when Breanna ran 

into the house and then ran hack outside. (TT 924). At that point, "I knew there was 

already some words exchanged with the Williams family, so I assumed it was something 

that had to do with that so I ran out behind them." (TT 924). 

When she walked outside, she observed "a dark -colored car in the intersection. We 

live right by the corner and it was shouting - the people in the car were shouting and my 

children were shouting things back . ." (TT 925). Although she stated that she told her 

children to go back inside the house, they did not do so. (TT 927). Within minutes, 

Donald and Rosella Williams appeared on the scene. (TT 927). At that point, Erika and 

Rosella began "exchanging words" and a physical fight ensued. (TT 929). She stated that 

Donald Williams was "going after" Defendant, stating, "I'm going to kill you, little 

nigger," (TT 930). She testified that Kahil Dandridge `jumped in between that," Shortly 

thereafter, she stated that Donald Williams punched her in the face, as well as 

Defendant's girlfriend, Rihanna. (TT 930). She stated that Rihanna "flew backwards. She 

was only about 90 pounds soaking wet so she hit the ground." (TT 931). Although she 

testified that she had been punched by Donald Williams, she stated that the punch had not 

left any mark on her face. (TT 955). 

She stated that even after she heard a gunshot, the fighting continued for minutes 

longer. (TT 939). She testified that she did not see who shot the gun. (TT 959). At some 

15 
point thereafter, Kahil tried to pick Donald Williams off the ground, ;nd asked, "Hey bro, 

are you okay?" (TT 961). 

After the police arrived, Erika and her family (with the exception of Defendant) 

walked back Lo their front porch. (TT 941). Erika stated that she did not know where 

Defendant went, nor did she see him until he turned himself in a few days later. (TT 942). 

Kahil Dandrige testified that on the evening of the crime, he was relaxing after 

work at approximately 9 p.m. when he heard yelling and screaming coming from outside 

the home. (TT 984). Ile said that as the fights began, Donald Williams approached him 

and punched him in the face. (TT 988). Kahil also stated that Donald Williams stated to 

him: "I'm going to get this little nigger's ass behind you, I'm going to fuck him up, you 

have a lot of nerve walking in front of my house." (TT 989). At that point, Kahil testified 

that Donald Williams kept fighting him, and that he had to block attempted blows to 

Defendant (TT 989). He stated: 

At that time I got up :n d I knocked him into the bushes where 

he landed on top of me. He had one of his arms across my 

neck. He said, I'm going to fuck you up. After I fuck you up 

I'm going to get up and I am going to beat the shit out of that 

little nigger behind you. I'm going to take care of you first. 

All I see is black. I see a tunnel and little light of tunnel. I'm 

trying to force him off of me . . I had someone on top of me 

choking my life away. Then just as everything was starting to 

get blurry and dark, my situation got lighter and Mr. Donald . 

. . it felt like he just gave up on it. 

(TT 990-91). 

ITe stated that at some point while Donald Williams' forearm was on his throat, he 

attempted to call out for help. The Commonwealth asked: 

16 
ADA: At what point were you yelling out for help with his 

arm on your throat? 

Kahil: Well, I'm yelling out help and it's coming out more 

along the lines of as if someone is choking you, like, help, 

(indicating) like that. 

ADA: You're not able to breathe but you're able to speak? 

Kahil: Whatever air I had I was yelling out. I couldn't get this 

man off of my chest. 

ADA: Well, let me ask you this. Have you ever been choked? 

Ka.hil: I've soon people choke[dl. Usually what happens is 

they can't talk. 

(IT 1008-09), 

Kahil testified that he never heard a gunshot. (TT 995). He stated that there were no 

visible marks or injuries to his neck from the fight. (TT 1018). Kahil also testified that he 

did not recall officers coming to his home the day after the crime; specifically, he stated 

"I don't remember the next day." (TT 1015). 

Defendant testified that Mariah and Sierra had informed him that they were scared 

of Kiara and Doniesha. (T1' 1044). He stated that he would walk his sisters home "every 

day" as a result of that fear, (TI' 1044). Defendant also stated that a week before the 

crime, he had seen Donald Williams while he and Rhianna were walking to the store. Ile 

related: 

As we are walking past [the Williams' house', Donald U is 

outside. He is on the sidewalk. We're walking past and he is 

just staring at us. He didn't say anything to us. We didn't say 

anything to him. We walk past the house, like, a block away 

and then I see a car flying down the street towards us. It was a 

silver truck. He got in the truck. When the truck got on us 

Donald hops out of the car with a gun. Ile is screaming, Fin 

from the Hill District, I will hurt you, I will fucking kill you. 

When he said that to me and Rifaanna we just kept walking. 

He hopped in the car. He got back in his car and he just was 

17 
screaming out the window, I'll hurt you little boy, you don't 

know who I am. We kept walking and he eventually just 

drove off. 

("II 1048-49). 

Defendant testified that when the fight broke out on the evening of December 15, 

2015, Donald arrived at the scene by walking up the street and exclaiming "I'm going to 

fucking kill one of you all." (FT 1059). At that point, Defendant staled that Kahil 

Dandrige slopped Donald from harming him, and Kahil and Donald began to fight.4 (TT 

1060). While the fight was ongoing, Defendant "was watching everything unfold." (TT 

1061). Defendant stated that he had a .38 Dillinger [sic] because when he first moved to 

New Kensington, someone had given it to him. (TT 1063). He stated: "I'm not from this 

area. New Kensington is a dangerous neighborhood. There's a lot of criminal activity. I 

just had the gun. I just had it to protect myself." (TT 1063). 

At some point in the melee, Defendant approached Kahil Dandrige and Donald 

Williams. He testified Donald Williams was choking Kahil Dandrige, and saying, "I'm 

going to fucking kill you, I'm going to kill you." (TT 1064). He stated that he attempted 

to pull Donald Williams off of Kahil Dandrige, but was unsuccessful. (TI' 1064). He 

further testified: 

I seen my dad. He started moving slower and slower. I don't 

know. I'm asking Donald to - I'm trying to pull him off but T can't pull him off. I had a gun in my pocket. I pulled the gun 

and I shot Donald just to get him off my dad. 

(TT 1065). 

' The Court notes that although Defendant referred to Kahil Dandridge as his father, Defendant stated that he is not 

biologically related to him and Kahil was not married to Defendant's mother, Erika Johnson, at the time of the 

offense. (TT 979, 1083). 

18 
After Defendant shot Donald Williams, he attempted to break up some of the other 

fights. (TT 1066). He stated that when he saw the police coming, he "just ran." (TT 

1066). Defendant turned himself in a few days later at the Arnold Police Department. (TT 

1067). 

The Commonwealth inquired as to whether Defendant took any steps to protect his 

father using non -lethal force prior to shooting him. The relevant exchange is as follows: 

ADA: Did you pistol whip Donald in the hack of the head? 

Defendant: No. As soon as I pulled it out I just shot him. It 

happened fast. 

ADA: So you didn't hit him in the back of the head with a 

gun? 

Defendant: N o. 

ADA: You didn't say, hey, Donald, I have a gun? 

Defendant: He -I didn't say that. 

ADA: Did you shoot one in the air like a cowboy? 

Defendant: No, I - at that moment I was trying to get Donald 

off my dad. I didn't have time to think about - I didn't have 

the time to think about that at all. I was trying to get him off 

my dad. 

ADA: Did you shoot him in the leg? 

Defendant: No, I shot him in the side. 

. ADA: The gun is touching Donald? 

Defendant: Yes. 

ADA: So you could choose wherever you wanted to put that 

gun on his body, right? 

Defendant: I didn't . . . I felt like I didn't have time. 

ADA: You didn't have time to shoot him in the foot? 

Defendant: I wasn't thinking about where I'm going to shoot 

him. I was just trying to get him off my dad. 

(TT 1085-87). 

Gary Schubert, a retired police officer for the City of New Kensington Police 

Department, testified that he spoke to Ka-hil Dandridge on the night of the crime after he 

19 
was dispatched to aid in the investigation. He testified that when he asked what had 

happened, Kahil: 

Mooked over at the sidewalk, the gentleman was laying 

down. He said that this guy's daughter came up merely to 

start some shit, then a fight broke out, and then he came up 

and got involved in the fight. That's when I got up. I got in a 

fight with him. He missed me. I hit him and nobody got shot. 

(TT 1096). 

Schubert stated that Kahil never mentioned being choked. (TT 1096). 

Westmoreland County Detective Randy Gardner testified that he interviewed 

Kahil Dandridge at the Arnold Police Station shortly after the crime occurred. (TT 1101- 

02). He stated that at no point did Kahil inform him that he had been choked by Donald 

Williams, or that he believed his life was in danger. (TT 1102). 

In his post -sentence motions, Defendant avers that there was not sufficient 

evidence to convict him of first degree murder, and, in the alternative, that the jury's 

verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant also argues that "the Court 

erred in refusing to allow the Defendant and/or his witnesses to outline specific threats 

and details of incidents of altercations between the Defendant's family and the victim's 

family in the [preceding] months prior to the death of the victim." 

ANALYSIS: 

I. WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT' 

DEFENDANT OF MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE? 

Defendant first avers that the jury did not have sufficient evidence to convict him 

of first degree murder. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, a court must: 

20 
Meterrnine whether the evidence admitted at trial, and all 

reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in a light most 

favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, support the 

conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Where there is sufficient 

evidence to enable the trier of fact to find every element of the crime 

has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of 

the evidence claim must fail. 

Comm. v. Feliciano, 67 A.3d 19, 23-24 (Pa.Super.2013). 

Further, the evidence presented at trial need not preclude every possibility of 

innocence. The Superior Court in Feliciano established that: 

[Tjhe fact -finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence 

presented. It is not within the province of this Court to re -weigh the 

evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact -finder. The 

Commonwealth's burden may be met by wholly circumstantial 

evidence and any doubt about the defendant's guilt is to he resolved 

by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive 

that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the 

combined circumstances. Additionally, in applying the above test, 

the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually 

received must be considered. 

Id. 

To convict a defendant of first degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove: a 

human being was unlawfully killed; the defendant was responsible for the killing; and the 

defendant acted with malice and a specific intent to kill. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 

2502(a); Comm. v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128 (Pa. 2011). The Commonwealth may use 

solely circumstantial evidence to prove a killing was intentional, and the fact -finder "may 

infer that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim based on the defendant's 

use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the victim's body." //miser, 18 A.3d at 1133- 

34. Moreover, while evidence of flight alone is not sufficient to convict one of a crime, 

such evidence is relevant and admissible to establish an inference of guilt. Comm v. Gorby, 588 A.2d 902 (Pa. 1991). 

21 
Here, Defendant introduced evidence of a justification defense: specifically, 

defense of others. When the defendant introduces such evidence, the Commonwealth 

bears the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Comm. v. Torres, 

766 A.2d 342, 345 (Pa. 2001). "[Tlhe Commonwealth cannot sustain its burden of proof 

solely on the factfinder's disbelief of the defendant's testimony. The 'disbelief of a denial 

does not, taken alone, afford affirmative proof that the denied fact existed so as to satisfy 

a proponents burden of proving that fact.' "Id. (quoting Comm. v. Graham, 596 A.2d 

1117, 111g (Pa. 1991)). The Commonwealth can negate a self-defense 

or defense of others claim if it proves the defendant did not reasonably believe he was in 

imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and it was necessary to use deadly force 

to save himself or another from that danger. Comm. v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108, 1124 

(Pa. 2012). Likewise, the Commonwealth can negate the self-defense claim by proving 

the defendant "used greater force than was reasonably necessary to protect against death 

or serious bodily injury." Comm. V. Truong, 36 A.3d 592, 599 (Pa.Super. 2012) 

The Crimes Code details that the use of force for the protection of other persons is 

justified where: (1) the actor would be justified . . in using such force to protect himself 

against the injury, he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;5 

(2) under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to 

protect would be justified in using such protective force; and (3) the actor believes that 

his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person. 18 Pa.CS.4. § 506. 

The relevant portion of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §505 (a) reads: the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable 

when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting hinisclf against the 

use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion. 

22 
The Commonwealth introduced sufficient evidence to disprove the defense of 

others beyond a reasonable doubt. While Kahl]. Dandrige stated that he was being choked 

to such an extent that he nearly lost consciousness, there were no injuries to his neck, (TT 

1018). Moreover, Detective Gardner and Officer Schubert testified that when Kahil gave 

them his story of what had happened during the tight, he did not inform either of them 

that he was being choked, or that he was in fear for his life, Officer Schubert testified that 

Kahil informed him that "I got in a fight with him. He missed me. I hit him and nobody 

got shot," (TT 1096), Moreover, Erika Johnson testified that after Donald Williams was 

shot, Kahl]. Dandridge, who testified that he nearly lost consciousness and was afraid he 

would lose his life after Donald Williams choked him, tried to pick Donald Williams off 

the ground, and asked, "Hey bro, are you okay?" (TT 961). 

While Defendant stated that he shot Donald Williams so that he would stop 

choking Kahil, Defendant testified that he did not warn. Donald Williams that he had a 

gun, nor did he attempt to shoot him in a non -lethal location. (TT 1086-88). When asked 

why he did not shoot him in the hand or foot instead of the chest, which Defendant knew 

contained vital organs, Defendant simply stated that he did not think he had time, and that 

he was "not thinking about where I'm going to shoot him," (TT 1086-87). 

Jennifer Blackwell, the only non -law enforcement witness presented who was not 

part of Defendant or Victim's family, testified that immediately prior to hearing a 

gunshot, she heard a woman yell, "Erik, Erik, what is that. No, put that away. Put that 

down. Put that hack. No, Erik." (TT 402), This testimony directly conflicted with much 

23 
of Defendant and his family's testimony. While Defendant testified that he did not have 

time to think of using non -lethal force against Donald Williams, Blackwell's testimony 

supports the notion that Defendant was urged by someone on the scene not to shoot 

Donald Williams at all, and that there was time and opportunity available to not kill him. 

Defendant also fled from the scene immediately upon the police arriving. While this 

evidence alone would not be sufficient to convict Defendant, such evidence does raise an 

inference of guilt. 

Thus, the jury's verdict, and rejection of the defense of others justification, was 

not based solely on disbelief of Defendant's testimony, and was supported by sufficient 

evidence. Defendant testified that he was aware that Donald Williams' vital organs were 

contained within his chest where he was shot, and that he put a revolver against 

Williams' body near the armpit and pulled the trigger. 

IL WHETHER THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT 0I? THE 

E VIDE N CE? 

Defendant next alleges that the guilty verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 

When a defendant raises a weight of the evidence claim, it is a trial court's role to 

determine whether "notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater 

weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny 

justice." In re 106 A3 d 76, 95 (Pa. 2014). A trial court should award a new trial if 

the verdict of the fact -tinder "is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of 

justice and the award of a new trial is imperative so that right may be given another 

opportunity to prevail." /d. Moreover, "[a] weight of the evidence claim concedes that the 

24 
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." Comm. v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053, 1067 (Pa. 2013). 

The Court notes that "the trier of fact, while passing upon the credibility of witnesses 

and the weight of the evidence, is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence." 

Comm. v. Diggs, 949 A.2d 873, 878 (Pa. 2008); see also Comm. v. Consar, 928 A.2d 

1025, 1032-33 (Pa. 2007). 

As noted, sti_pra, there was conflicting testimony from both families in this case. 

Although Defendant testified that Donald Williams had threatened him both days prior to 

and during the family melee, the jury did not believe that he was in actual fear for his 

step -father's life when he shot him. Because the jury disbelieved Defendant's testimony 

regarding his justification defense, and Defendant admitted that he did shoot and kill 

Donald Williams, it found Defendant guilty of murder of the first degree. The verdict in 

this case is not so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. Thus, the 

verdict in this case was not against the weight of the evidence. 

HI WHETHER THE COURT ERRED BY NOT ADMITTING 

TESTIMONY FROM DEFENDANT AND HIS FAMILY OUTLINING 

SPECIFIC THREATS FROM VICTIM'S FAMILY? 

Last, Defendant avers that defense witnesses should have been able to testify about a 

wide range of arguments between the feuding girls of both families in the months 

preceding the death of Donald Williams. Prior to the start of the trial, Attorney Karsh 

stated that he wanted to introduce testimony from Defendant's sisters that "bad blood 

25 
almost immediately ensued." (TT 202). He staled that they would testify that Mariah was 

having a relationship with Doniesha's boyfriend, and this caused fights to ensure on 

Taylor Avenue and at school. (TT 202). He further stated that Defendant "was involved 

in vocal altercations with threatening language with the sisters and friends of theirs who 

drove by in vehicles yelling various epithets and threats." (TT 202). The court stated that 

the fact that "bad blood" existed between the families was relevant to the defense of 

justification, but elaborated: 

The Court: . . we don't need every single word that was 

said in these altercations, just that there were altercations. I'm 

sure you don't intend to do that. We're not going into a trial 

within a trial. You can certainly elicit the fact that there was 

bad blood, as you said, between your client's siblings and the 

children of Mr. Williams. You can do that. 

(TT 204). 

Later in the trial, defense counsel sought to introduce testimony from Erika 

Johnson stating that there was prior contact between herself and R.osella Wiliams, and 

that Rosella told her that she would kill her. (TT 723). Attorney Marsh staled that Erika 

Johnson told Defendant about this interaction. (TT 729). The Court responded that the 

defense could introduce testimony from Erika Johnson that there was animus between the 

girls. ('I'T 735). It also stated that she could not relate that Rosella told her that she would 

kill her, as it was not relevant since l{osella was not a victim in the case. 

At trial, evidence was introduced that there was a great deal of animus between the 

girls of the two families. Mariah Serrano testified that the pairs physically fought on two 

occasions, and that the police were called four or five times. (TT 771). She testified that 
Doniesha and Kiara threatened to kill Mariah and her sister. (TT 772). She testified that, 

specifically, Doniesha and Kiara referred to them as "fucking bitches" and said 'We'll kill 

you." (T1' 772). She also stated that on occasion, Defendant would walk her and her sister 

honic out of fear of Doniesha and Kiara. (TT 773). Sierra Johnson also testified to the 

physical feuds which occurred between the girl.S. 

Defendant testified that Mariah and Sierra had informed him that they were scared 

of Kiara and Doniesha. (rr 1044). He stated that he would walk his sisters home "every 

day" because his sisters were afraid of the girls (IT 1044). 

It is well -established that: 

The admission of evidence is a matter vested within the sound 

discretion of the trial court, and such a decision shall be 

reversed only upon a showing that the trial court abused 

its discretion. In determining whether evidence should be 

admitted, the trial court must weigh the relevant and 

probative value of the evidence against the prejudicial impact 

of the evidence. Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to 

establish a material fact in the case or tends to support a 

reasonable inference regarding a material fact. Although a 

court may find that evidence is relevant, the court may 

nevertheless conclude that such evidence is inadmissible on 

account of its prejudicial impact. 

Comm. v. Weakley, 972 A.2d 1182, 1188 (Pa.Super. 

2009) (quoting Comm. v. Reid, 811 A.2d 530, 550 (Pa. 

2002)). 

Further, "an abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but is rather 

the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment that is manifestly 

unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill -will or partiality, as shown by 

the evidence of record." The threshold inquiry with admission of evidence is whether 

the evidence is relevant. "I ,vidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material 

27 
fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable, or supports a 

reasonable inference or presumption regarding the existence of a material fact" Comm. 

v. Spiewak, 617 A.2d 696, 699 (Pa. 1992). 

In this case, the Court permitted the admission of a plethora of evidence regarding 

the relationship between the families of Defendant and Victim, as discussed, supra. It 

determined, however, that specific evidence (e.g. that Mariah was in a relationship with 

Doniesha's boyfriend, or that Rosella Williams previously told Erika Johnson that she 

would kill her) was not relevant to the case. The Court elaborated that the main issue in 

the case was whether Defendant reasonably believed that Kahl]. Dandridge was at risk of 

death or grave bodily injury during his fight with Kahil Dandridge. The fact that Rosella 

Williams had threatened Erika Johnson did not m.ake Defendant's specific fear of Donald 

Williams more or less probable, nor did specific incidents between the girls that did not 

involve Donald Williams. Had the Victim in the case been Doniesha or Kiara Williams, 

certainly, the Court would have permitted Lesthnony regarding particular occurrences 

involving the girls; similarly, if Rosella Williams been the Victim, her threats toward 

Erika Johnson (with Defendant's knowledge) would have been relevant. As the testimony 

deemed inadmissible was not relevant, the Court did not err or abuse its discretion. 

28 
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WESTMORELAND COUNTY, 

PENNSYLVANIA - GRIND:NAL DIVISION 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

VS. 

ERIK LAMONT REED, JR., 

Defendant. 

No, 87 C 2016 

ORDER OF COURT 

Aria) NOW, this day of March, 2018, for the reasons set forth in the preceding 

Opinion, Defendant's post -sentence motions are hereby DENIED. 

Tlie Defendant is notified that any appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from this 

court's denial of his post -sentence motions must he filed within thirty (30) days from the date of 

this Order of Court. If the Defendant chooses to appeal the denial of the Post Sentence Motions, 

the Defendant will continue to he represented by Attorney Timothy Andrews. 

ATTEST: 

Clerk of Courts 

BY THE COURT: 

J. 

Rita Donovan. Hathaway, President Judge 

c.c. File 

Peter Caravcllo, Esq., Assistant District Attorney 

Timothy Andrews, Esq., Counsel for Defendant 

Pamela. Niudorheiser, Esq., Court Administrator's Office 

2.9