Court Opinion

ID: 9401899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 16:07:42.984856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:56.012299
License: Public Domain

J-S06022-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    WILBERTO MELENDEZ                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 486 MDA 2022

                  Appeal from the Order Entered March 3, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-36-CR-0002279-2018

BEFORE:      STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                               FILED JUNE 14, 2023

        Appellant Wilberto Melendez appeals from the order denying his motion

to dismiss and bar retrial on charges of criminal homicide and related offenses.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss

the charges on double jeopardy grounds. We affirm.

        The trial court summarized the facts and procedural history as follows:

        By criminal information . . . [Appellant has been] charged with
        allegedly having committed the offenses of criminal homicide;
        firearms not to be carried without a license; persons not to
        possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms; and
        intimidation of witnesses or victims. Said charges stem from a
        shooting alleged to have occurred on October 27, 2017, in the 300
        block of Marshall Street in the City and County of Lancaster.

        Following selection of a jury, trial initially commenced in the
        instant matter on May 14, 2019. On May 21, 2019, during the
        sixth day of testimony, a Commonwealth witness testified to
        statements purportedly made by [Appellant] boasting that he had
____________________________________________

*   Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S06022-23

     committed a prior killing, had beaten that charge, and was going
     to beat the current charges as well. Prior to the commencement
     of trial, the attorney for the Commonwealth [indicated] that he
     had affirmatively instructed all Commonwealth witnesses not to
     discuss such matter[s]. Additionally, at this time, the attorney for
     the Commonwealth indicated that he had not elicited, and was
     surprised by, . . . such testimony. Due to the prejudicial nature
     of such testimony, the court granted [Appellant’s] motion and
     granted a mistrial.

     The second trial in the instant matter commenced with jury
     selection on May 10, 2021. On this date, a meeting occurred at
     the Lancaster City Bureau of [Police] Headquarters between
     Assistant District Attorney Cody Wade [(ADA Wade)], Detective
     Sergeant Robert Whiteford, and Antasia Bair to prepare Ms. Bair
     for her trial testimony. At the evidentiary hearing relative to
     [Appellant’s] instant motion, [ADA] Wade credibly testified that
     this meeting had not previously occurred due to scheduling
     concerns. During this meeting, Ms. Bair reviewed her prior
     statements and testimony, received a preview of what to expect
     at trial, and was admonished by [ADA] Wade to tell the truth and
     avoid reference to any improper subjects during her trial
     testimony. This meeting was not recorded, nor were any verbatim
     or substantially verbatim recordings generated from this meeting.
     During this meeting, Ms. Bair mentioned certain things which were
     relevant to the matter which were not previously disclosed or
     varied from the information that she had previously provided to
     the investigators. This information included claims that she had
     seen Ernest Talton possess a firearm during the evening in
     question and that she heard Ernest Talton admonish someone,
     whom she believed to be [Appellant], that he should not harm the
     victim. In addition, at this time, Ms. Bair indicated that she
     observed [Appellant] “choke up” Quetesha Payne [in the parking
     lot of] a Turkey Hill convenience store in the early morning hours
     [during a confrontation involving Appellant, Talton, and the
     victim] preceding the homicide. [ADA] Wade credibly testified
     that he had no reason to believe the veracity of this representation
     as it was not supported by any other evidence in this matter.
     [ADA] Wade further credibly testified that he instructed Ms. Bair
     during this meeting that they were not going to discuss this topic
     during her trial testimony. Specifically, [ADA] Wade instructed
     Ms. Bair that her trial testimony would be limited in scope to what
     was developed during her testimony at the prior trial and in her
     prior statements to the investigators. [ADA] Wade credibly

                                    -2-
J-S06022-23

     testified that he believed that Ms. Bair was sufficiently cautioned
     and that she understood that this allegation would not be
     introduced during her testimony at the upcoming trial. Following
     this meeting, [ADA] Wade instructed Detective Sergeant
     Whiteford to prepare a supplemental report regarding this
     meeting. Detective Sergeant Whiteford prepared such a report,
     although this report did not include any reference to Ms. Bair’s
     claims regarding [Appellant] purportedly placing his hands upon
     Ms. Payne. At the evidentiary hearing held in this matter,
     Detective Sergeant Whiteford testified that he did not hear Ms.
     Bair make such comments.          This supplemental report was
     provided to counsel for [Appellant] on May 12, 2021.

     On May 13, 2021, prior to the commencement of testimony for
     the day, the court met with counsel for the parties outside the
     presence of the jury. At this time, discussion was had regarding
     the meeting with Ms. Bair. Specifically, Ms. Bair’s claims regarding
     certain statements allegedly made by Ernest Talton were
     addressed and the parties specifically agreed that this topic would
     not be introduced at trial. Contrary to the representations
     contained in [Appellant’s] memorandum [of law in support of his
     motion to dismiss and bar retrial], the record does not
     demonstrate any reference to remedies or discharge of
     [Appellant] should this topic be introduced at trial. Additionally,
     at this time, there was no reference made by counsel regarding
     Ms. Bair’s allegations that [Appellant] had “choked up” Ms. Payne.

     On May 14, 2021, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of
     Antasia Bair at trial. It is noted that Ms. Bair was not an
     eyewitness to the homicide.          Based upon the credible
     representations made by the attorneys for the Commonwealth,
     Ms. Bair was presented to provide testimony regarding her
     observations of the argument which occurred at the Turkey Hill
     convenience store [parking lot] prior to the homicide, as well as
     her knowledge of certain prior consistent statements made by an
     eyewitness to the homicide which identified [Appellant] as the
     shooter. During her testimony, Ms. Bair reiterated her claim that
     [Appellant] had “choked up” Ms. Payne at the Turkey Hill. Again,
     this allegation had not been referenced by Ms. Bair during her
     testimony at the first trial and was not contained in any of her
     prior statements. At this point, counsel for [Appellant] moved for
     a mistrial on the basis that such testimony was prejudicial to
     [Appellant] and was not provided to defense counsel through
     discovery.

                                    -3-
J-S06022-23

       Extensive argument was held on the record outside the presence
       of the jury. During this argument, [ADA] Wade indicated that he
       recalled Ms. Bair informing him at the recent meeting about
       [Appellant] and Ms. Payne “getting into it”, but he couldn’t recall
       what she had specifically told him. Additionally, at this time,
       [ADA] Wade informed that court that he had instructed Ms. Bair
       not to discuss this topic during her testimony. After consideration
       of providing the jury with a strong curative instruction, the court
       granted [Appellant’s] motion for a mistrial in light of the serious
       nature of the instant matter.

       On June 24, 2021, counsel for [Appellant] filed a motion to dismiss
       and bar retrial. After consultation with counsel regarding their
       availability, by order dated July 1, 2021, this court scheduled an
       evidentiary hearing relative to [Appellant’s] motion for September
       16, 2021.

       In addition to the testimony noted above, at [the September 16,
       2021] hearing, [ADA] Wade credibly testified that he did not seek
       to elicit any testimony from Ms. Bair regarding any physical
       contact between [Appellant] and Ms. Payne. [ADA] Wade further
       credibly testified that he was not seeking to cause a mistrial or
       prejudice [Appellant].       [ADA] Wade testified that the
       Commonwealth was pleased with the progression of the trial and
       that the award of a mistrial did not place the Commonwealth in a
       more advantageous position.[1]

Trial Ct. Op. & Order, 3/3/22, at 1-5 (citations and footnotes omitted;

formatting altered).

       On March 3, 2022,2 the trial court filed an opinion and order denying
____________________________________________

1 Detective Sergeant Whiteford also testified at the September 16, 2021
hearing. See N.T. Hr’g, 9/16/21, at 59-75.

2We note that although the trial court’s opinion and order denying Appellant’s
motion to dismiss was time-stamped and entered on the docket on March 2,
2022, the docket entries reflect that the trial court served the parties with a
copy of the opinion and order on March 3, 2022. See Commonwealth v.
Jerman, 762 A.2d 366, 368 (Pa. Super. 2000) (stating that “[i]n a criminal
case, the date of entry of an order is the date the clerk of courts enters the
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -4-
J-S06022-23

Appellant’s motion to dismiss.3 See id. at 16-18. Appellant filed a timely

notice of appeal and a timely court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. In

lieu of a Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court issued an order incorporating its

March 3, 2022 opinion and order. See Trial Ct. Order, 6/17/22.4

        On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for review:

        Whether [the] trial court erred in denying [Appellant’s] motion for
        dismissal and barring retrial on double jeopardy grounds due to
        reckless prosecutorial conduct[?]

Appellant’s Brief at 4 (formatting altered).

        Appellant argues that double jeopardy bars retrial in this case because

the trial court declared a mistrial due to the Commonwealth’s misconduct. Id.

at 6-23. In support, Appellant alleges two specific instances of prosecutorial

misconduct: (1) a Brady5 violation relating to the Commonwealth’s failure to

____________________________________________

order on the docket, furnishes a copy of the order to the parties, and records
the time and manner of notice on the docket” (citations omitted)); see also
Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C)(2)(c); Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1), (d)(1).

3 The trial court also found that Appellant’s motion was not frivolous. See
Trial Ct. Op. & Order at 17. “If the trial court enters an order denying the
motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds and in doing so, makes no
finding, in writing, that the motion is frivolous, then the order is a collateral
order    under     [Pa.R.A.P.]  313     and    is   immediately     appealable.”
Commonwealth v. Kemick, 240 A.3d 214, 217 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations
omitted); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B).

4 The trial court’s order adopting its prior opinion and order was time-stamped
and entered on the docket on March 29, 2022, but the docket entries indicate
that the trial court served the parties with a copy of this order on June 17,
2022. See Jerman, 762 A.2d at 368; Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(C)(2)(c).

5   Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

                                           -5-
J-S06022-23

disclose Ms. Bair’s statement that Appellant had choked Payne on the night of

the murder; and (2) the Commonwealth improperly elicited testimony about

the choking incident from Ms. Bair in violation of Pa.R.E. 404(b). Id. at 9-10.

      First, regarding the alleged Brady violation, Appellant contends that the

Commonwealth possessed Ms. Bair’s statement “after trial began and

intentionally withheld them from the defense until after a mistrial was

declared.” Id. at 14. Appellant claims that the Commonwealth’s failure to

disclose Ms. Bair’s new statement satisfies all three prongs of the Brady

standard because (1) the new statement was favorable impeachment material

because it was inconsistent with Ms. Bair’s prior testimony and statements

and was inconsistent with the testimony of other witnesses; (2) the

prosecution willfully suppressed the new statement because it was not

included in Detective Sergeant Whiteford’s report of Ms. Bair’s interview; and

(3) Appellant was prejudiced by the admission of evidence relating to his other

bad acts. Id. at 19-21. Appellant concludes that the Commonwealth’s Brady

violation was intentional misconduct which bars retrial.     Id. at 17-18, 21

(citing, inter alia, Commonwealth v. Smith, 615 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1992)).

      Appellant also argues that the Commonwealth engaged in prosecutorial

misconduct by failing to adequately prepare Ms. Bair as a witness for trial. Id.

at 21-23. Appellant contends that ADA Wade’s testimony established that he

did not adequately prepare Ms. Bair so she would not testify as to the choking

incident, which is an inadmissible prior bad act.       Id. at 22.    Appellant

concludes double jeopardy bars retrial because the Commonwealth’s

                                     -6-
J-S06022-23

misconduct    here   “is   tantamount   to   the   level   of   recklessness   in

[Commonwealth v. Johnson, 231 A.3d 807 (Pa. 2020)].” Id. at 23.

     Our standard and scope of review in this case are as follows:

     An appeal grounded in double jeopardy raises a question of
     constitutional law. This Court’s scope of review in making a
     determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary. As with
     all questions of law, the appellate standard of review is de novo.
     To the extent that the factual findings of the trial court impact its
     double jeopardy ruling, we apply a more deferential standard of
     review to those findings.

     Where issues of credibility and weight of the evidence are
     concerned, it is not the function of the appellate court to substitute
     its judgment based on a cold record for that of the trial court. The
     weight to be accorded conflicting evidence is exclusively for the
     fact finder, whose findings will not be disturbed on appeal if they
     are supported by the record.

Commonwealth v. King, 271 A.3d 437, 443 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation

omitted).

     Our Supreme Court has explained that

     the [double] jeopardy prohibition is not primarily intended to
     penalize prosecutorial error, but to protect citizens from the
     embarrassment, expense and ordeal of a second trial for the same
     offense and from compelling them to live in a continuing state of
     anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that
     even though innocent they may be found guilty.

Johnson, 231 A.3d at 826 (citations omitted and formatting altered).

     We must also consider the following:

     The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the
     United States Constitution and Article 1, [Section] 10 of the

                                     -7-
J-S06022-23

       Pennsylvania Constitution[6] protect a defendant from repeated
       criminal prosecutions for the same offense. Ordinarily, the law
       permits retrial when the defendant successfully moves for mistrial.
       If, however, the prosecution engages in certain forms of
       intentional misconduct, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial.
       Article I, [Section] 10, which our Supreme Court has construed
       more broadly than its federal counterpart, bars retrial not only
       when prosecutorial misconduct is intended to provoke the
       defendant into moving for a mistrial, but also when the conduct of
       the prosecutor is intentionally undertaken to prejudice the
       defendant to the point of the denial of a fair trial. An error by a
       prosecutor does not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. However,
       where the prosecutor’s conduct changes from mere error to
       intentionally subverting the court process, then a fair trial is
       denied.

       Dismissal is an appropriate remedy in such a case because a
       mistrial would be an inadequate remedy for systematic intentional
       prosecutorial misconduct.

       By and large, most forms of undue prejudice caused by
       inadvertent prosecutorial error or misconduct can be remedied in
       individual cases by retrial. Intentional prosecutorial misconduct,
       on the other hand, raises systematic concerns beyond a specific
       individual’s right to a fair trial that are left unaddressed by retrial.
       A fair trial is not simply a lofty goal, it is a constitutional mandate,
       and where that constitutional mandate is ignored by the
       Commonwealth, we cannot simply turn a blind eye and give the
       Commonwealth another opportunity.

       In sum, conduct that constitutes mere prosecutorial error does not
       implicate double jeopardy; it is prosecutorial overreaching that
       cannot be condoned.

Commonwealth v. Byrd, 209 A.3d 351, 353-54 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations

omitted and formatting altered).

____________________________________________

6 Article 1, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides in relevant
part, “No person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life
or limb . . . .” Pa. Const. Art. 1, § 10.

                                           -8-
J-S06022-23

     Additionally, our Supreme Court has expanded the definition of

“prosecutorial overreaching” to also include reckless conduct. Johnson, 231

A.3d at 826-27. Specifically, the Court held:

     Under Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,
     prosecutorial overreaching sufficient to invoke double jeopardy
     protections includes misconduct which not only deprives the
     defendant of his right to a fair trial, but is undertaken recklessly,
     that is, with a conscious disregard for a substantial risk that such
     will be the result. This, of course, is in addition to the behavior
     described in Smith, relating to tactics specifically designed to
     provoke a mistrial or deny the defendant a fair trial. In reaching
     our present holding, we do not suggest that all situations involving
     serious prosecutorial error implicate double jeopardy under the
     state Charter. To the contrary, we bear in mind the countervailing
     societal interests . . . regarding the need for effective law
     enforcement, and highlight again that, in accordance with long-
     established double-jeopardy precepts, retrial is only precluded
     where there is prosecutorial overreaching – which, in turn,
     implies some sort of conscious act or omission.

Johnson, 231 A.3d at 826 (citations omitted and emphasis in original); see

also Commonwealth v. Krista, 271 A.3d 465, 474 (Pa. Super. 2022)

(explaining that following Johnson, “retrial should be barred when the

prosecutor’s misconduct is an act of deliberate or reckless overreaching and

not an isolated incident”), appeal denied, 285 A.3d 597 (Pa. 2022).

     To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must prove three elements:

“(1) the evidence at issue was favorable to the accused, either because it is

exculpatory or because it impeaches; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the

prosecution, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice ensued.”

Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 607 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).

This Court has stated that “if a Brady violation is committed by a prosecutor,

                                     -9-
J-S06022-23

it can result in a dismissal on double jeopardy grounds if it is shown that the

prosecutor intended to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” Commonwealth

v. Adams, 177 A.3d 359, 372 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

      In Smith, the Commonwealth violated Brady by failing to disclose that

its chief witness received favorable treatment in unrelated criminal matters in

exchange for his testimony and by failing to disclose autopsy records that

contradicted the Commonwealth’s theory of the case and supported the

defendant’s. See Smith, 615 A.2d at 322-23. Also, there was evidence that

the Commonwealth knowingly concealed the Brady material during the trial

and for more than two years after defendant’s conviction. See id. at 323-24.

Therefore, the Smith Court concluded that “[b]ecause the prosecutor’s

conduct in this case was intended to prejudice the defendant and thereby deny

him a fair trial, [the defendant] must be discharged on the grounds that his

double jeopardy rights, as guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution, would

be violated by conducting a second trial.” Id. at 325; cf. Adams, 177 A.3d

at 373-74 (holding that although the prosecutor and police committed a

Brady violation by failing to disclose video recordings of police interviews with

the co-defendant, dismissal was not warranted where the record established

the prosecutor did not act intentionally or in bad faith, but rather was “grossly

negligent”).

      In Johnson, our Supreme Court granted the defendant’s petition for

allowance      of   appeal   to   determine    whether   “the   Commonwealth’s

misrepresentation of physical evidence in [the defendant’s] first trial bar[s]

                                      - 10 -
J-S06022-23

retrial on double jeopardy grounds, notwithstanding the trial court’s finding

that the Commonwealth’s misconduct was unintentional?”           Johnson, 231

A.3d   at   816.    Ultimately,   the    Johnson   Court   concluded   that   the

Commonwealth made “almost unimaginable mistakes,” in conflating two

different pieces of evidence and the results of DNA tests performed on that

evidence prior to and during trial. Id. at 826. The Court also found that

although the mistakes were unintentional, they were “strongly suggestive of

a reckless disregard for consequences and for the very real possibility of harm

stemming from the lack of thoroughness in preparing for a first-degree murder

trial.” Id. at 827 (citation omitted). Therefore, the Court held that double

jeopardy barred the defendant from being retried. Id. at 827-28. Following

Johnson, this Court held that a Brady violation will not bar retrial on double

jeopardy grounds where “[t]he prosecutor’s error . . . does not rise to the level

of the ‘almost unimaginable’ error in Johnson[,]” and the record did not

establish that “the prosecution engaged in overreaching or attempted to

subvert justice.” King, 271 A.3d at 450 (citation omitted).

       Subject to certain exceptions, evidence of other crimes committed by a

defendant is generally inadmissible at trial.      See Pa.R.Crim.P. 404(b)(1);

Commonwealth v. Strong, 825 A.2d 658, 665 (Pa. Super. 2003). However,

“[f]or double jeopardy purposes, unfairly prejudicial statements by witnesses

generally are not chargeable to the prosecuting attorney, especially when they

are unexpected and made on cross-examination.” Johnson, 231 A.3d at 827

n.14; see also Commonwealth v. Graham, 109 A.3d 733, 736-38 (Pa.

                                        - 11 -
J-S06022-23

Super. 2015) (concluding that the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct

where the defendant’s wife mentioned the defendant engaged in sexual

misconduct unrelated to the charged offenses because “[t]he prosecutor did

not ask, directly or indirectly, about any unrelated criminal conduct”).

Following Johnson, this Court also concluded that the Commonwealth’s

introduction of previously excluded evidence will not bar retrial, where the

Commonwealth         did    not    engage      in   reckless   overreaching.   See

Commonwealth v. Hill, 1267 EDA 2022, 2023 WL 140340, at *4-5 (Pa.

Super. filed Jan. 10, 2023) (unpublished mem.) (prosecutor asked the

detective why the police began investigating the defendant, and the detective

testified that he identified the defendant from surveillance footage, in violation

of the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion in limine which

precluded that detective from offering identification evidence based on the

surveillance footage).7

       Here, at trial, Ms. Bair testified that on the night of October 27, 2017,

there was a confrontation between two groups of people in the parking lot of

a Turkey Hill convenience store. See N.T. Trial, 5/14/21, at 453, 460-61. Ms.

Bair stated that Appellant arrived a few minutes later and that he was angry

and red faced. See id. at 462. ADA Wade asked Ms. Bair if Appellant said

anything, and she responded that Appellant threatened to choke the women

with Ms. Bair and was yelling “a lot of, . . . angry stuff.” See id. at 462-63.
____________________________________________

7We may cite to non-precedential decisions of this Court filed after May 1,
2019, for their persuasive value. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).

                                          - 12 -
J-S06022-23

She continued, “[a]nd in that time that’s when he choked up [Quetesha Payne]

because she was having words back with them. It was really about them at

the moment. And he choked her up.” See id. at 463. ADA Wade then asked

Ms. Bair about whether she heard if Appellant and Ernest Talton said anything

to each other during this confrontation. See id. Appellant did not immediately

object to the statement about the choking incident, but the trial court called

a sidebar. See id. The trial court asked if a cautionary instruction about prior

bad acts was necessary. See id. at 463-64. Appellant requested a mistrial

on two grounds: (1) Ms. Bair’s statement that he had choked a woman was a

prejudicial and inadmissible prior bad act, and (2) the Commonwealth violated

its continuing duty of discovery because it failed to disclose that Ms. Bair’s

new statement about Appellant choking or grabbing Ms. Payne. See id. at

464-501. The trial court granted the motion for mistrial. See id. at 501-02.

      At the evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s motion to bar retrial, ADA

Wade testified that he and Detective Sergeant Whiteford met with Ms. Bair on

May 10, 2021, to prepare her to testify at trial. See N.T. Hr’g, 9/16/21, at

10-12. ADA Wade explained that Ms. Bair mentioned several facts for the first

time, including that Appellant had choked Ms. Payne during the confrontation

in the parking lot. See id. at 23-24, 46-47. ADA Wade instructed Ms. Bair

that during her testimony she had to tell the truth and not mention the first

trial or any other bad acts by Appellant. See id. at 24-26. On May 14, 2021,

the day Ms. Bair was scheduled to testify, ADA Wade briefly met with Ms. Bair

                                     - 13 -
J-S06022-23

and reminded her not to mention the prior trial, not to mention Appellant’s

other bad acts, and to tell the truth. See id. at 36-38.

       After the Commonwealth informed Appellant that Ms. Bair had brought

up new information in her interview, Detective Sergeant Whiteford prepared

a supplemental report of the interview.8           See id. at 28-31.   Ms. Bair’s

statement that Appellant choked Ms. Payne is not in that supplemental report.

See id. at 32-35. ADA Wade explained that he did not ask Detective Sergeant

Whiteford to revise the report to add the choking incident or Ms. Bair’s other

statements that were not included because he believed they were not relevant

and did not plan to introduce them at trial. See id. at 34-35, 49-50, 53-55.

       In its opinion and order, the trial court addressed whether the

Commonwealth acted intentionally or reckless as follows:

       [T]here is no evidence of record to suggest that any lack of
       disclosure; by the attorneys for the Commonwealth resulted from
       any intentional, willful, or reckless conduct, as opposed to mere
       inadvertence.
____________________________________________

8 Appellant marked the supplemental report as Exhibit D-1. See N.T. Hr’g,
9/16/21, at 30-31. This exhibit is not included in the certified record.
Additionally, we note that numerous documents in the electronic certified
record are distorted or are illegible. See, e.g., Criminal Compl., 2/16/18;
Waiver of Arraignment, 5/8/18; Pro Se Mot. for Discovery/Transcripts,
8/16/19. Although the omission of Exhibit D-1 and the distorted documents
in the certified record does not impede our review, we remind counsel that,
the “[a]ppellant has the responsibility to make sure that the record forwarded
to an appellate court contains those documents necessary to allow a complete
and judicious assessment of the issues raised on appeal.” Commonwealth
v. Wint, 730 A.2d 965, 967 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citations and quotation marks
omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1921, Note (stating that “[u]ltimate
responsibility for a complete record rests with the party raising an issue that
requires appellate court access to record materials” (citation omitted)).

                                          - 14 -
J-S06022-23

      Most importantly, it must be recognized that the mistrial granted
      in this matter, upon [Appellant’s] motion, did not pertain to any
      purported discovery violations.     More specifically, the court
      granted a mistrial in this matter because the jury was presented
      with testimony regarding a purported prior bad act allegedly
      committed by [Appellant] some time before, and at a different
      location, from the homicide.

      In assessing this claim, as noted above, the court finds that [ADA]
      Wade credibly testified that: he did not intend to introduce this
      evidence at trial; he admonished Ms. Bair not to present this
      testimony at trial; he did not elicit such testimony; he was
      surprised by such testimony; and, he did not seek to prejudice
      [Appellant’s] right to a fair trial. [ADA] Wade further credibly
      testified that the Commonwealth has received no benefit from the
      award of [Appellant’s] motion for a mistrial in this matter.

      Accordingly, based upon the totality of the evidence presented, it
      is clear to this court that the introduction of the challenged
      testimony was solely the result of an unexpected “blurt out” on
      the part of a lay witness, despite the reasonable attempts of the
      attorneys for the Commonwealth to prevent such. The court finds
      that the record in this matter is devoid of any evidence that the
      Commonwealth acted in an intentional or reckless manner. The
      court further finds that the record in this matter is devoid of any
      evidence of prosecutorial overreaching which, in turn, implicates
      some sort of conscious act or omission. Accordingly, the double
      jeopardy bar of retrial is not warranted in this matter. Rather,
      this court correctly granted [Appellant’s] motion for a mistrial
      upon the inadvertent admission of the prejudicial prior bad acts
      evidence. As the result thereof, [Appellant] will receive the
      benefit of a new trial untainted by such evidence.

Trial Ct. Op. & Order at 15-16 (footnotes omitted and some formatting

altered); see also id. at 5 (concluding that ADA Wade’s testimony at the

September 16, 2021 evidentiary hearing was credible).

      Based on our review, we conclude the record supports the trial court’s

credibility determinations and legal conclusions that the Commonwealth’s

actions were not intentionally or recklessly undertaken to deprive Appellant of

                                    - 15 -
J-S06022-23

a fair trial. See King, 271 A.3d at 443. Further, we agree with the trial court

and adopt its reasoning in concluding that Ms. Bair’s statement about the

choking incident was not Brady material nor did the Commonwealth violate

Brady, or Pa.R.Crim.P. 573. See Trial Ct. Op. & Order at 8-15. Additionally,

the trial court credited ADA Wade’s testimony that he did not intentionally

conceal evidence which he knew to be material with the intent to deprive

Appellant of a fair trial. Compare Smith, 615 A.2d at 322 with Adams, 177

A.3d at 373-74. Accordingly, on this record, we conclude that double jeopardy

does not bar retrial with respect to Ms. Bair’s statement about the choking

incident made during her witness preparation. With respect to the questioning

of Ms. Bair, the record reflects that ADA Wade did not ask Ms. Bair any

questions that directly or indirectly related to Appellant’s other criminal

conduct. See Graham, 109 A.3d at 736-38. Therefore, we agree with the

trial court that there was no intentional prosecutorial misconduct for double

jeopardy purposes. See Byrd, 209 A.3d at 353-54; Adams, 177 A.3d at 371-

72.

      Further,   applying   the   Johnson     standard,   we   find   that   the

Commonwealth’s actions do not reflect a conscious disregard for the

substantial risk that Appellant would be deprived of a fair trial. See Johnson,

231 A.3d at 826. Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that the Commonwealth

did not act recklessly when it failed to disclose Ms. Bair’s statement about the

choking incident is supported by the record and pertinent legal authority. See

Trial Ct. Op. & Order at 15-16.        As for the Commonwealth’s witness

                                     - 16 -
J-S06022-23

preparation and trial examination of Ms. Bair, the trial court found that the

Commonwealth made reasonable attempts to prevent the witness from

testifying about Appellant’s prior bad acts, but the witness’s statements were

unexpectedly “blurt[ed] out.” See Trial Ct. Op. & Order at 16. Our review

concludes that the record supports the trial court’s determination that the

Commonwealth did not engage in any reckless overreaching. See Krista, 271

A.3d at 474; King, 271 A.3d at 450; Hill, 2023 WL 140340 at *5. For these

reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to bar

retrial.

       Order affirmed. Case remanded for retrial. Jurisdiction relinquished.

       P.J.E. Stevens joins the memorandum.

       Judge Stabile concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 06/14/2023

                                     - 17 -
                                                     Circulated 05/30/2023 11:32 AM

                                           June 27, 2022

                                           Re: Wilberto Melendez
                                           Cp Cr No: 2279-2018
                                           Superior Cr No: 486 MDA 2022

                        Index of Opinion

1. Index of Opinion
2. Order of the Court
3. Opinion and Order
  IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                    CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA

              VS.                                         No. CP-36-CR-0002279-2018

WILBERTO MELENDEZ

                                           ORDER
       Appellant/Defendant,by
       Appellant/Defendant, by Notice
                               Notice of Appeal
                                         Appeal filed
                                                filed on March 21,
                                                               21, 2022,
                                                                   2022, has
                                                                         bas appealed from
                                                                                      from

the order entered on March 2,
                           2, 2022, denying Appellant's
                                            Appellant's Motion to Dismiss and Bar Retrial.

The reasons for this court's
                     court'srulings are contained in the Opinion and Order entered on March2,
                                                                                      March 2,

2022 .This court relies on said documents for compliance with Rule 1925(
2022.                                                                   a) of the Pennsylvania
                                                                   1925(a)

Rules of Appellate
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
                   Procedure.As such,
                                such,said  documents are attached hereto.
                                      said documents

                                            BY T I06, URT:
                                            BYTI      URT:

                                            MERRI    M.
                                                     M. SPAHN, JR., JUDGE
                                                               JR., JUDGE
                                            March 9 2022

ATTEST:

Copies to:
Copies to:           Anderson,Esquire, Assistant District Attorney
              Travis Anderson,
                   McMahon,Esquire, counsel for Appellant
              Jack McMahon,                                                          r-
                                                                                     r
                                                                                     �     ~
                                                                                           g3
                                                                                                     '
                                                                                           ~
                                                                                           -
                                                                                     7           '
                                                                                     c     �     re
                                                                                     >
                                                                                     €/          1
                                                                                      �
                                                                                           25    :3s
                                                                                                 4

                                                                                          -
                                                                                      re   N     cO

                                                                                        -
                                                                                                 6,
                                                                                      0    o     •r,
                                                                                                 or
                                                                                      e           n
                                                                                                  c
                                                                                      c    ,,.

                                                                                      -•
                                                                                      c              c

                                                                                      -
                                                                                      z      ?
                                                                                             N
                                                                                             �
                                                                                                     2
                                                                                                     �
                                                                                                     cn
                                                                                                     0

                                                                                      '
IN TGIF COURT
IN THE  COUNT OF
              OF COMMON PLEAS
                        PLEAS OF
                              OF LANCASTER
                                 LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                              CRIMINAL
                              CRIMINAL

CO MMONWEA LTH 0
COMMONWEALTH   OF9PENNISYL VANIA
                  PENNSYLVANIA

         vs.                                                       No.            P- 6-C -0002279-2018
                                                                                 CP-36-CR-0002279-2018

 ILBERTO
WILBER TOMELENDE
         MELENDEZ

                                                                                                                        SA00i A •N•lj
                                                                                                                 i+_4

                                           OPINION acrd ORDER.
                                           pP!toy_gn_ORDER
                                                                                                                 N'
B: SPAHN,
BY: SPAIN. JR., J.                                                                                               ::2
March 2, 2022

                                                                                                         9       c
         By Criminal Information docketed
                                 docketed to Number CP-36-CR-0002279-2018,
                                                    CP- 6-C.R-0002279-2018, Defers&ant
                                                                            Defer'dant i                          is
changed with
charged with allegedly having. COMM itted the
                       having committed       offenses of Criminal
                                          the offenses    Criminal Homicide';
                                                                   Homicide 1;Firearms Not to

be Carried Without aa1,icense';
                     License; Persons Not to Possess, Use, Manufacture, Control, Sell or

Transfer lii                                             Victims' Said charges stem from aa
             rearm s'; and, Intimidation of Witnesses or Victims'.
         Firearms';

shooting alleged
shooting                                     27, 2017, in the 300 black
         alleged to have occurred on October 27,2017,             block of Marshall Street in
                                                                                           in the

City and
City and County of Lancaster.
                   Lancaster

         Folloviing
         Following,selection of aajury, trial initially commenced in the instant matter on May 14,

201. On
2019, On May
         May 21, 2.019, during
             21,2019,                    day of testimony, aaCommonwealth witness testified to
                        during the sixth day

staternents purportedly
statements  purportedly made
                        made by
                             by Defendant
                                Defendant boasting that he had committed aaprior killing,
                                                                                 ki9ling, had

       that charge,
beaten that charge, and
                    ard was going
                            going to beat the
                                          the current charges as well. (N.T, 5!21119,
                                                                 well. (NT               896-
                                                                             5/21/19, p. 886

888). Prier
888). Pron to the cornmencement of trial,
              the commencement     trial, the attorney for
                                          the attorney     the Commonwealth
                                                       for the Commonwealth indicted
                                                                            indicted that he

    affirmatively instructed
had affirmatively instructed all Commonwealth witnesses not to discuss such matter
                                                                            matter.

11HPa,C.SA. $259016)
'IP,CS.A       2501(a).
219 Pa-C,5-A, $6106a(D
 18PCS.A       6106(a)(1).
Iy$Pa_C.S.A. §6105(a)(1 }, Mis
 1gaCSA.$6/04a)I)          It is noted that
                                       that this change
                                                 charge was severed from trial
                                                                         tria] in compliance with controlling
                                                                                                  c'ontro11ing
authority_
authority
  19 Pa. C-
         -A- §4952(a)(1},
'I6AC.SA.$49$204I
AddiiionalIy,
Additionally, at
              at this
                 this time,
                      time, the
                            the attorney
                                attorney for
                                         for the Commonwealth indicated
                                                              indicated that he had not elicited,

and was surprised
        surprised by,
                  by, by
                      by such testirony. (N.T, 5/21/19,
                              testimony. (N,T  5/2111.9, p. 886-987). Due to the
                                                         p. 886-887).        the prejudicial

nature
nature of
       of such
          such testimony,
               testimony, the coat granted
                          the court granted Defendant's
                                            Defendauit's rnotion    granted aamistrial.
                                                         motion and granted             (N.T.
                                                                              mistrial. (N,T,

5121119, p. 891).
5/21/19,p.  891
       The second trial
                  trial in the instant rniatter
                                       matter commenced with jury
                                                             jury selection on May     2021.
                                                                               May 10, 2021

On this date,
        date, a
              a meeting occurred at the Lancaster City Bureau of Ecadquarters
                                                                 Headquarters between Assistant

District Attorney
         Attorney -Cody
                  Cody Wade,
                        Wade, Detective Sergeant
                                        Serget Robert Whiteford, and Antasia
                                                                     Artasia Bair to prepare

Ms. Bair for her trial testimony. (N.T, 9/16021,
                       testimony. tN,T, 9/16!21, p.
                                                 p. 10-12).
                                                    I0-12). At the evidentiary bearing
                                                                               hearing relative to
                                                                                                lo

Defendant's
Defendant's instant rno0on,
                    motion, Attorney
                            Attorney Wade credibly
                                          credibly testified
                                                   testi I
                                                         ied that this
                                                                  this meeting had
                                                                               had not

previously
previously occurred due to
                        to scheduling concerns. (N.T.
                           scheduling concerns. (NA'. 9/1621,p.
                                                      9/16121, p. 11).
                                                                  1H). During this meeting, Ms.
                                                                                            Ms

Bair
Bair reviewed
     reviewed her
              her prior statements and
                  prior statements and testimony,
                                       testimony, received
                                                  received aaprevinv
                                                             preview of •0at to expect
                                                                     of what    expect at
                                                                                       at trial,

and was admonished by
                   by Attoniey
                      Attorney Wade to tell the
                                            the U uth and avoid reference to any improper
                                                truth
                                                  -

subjects
subjects during
         during her tnal
                    trial testimony. (I .T. 9/16/21,p.
                          testimony. (N,T.  9116121, p. '14, 24-26). This meeting was not recorded,
                                                        14,24-26.

nor were
    ;vere any
          any verbatim or substantially verbatim recordings
                                                 recordings generated from this inceting. (N.T,
                                                                                meeting. (N.T

9116121,
9/16/21, p,
         p. 46,
            46, 74-75).
                74-75).   During
                          During this
                                 this meeting,
                                      meeting, Ms. Bair
                                                   Bair mentioned certain things
                                                                          things which were

relevant to the matter which wem
                             were not previously disclosed or varied from the information that

she
she had
    had previously
        previously provided
                   provided to
                            to the investigators.       9116121, p,
                                   investigators. (N.T. 9/16/21,    27). This information
                                                                 p. 27).      information

included claims that she had seers Ernest Talton possess aafirearm during the evening in question
                             seen Emest

and that she heard Ernest Talton admonish someone, whom she believed to be
                                                                        he the defendant, that

he should not farm
              ham the victim
                      victim, .(Defense
                               (                       1.
                                Defense Exhibit No. 1). 1•n addition,at this time,
                                                        In addition,         tune, Ms.
                                                                                   Ms. Bair

indicated
indicated that
          that she obsm cd the
               she observed     defendant choke
                            the defendant 'choke up" Quetesha Payne
                                                 up Quetesha  Paync at
                                                                    at a
                                                                       aTurkey
                                                                         Turkey Till
                                                                                Hill

convenience store in.
                  in the early
                         early morning
                               mort,irg .hours
                                        hours preceding
                                               preceding the
                                                         the how icide. (N.T,
                                                             homicide   (K T. 9/16/21,p
                                                                              9116/21, p} 40))
                                                                                          40).

Attorney
Attorney Wade
         Wade credibly
              credibly testified
                       testified that he
                                      he had no
                                             no reason
                                                reason to believe
                                                          believe the veracity of this
                                                                  the veracity    this

                                                 2
representation
representation as it was not supported by any
                             supported by any other evidence in this
                                                                Ibis matter. (NT,
                                                                             (NJ. 9/16/21,
                                                                                  9116121, p.
                                                                                           p. 47,

54),
54). Attorney
     Attorney Wade
              Wade further credibly testified
                   further credibly           that he
                                    testified that he instructed
                                                      instructed Ms.
                                                                 Ms. Bair during this
                                                                     Bair during this meeting
                                                                                      mneeting that
                                                                                               that

they
they were
     were not
          not going
              going to
                    to discuss fbis topic
                       discuss this topic during
                                          during her
                                                 her trial
                                                     trial testimony. (N.T. 9/16/21,
                                                           testimony. (N,T, 9116121, p. 40, 47-48)
                                                                                     p. 40, 47-t48).

Specifically,
Specifically, Attorney Wade instructed
                            instructed Ms. Bair
                                           Lair that
                                                that her trial testimony
                                                               testimony would be
                                                                               be limited
                                                                                  limited in

scope
scope to
      to what
         what was developed during
              was developed during her testimony at
                                   her testimony at the
                                                    the prior
                                                        prior trial
                                                              trial and in ;her
                                                                    and in her prior  statements to
                                                                                prior statements to

the
the investigators. ( .T, 9/16/21,p.
    investigators, (N.T. 9116/21, p- 40,
                                     40, 47-48).
                                         47-48). Attorney
                                                 Attorney Wade credibly testified
                                                          Wade credibly           that he
                                                                        testified that he believed
                                                                                          believed

that
that Ms.
     Ms. Bair was
              was sufficiently cautioned and
                  sufficiently cautioned and that she
                                                  she understood that this allegation would not
                                                      understood that                       not be

introduced
introduced Glaring
           during her
                   her testimony at the
                       testimony at the upcoming
                                        upcoming trial,. (N.T. 9/16/21,
                                                 trial, (N,T,  9116121, p. 48),
                                                                           48). Follov Srlg this
                                                                                Following   this

meeting,
meeting, Attorney
         Attorney Wade instructs
                       instructed Detective Sergeant Whiteford to
                                                               to prepare
                                                                  prepare aasupplemental
                                                                            supplemental

report
report regarding
       regarding this
                 this meeting, (N, T, 9/16/21,
                      meeting. (N.T,  9116121, p.
                                               p. 26-29,69-70).
                                                   6-29, 9-70). Detective
                                                                Detective Sergeant
                                                                          Sergeant Whiteford
                                                                                   Whiteford

prepared
prepared such
         such a
              a report,
                report, although
                        although this
                                 this report
                                      report did
                                             did not
                                                 not include
                                                     include any
                                                             any reference to
                                                                           to Ms.
                                                                              Ms. Bair's
                                                                                  Bair's claims

regarding
regarding the
          the defendant
              defendant purportedly
                        purportedly placing his hands upon
                                                      upon Ms. Payne. (N. T. 9/16021,
                                                               Payne. (N,T,  9116121, p. 30-35)
                                                                                         s0- ).

At the evidentiary
       evidentiary hearing
                   hearing held in this matter,
                                        mater, Detective Sergeant
                                                         Sergeant Whiteford testified that he did

not bear
    hearMs,
         Ms. Bair make such comments.
                            comments.' (N.T.
                                         1.T. 9/1621,
                                              9116/21, p.
                                                       p. 65-68). This supplemental report

was
was provided
    provided to counsel
                counsel for
                        for the defendant
                                defendant on
                                          on May
                                             May 12,        (N. T. 9/1621,
                                                 12, 2021.' (N,T.  9116121, p.
                                                                            P. 26-29,
                                                                               2C-29, 69-70)
                                                                                      69-70),

           On May
              May 13, 2021.. prior
                  13,2021,   prior to the commencement of
                                                       of testimony for the day, the court met

with counsel
     counsel for
             for the
                 the parties outside the
                     parties outside the presence of the
                                         presence of     jury. At
                                                     the jury. At this tirre, discussion
                                                                  this time,             was hid
                                                                              discussion was had

regarding the meeting
reganding the meeting with
                      with Ms,
                           Ms. Bair, Specifically, Ms.
                               Bair. Specifically. Ms. Bair's claims regarding
                                                       Bair's claims           certain
                                                                     regarding certain

statements
statements allegedly
           allegedly made
                     made by
                          by Ernest Talton were
                             rest Talton        addressed and
                                           were addressed and the
                                                              the parties specifically agreed
                                                                  parties specifically agreed

that
that this topic
          topic would
                woald not be
                          be introduced at tJa],
                                           trial. Contrary to tbe
                                                              the representations contained in

3it is
'is      noted
         noted that
               that Detective Sergeant Whiteford
                    Detective Serget   Whiteford restified
                                                 testified that he Iihad
                                                           that he    ad briefly stepped
                                                                                 stepped out
                                                                                         out of
                                                                                             ofthe meetin, with
                                                                                                th meeting with Ms
                                                                                                                Ms- air
                                                                                                                    Bair
that occurred on May 10,    2021, (NT
                        I0, 2021.  (NJ. 9/1621,
                                          9116#21, p.
                                                    p. &5).
                                                       65)
     is noted that Defendants
  ltis
G it               Defendant's rnemorandu
                                memoranda    nsuggests
                                               suggests that counsel for Defendant received this report at the end of the
day
day on MayMay 13,  2021. Such rc;presenta#ion
               13,202I.        representation is clearly inaccurate .as                          demonstralts that this
                                                                       s the official transcript demonstrates
matter
matter was
         wars addressed
              addressed by
                        by counsel  for
                                    fee the
                                        tee parties
                                            parties with  the
                                                          the court.
                                                              court  prior
                                                                     prior to
                                                                           to the
                                                                              the cornmeneernent
                                                                                  commencement     of testimony         13,
                                                                                                      testimony on May Id,
2021,
202
                                                             33
Defendant's
Defendant's memorandum,
            memorandum, the
                        the record      not. demonstrate
                            record does not  demonstrate any
                                                         "y reference
                                                             reference to remedies or
                                                                       to remedies or

discharge
discharge of
          of Defendant should this
             Defendant should this topic he introduced
                                   topic be introduced at
                                                       at trial.
                                                          trial. Additionally, at this
                                                                 Additionally, at this time,
                                                                                       time, there
                                                                                             there

was
was no
    no reference
       reference made
                 made by counsel regarding
                      by counsel regarding Ms.
                                           Ms. Bair's
                                               Bair's allegations
                                                      allegations that
                                                                  that Derendant had choked
                                                                       Defendant had "choked

up"
up" N4s,
    Ms. Payne.
         Payne. (N.T. 5/13121, p,
                (N.T. 5/13/21, p. 230-232).
                                  230-232)

       On
       On May
          May 14,
              14, 202 1, the
                  2021,      Cornrnonwealth presented
                         the Commonwealth   presented the testimony of Antasia
                                                          testimony of         Bair at
                                                                       Antasi Bair  at trial.
                                                                                       trial. It
                                                                                              It

is
is noted
   noted that
         that Ms.
              Ms. Bair
                  Bair was not    eyewitness to the homicide.
                           not an eyewitness                  (N.T. 9/16/21,
                                                    homicide. (NT.  911612,1, p. 44),
                                                                                 44). Based upon

the
the credible
    credible representations
             representations trade
                             made by
                                   by the attorneys for
                                      the attoreys  for the Conunonwealth, M
                                                        the Commonwealth,    s. Bair
                                                                           Ms.       was
                                                                                Bair was

presented
presented to
          to provide
             provide testimony
                     testimony regarding,
                               regarding her  observations of
                                          her observations of the
                                                              the argument
                                                                  argument which occurred at
                                                                           which occurred at the
                                                                                             the

Turkey
Turkey Hi 11 convenience
       Hill  convenience store
                         store prior
                               prior to
                                     to the homicide, as
                                        the homicide, as well
                                                         wc11 as
                                                              as her knowledge of
                                                                 her knowledge of certain
                                                                                  certain prior
                                                                                          prior

consistent
consistent statements
           statements made
                      made by
                           by an eyndtness to
                              an eyewitness to the homicide which
                                                            which identified Defendant
                                                                             Defendant as the

shooter, (N.T. 9/16/2
shooter. (N.T. 9/1621,1, p.
                         p. 44,
                            44, 74),
                                74). During
                                     During her
                                            her testimony,
                                                testimony, M s. Bair
                                                           Ms.  Bair reiterated
                                                                     reiterated her claim that
                                                                                her claim that

Defendant had "choked up"
                      up" M s. Payne
                          Ms.  Payne at the Turkey F1ti11. (N.`1'. 5114121,
                                                   Hill, (N.T.     5/1421, p. 462-462).
                                                                              462-462) Again,

thin allegation had
this allegation had not
                    not been referenced
                             referenced by Ms,
                                           Ms. Bair
                                               Bair during
                                                    during her
                                                           her testimony
                                                               testimony at tlae
                                                                            the first
                                                                                 first trial
                                                                                       trial and was

not
not contained
    contained in
              in any
                 any of
                     of her
                        her prior stxtemenLs. At this
                            prior statements.    this point, counsel for
                                                      point, counsel for the defendant moved
                                                                         the defendant moved for
                                                                                             for aa

mistrial on the
mistrial on the basis
                basis that
                      that such
                           such testimony
                                testimony was prejudicial to Defendant
                                              prejudicial o            and was
                                                             Defendant and was not
                                                                               not provided to
                                                                                   provided to

defense
defense counsel
        counsel through
                through discovery.
                        discovery

        Extensive arrgument was
        Extensive argument  was held on the
                                held on the record outside the
                                            record outside the presence
                                                               presence of
                                                                        of the jary. During
                                                                           the jury.        this
                                                                                     During this

argument,
argument, Attorney
          Attorney Wade
                   Wade indicated that he
                        indicated that he recalled
                                          recalled Ms.
                                                   Ms. Rair inforniitig him
                                                       Bair informing       at the
                                                                        him at     recent
                                                                               the recent

meeting
meeting about
        about the defendant and
              the defendant and Ms.
                                Ms. Payne
                                    Payne "getting into it", but
                                          "getting into      but he couldn't recall
                                                                 he couldn't        what she had
                                                                             recall what     had

specifically
specifically told
             told hire. (N.T„ 5114121,
                  him, (N.T.  5/14/21, p.
                                       p, 473).
                                          473). Additi.ona]ly, at this
                                                Additionally, at  this time, Attomcy Wade
                                                                       time, Attorney Wade

informed
informed that
         that court
              court that
                    that he
                         he had
                            had instructed
                                instructed Nis.
                                           Ms. Bair
                                                Bair not
                                                     not to discuss this
                                                         to discuss this topic during her
                                                                         topic during her testimony.
                                                                                          testimanyy.

N,T.
N.T. 5114121,
     5/14/21,pp. 473, 500). After
                 473, 500). After consideration
                                  consideration of
                                                of providing;
                                                   providing the
                                                              the jury
                                                                  jury with,
                                                                       with aastrong
                                                                              strong curate
                                                                                     curative

instruction,
instruction, the court granted
                       granted Defendant's
                               Defendant's motion for aamistrial is       of the serious nature ol
                                                                 in light of                    of

                                                  4
                                                  d
the instant matter.

        On Junc
           June 24,
                24. 2021,
                    2021, counsel
                          counsel for
                                  for Defendant
                                      Defendant filed
                                                filed aaMotion to 1)ismiss
                                                        Motion to Dismiss and Bar
                                                                              Bar Retrial.
                                                                                  Retrial

Aftcr
After consultation
      consultation with counsel regarding
                   with counsel regarding their availability, by
                                          their availability, by order
                                                                 order dated
                                                                       dated July
                                                                             July 1,
                                                                                  I, 2021, this
                                                                                     2021, this

court scheduled
court scheduled an evidentiary bearing
                an evidentiary         relative to
                               hearing relative to Defendant's
                                                   Defendant's Motion
                                                               Motion for September 16,
                                                                                    1f, 2021
                                                                                        2021.

        In.
        In addition to
                    to the
                       the testimony noted above, at
                                     noted above,    such. hearing, Attorney
                                                  at such           Attorney Wade credibly
                                                                             Wade credibly

testified that he did not.
                      not seek to elicit
                                  elicit any testimony from Ms. Bair regarding any physical contact
                                         any testimony

between Defendant and Ms.
                      Ms. Payne. (N.T. 9/1621,p.
                          Payne. (N,T, 9110121, p- 49-50,53).
                                                   49-50, 53). Attorney Wade further

credibly
credibly testified
         testified that he
                        he was
                           was not seeking to cause
                               not seeking    cause aamistrial
                                                      mistrial or
                                                               or prejudice
                                                                  prejudice the            (.T,
                                                                            the defendant. (N.T

9116/21,
9/16/21, p.
         p. 49-50, 53). Attorney
            49-50,53).  Attomey Wade
                                 Wade testified
                                      testified that the
                                                     the Commonwealth was pleased
                                                                          pleased with
                                                                                  with the
                                                                                       the

progression
progression of the
               the trial and
                         and that the
                                  the award of a.a mistrial did
                                                            did. not
                                                                 not place
                                                                     place the Commonwealth
                                                                               Commonwealth in aa

more advantageous position. (N.T
     advantageous position. (N.T. 9/16/21,p.
                                  9/16121, p. 43, 50-51).
                                                  50-$1). Following this hearing,
                                                                         hearing, the court.
                                                                                  the court

ordered
ordered submission of written
                      written legal
                              legal memorandum by counsel
                                                  counsel for
                                                          for the parties.
                                                                  parties

         It is noted that
                     that counsel for the defendant filed aasecond Motion to D
                                                                             Dismiss
                                                                               si miss and Bar Retrial

on
on November
   November 8,
            8, 2021.
               2021'7 On
                      O Nuvernbcr
                         November 19, 2.021, counsel
                                  19, 2021,  counsel for
                                                     for Defendant
                                                         Defendant filed
                                                                   filed their written
                                                                         their written

memorandurn
memorandum of  law. On
            of law. On December
                       Deember 17,
                                7 2021,
                                   2012 , the attorneys for
                                          the attomeys      the Commonwealth
                                                        for the Commonwealth filed
                                                                             filed their
                                                                                   their

memorandum
memorandum of
           of laws.
              la, As such, the matter is ripe
                                         ripe for review.

         The
         The Double
             Double Jeopardy C,lauscs of
                    Jeopardy Clauses     both the United
                                      of both            Mates Constitution
                                                  United States Constitution and
                                                                             and Constitution
                                                                                 Constitution of
                                                                                              of

the
the Commonwealth of Petm.sy
    Commonwealth of         [van ia. "protect
                    Pennsylvania     "protect aadefendant
                                                defendant from repeated criminal
                                                          from repeated criminal prosecutions
                                                                                 prosecutions

for
for the
    the same offense." Commonwealth v.
        same offense."              v. Byrd,
                                       Byrd, 209
                                             209 A.3d
                                                 A.3d .351.353 (Pa. Super.
                                                      351, 353 (Pa. Super. 2019).
                                                                           2019). As further
                                                                                  As further

noted
noted by our Superior
      by our          Court ;the
             Superior Court, the purpose
                                 purpose behind this prohibition
                                         behind this prohibition is
                                                                 is to
                                                                    to prevent
                                                                       prevent the
                                                                               the government
                                                                                   government

Te
7 The court
       count is without
                without knowledge
                        knowledge as to why            tor Defendant filed aasecond motion in this regard. It.
                                          why counsel for                                                           noted..
                                                                                                             At is noted
that
that this
     this motion is nearly
                    pearly identical to the motion filed previously on June
                                                                       Jame 24, 202I,
                                                                                 2021, but for the omission of
                                                                                                             0fthree
                                                                                                                 three
para ,pphs relative to
     ,
paragraphs                      of Attomey
                     to actions of Attorney Wade.
                                             Wae Defenclw
                                                     Defendt makes 110 po rcferemce        sccand motion in
                                                                          reference to the second         it] his

supporting
supporting memorandum,
              memoranda
&
htIt is
     is noted                             memorandum references
        noted that the Commonwealth's rncrnorandum                 bath this docket number as well
                                                        references both                        weil as charge
                                                                                                       eh arges
previously
previously   docketed
             docketed   at
                        at Number
                           Number  CP-36-CR-0{105109-2018-
                                   €P.16-CR-000$109.201.       On
                                                               O   May
                                                                   May  31,
                                                                        31, 2019, the
                                                                                  the court
                                                                                      court approved
                                                                                            approved  tbic
                                                                                                      the  motion of
                                                                                                           motion of the
                                                                                                                     the
Commonwealth
Commonwealth to    to nollu
                      pole prosse
                            prosse the charges docketed at
                                   the changes           at Number  CP-3 6-C R-0005109-2018.
                                                            Number CP-36-CR0005109-201

                                                              5
                                                              5
from making
     making "repeated
            "repeated attempts                                 subjecting
                      attempts to convict the accused, thereby subj            to
                                                                    ecting him to

embarrassment,
embarrassment, expense, and ordeal
               expense, and        and compelling
                            ordeal and compelling him
                                                  him to
                                                      to live in aacontinued
                                                         live in   continued state
                                                                             state of
                                                                                   of anxiety
                                                                                      anxiety

and
and insecurity
    insecurity as
               as well
                  well as entrancing tbe
                       as enhancing  the possibility
                                         possibility that even though
                                                     that even though innocent
                                                                      innocent he may be
                                                                               he may be found
                                                                                         found

guilty."
guilty." C'omrnonkvealth
         Commonwealth v. v. Wilson,
                            Wilson, 227
                                    227 A.3d 928, 936 (Pa.
                                        A.3d 928,936  (Pa. Super.
                                                           Super. 2020).
                                                                  2020).

       It
       It has
          has been
              been long standing jurisprudence,
                   long standing _jurisprudence, under
                                                 under both       and federal
                                                       both state and federal law, that
                                                                                   that aa

subsequent
subsequent trkd
           trial is
                 is prohibited
                    prohibited when
                               when aamistrial
                                      mistrial resulted from prosecutorial
                                               resulted from prosecutorial overreaching in the

form
for of
     of intentional
        intentional misconduct designed to
                    misconduct designed to provokc
                                           provoke aa. mistrial.
                                                       mistrial. Byrd, 209 A..3d   353. In
                                                                           A.3d at 353. In

Comm onwealth v. Smith,
Commonwealth     ,Smith, the
                         the Pennsylvania
                             Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the
                                                                   the Constitution of this
                                                                                       this

 ornmonwealth provides
Commonwealth  provides more
                       more extensive double jeopardy
                                             jeopardy protections
                                                      protections than
                                                                  than its
                                                                       its federal
                                                                           federal

counterpart.
counterpart. Therein,
             Therein, the Supreme
                          Supreme Court held that
                                             that retrial is impermissible not
                                                                           "not only when the
                                                                                          the

prosecutorial
prosecutorial misconduct
              misconduct is
                         is intended
                            intended to
                                     to provoke
                                        provoke the
                                                the defendant into
                                                              into mooring
                                                                   moving for
                                                                           for aamistrial,
                                                                                 mistrial, but
                                                                                           but

also
also when the
          the conduct of the prosecutor
                             prosecutor is intentionally
                                           intentionality andertaken
                                                          undertaken to prejudice the defendant to

the point
    point of the denial of a
                           a fair trial." Commorwealth
                                          Commornveallh •v.   Mifh, 615
                                                              Stth,     A.2d 321, 325 (Pa.
                                                                    615 A,2d          (Pa. 1980).
                                                                                           1.980).

Our Superior
    Superior Court has noted that Smith
                                  "Smith did not create
                                                 ercate a
                                                        a per se bar to retrial In
                                                                                in all cases of

intentional
intentional prosecutorial overreaching. Rather,
            prosecutorial overreaching. Rather, the Smilh court primarily
                                                the Smith       primarily eras
                                                                          was concerned with
                                                                                        with

prosecution
prosecution tactics, which actually
                           actually were designed to demcan or subvert the
                                                                       the truth seeking

process."
process." Camrnonwealth
          Commorwealth v.
                        v. Lambert, 765 A.2d
                                        A.2d 306,
                                             306, 327
                                                  327 (Pa. Super.
                                                           Super. 2000).
                                                                  2000).

        As
        As succinctly stated by
           succinctly stated    our Superior
                             by our Superior Count,
                                             Court,

                The double jeopardy
                             jeopardy clause of the Pennsylvania
                                                         Pennsylvania Constitution
                prohibits
                prohibits retrial  of a defendant
                           retrial of    defendant when
                                                      when the
                                                            the conduct  of the prosecutor
                                                                conduct of      prosecutor
                is
                is intentionally
                   intentionally   undertakers
                                   undertaken    to
                                                 to prejudice
                                                    prejudice  the
                                                               tbe defendant
                                                                   defendant  to
                                                                              to the
                                                                                 the point
                                                                                     point
                ofdenying
                of denying hint
                             him aafair
                                     rair trial. However,
                                                  However. because of the compelling
                societal interest in prosecuting
                                      prosecuting criminal defendants to
                conclusion,         Supreme Court has recognized that dismissal
                conclusion, our Supreme
                of  charges is an extreme sanction that should be
                of charges                                           be imposed
                                                                        imposed
                sparingly        only in
                sparingly and only        cases of
                                       in cases   of blatant
                                                     blatant prosecutorial  misconduct.
                                                             prosecutoria! misconduct

 Commonwealth
 Commonwealth v. Wilson, 147
              v. Wilson, 147 A.3d
                             A.3d 7,
                                  7, 1.3 (Pa. Super.
                                     13 (Pa.  Super. 2016)
                                                     2016).

                                                     6
       In
       In Commonwealth v.
                       v. Krista,
                          Krista, _   _A.d
                                       A.3d _ (Pa. Super,
                                                   Super. 214122),
                                                          2/4/22), Cie
                                                                   the Superior Court noted

that
that subjecting
     subjecting a
                a defendant
                  defendant to
                            to aasecond
                                 second trial
                                        trial following
                                              following aamistrial
                                                          mistrial or
                                                                   or a successful appeal
                                                                      a successful appeal does
                                                                                          does not
                                                                                               not

ordinarily
ordinarily oMend  double jeopardy
           offend double jeopardy protections.
                                  protections.

       In
       In Commonwealth
          Commonwealth v. Johnson, 231
                       v Johnson,  231 A.3d 807 (Pa.
                                       A.34 807 (Pa, 2020),
                                                     2420), our
                                                            our Supreme
                                                                Supreme Court
                                                                        Court considered
                                                                              considered

whether            jeopardy clause bars retrial "where the Commonwealth
whether the double jeopardy                                Cornmonwealth obtains aa. conviction

based
based on
      on false
         false evidence
               evidence and.
                        and its misconduct,
                                misconduct, while
                                            while not undertaken
                                                      undertaken with
                                                                 with the intent to deny the
                                                                                         the

defendant. a
defendant  a fair trial, nevertheless stems from prosecutorial
                                                 prosecutorial errors that rise substantially
                                                                                substantially above
                                                                                              above

ordinary
ordinary negligence." Johnson, 231 A.3d
         negligence." Johnson,            810. Therein,
                                   A.d at 810,  Therei, the High Court held that

`iprosecutorial
"prosecutoral overreaching
                overreaching sufficient to
                                        to invoke
                                           invoke double jeopardy
                                                         jeopardy protections includes
                                                                              ineludes

misconduct
misconduct which not only
           which not      deprives the defendant
                     only deprives     defendant of his right to
                                                              toafair trial,
                                                                      trial, but
                                                                             but is undertaken

recklessly,
recklessly, that is,
                 is, with
                     with aaconscious disregard
                                      disregard for
                                                for aasubstantial .risk
                                                                  risk that
                                                                        that such will.
                                                                                  will be the result
                                                                                              result.

.Johnson,
Johnson, 231 A.3d
             A,3d at 826. In so holding,
                                holding, the Court clarified that it did not
                                         the Count                       not "suggest that all

situations
situations involving,
           involving, serious prosecutorial
                              prosecutorial er
                                            errorrimplicate
                                                  implicate double jeopardy."
                                                                   jeopardy." Id
                                                                              id Rather, "retrial

is
is only
   only precluded
        precluded where tbore.
                        there is .aa prosecutorial
                                     prosecutorial overreaching which, in turn, implicates
                                                                                imp] ica#es some
                                                                                            sorno sort

of conscious act or omission."
                    omission.." Id.
                                Id

                           earns, 70 A,
        In Commonwealth v. Kearns,      3d 88!
                                     A.3d  881. (a.
                                                (Pa.. Super. 2013), our Superior Court held that

a
a prosecutor's
  prosecutor's gross
               gross negligence
                     negligence in
                                in failing
                                   failing to obtain and produce the             Est-arrest
                                                                 the defendant's post-arrest

written statement to
                  to police
                     police and statement of a
                                             a principal eyewitness was an insufficient hasis
                                                                                        basis upon

which
which to
      to bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds_ Rather, the court found
                               jeopardy grounds.                   found the appropriate remedy

in
in such
   such circu rnstanc es was
        circumstances        the grant
                         was the grant of a
                                          a new
                                            new trial.
                                                trial, This principle
                                                            principle has               reaffirmed
                                                                      has been recently reatlrmed

by
by the
   the Superior
       Superior Court. See,
                       See, Commonwealth
                            Commonweallh v.
                                         v. Krisla,
                                            Krista, Aid
                                                    Ad                    (Pa,       214122.) (holding
                                                                          (Pa Super. 2/4/22)

 that
 that improper
      improper commentary by a
               commentary by aprosecutor
                               prosecutor impinging
                                          impinging upon the defendant's right to remain silent

 did
 did not
     not warrant
         warrant double
                 double jeopardy relief; Commonwealth
                        jeopardy relief); Commoniveallh v,
                                                        • King and Haskins,          A.3d ('a
                                                                                    _A.d  • (Pa.

                                                    7
                                                    7
Super,
Super, 12114121)
       12/14/21) (holding
                 (holding that
                          that aaBrady
                                 Brady violation b
                                                 byy the Cornmonwcalth, in and
                                                     the Commonwealth,                    inerits
                                                                           and of itself, merits

relief
relief in
       in the
          the farm
              form of aanew trial
                            trial but
                                  but not
                                      not the application of the double
                                          the application        double jeopardy liar precluding
                                                                        jeopardy bar

retrial);
retrial); C'ommorr►+'ealth
          Commonwealth v.  v. Sanchez, 262
                                       262A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super.
                                               1283 (Pa. Super. 2021) ( ommonivealth's
                                                                2021 (Commonwealth's

negligent
negligent failure
          failure to disclose DNA
                  to disclose     evidence to
                              DNA evidence    the defendant before
                                           to the           before or during trial
                                                                   or during       did not
                                                                             trial did not rise
                                                                                           rise to
                                                                                                to

the
the type
    type of
         of intent
            intent or rceklessness
                      recklessness requiring,
                                   requiring dismissal  on double
                                              dismissal on double jeopardy grounds);
                                                                  jeopardy grounds);

Commonwealth v.
             v Rivera, 241
                       24I A.3d 4H
                                411 (a.
                                    (Pa. Super,
                                         Super. 2020) (unpublished mcmorandum)'•
                                                                   memorandum)

(multiple
(multiple systematic
          systematic errors by
                            by the Commonwealth, including, but riot
                                                                not limited to, introducing

photographs
photographs at
            at trial
               trial that it
                          it failed
                             failed to
                                    to disclose to
                                                to appellants
                                                   appellants prior to
                                                                    to trial,
                                                                       trial, destroying relevant text
                                                                                                  text

messages,
messages, and
          and failing
              failing to disclose prior
                                  prior to trial
                                           trial inculpatory statement made
                                                 inculpatory statement made by one appellant to
                                                                                             to

went
agent vvere
      were the result of negligence
                         negligence and did not
                                            not ri se to the level of intent or recklessness required
                                                rise

to warrwit
   warrant double jeopardy
                  jeopardy relief).
                           relief.

         Mule
         Rule 573
              573 of
                  0f the Pcnasylvmiia
                         Pennsylvania Mules of Criminal
                                      Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well
                                                        Procedure, as well as
                                                                           as Brady
                                                                              Brady v.

Maryland"'
Maryland" and Giglio
              Giglio v. Unite 'FStares",
                     v. United Sates', and their progeny,
                                                 progony, govem
                                                          govern discovery in criminal
                                                                              crh-
                                                                                 ninal cases,
                                                                                       eases,

and mandate that the Commonwealth
                     Ccmnionwealth produce
                                   produce to the defendant, inter
                                                             later alia, all potentially

exculpatory evidence.
exculpatory evidence. Rule
                      Rule 573 of the Pennsylvania
                                      Pennsylvania Mules
                                                   Rules of Criminal Procedure
                                                                     Procedure "imposes

greater
greater obligations
        obligations upon prosecutors than the Brady requirements." Commorwealth
                                                                   C mmonweallh vv.

Maldonado,
Maldonado, 173 A.3d. 769,
           173 A.34  769, 774 (Pa.
                              (Pa. Super.
                                   Super. 2017). 1-
                                                  be Commonwealth violates Brady by failing
                                          2017). The                                                               by
to disclose exculpatory
            exculpatory evidence as well as evidence that may be used to impeach aaprosecution

witness..
witness. Commonwealth v.
                      v.Johnson,
                         Johnson, 174 A.3d
                                      A.d 1050, 1056 (Pa.
                                                     (Pa. 2017,).
                                                          2017. Stated another way, the

duty
duty to disclose may
     to disclose     encompass impeachment
                 may encompass             evidence as
                               impeachment evidence as well
                                                       wall as
                                                            as directly
                                                               directly exculpatory evidence.
                                                                        exculpatory evidence.

9See, Pa. R—A.P. 126(b)
See,Pa.R.A.P.           (stating non-prcc
                 1264) (sating            cdential decisions
                                 nor-precedential  decisions of
                                                             efSuperior  Lout# filed after May 1,
                                                                Superior Court                 I, 2019 may
                                                                                                       tray be cited
for persuasive
     persuasive value).
                 value)
   37'3 U.S. 83 (19613) (holding that the government's
37US.83(1963(boding                        gaytemntent's withholding of evidence that is material to the determination
                                                                                                                deterinhintivn of
eitherguiit
either guilt or pun  ishrnent of a criminal defendant violates,
                punishment                              violates the defendant's
                                                                      defendat's constitutional rEaht
                                                                                                    right to due process)
                                                                                                                 process)-
   405 U.S. 15D
 '40$u.S.         (.1972) (holdhig that when
              150(1972)(holding          when the reliability
                                                   reliability of aagovernment
                                                                     government witness
                                                                                   %vitness may well be determinative of afguilt
                                                                                                                            gutll
or innocence,
    innocence,  that
                that gpndisclosure
                      nondisclosure  of cvidonce
                                        evidence affecting
                                                 affecting   cri.dibility
                                                             credibility  of
                                                                          of the
                                                                             the witness
                                                                                 witness  violates the
                                                                                                   the defendant's
                                                                                                        defendant's
constitutional tight          process).
                right to due process)
                                                               88
 ommorm ,calth v.
Commonwealth   v. Lesko,
                  Lesko, 15
                         15 A.
                            A.3dd345 (Pa. 2011);
                                 345 (Pa.        Commomverdth v.v. Lambert,
                                          20I1; Commorwealth                884 A.2d
                                                                   Lambert, 884 A. 2d 848
                                                                                      848 (Pa
                                                                                          (Pa.

2005).
2005).

         Rule 573
              $73 of
                  of the
                     the Pcnnsylvania
                         Pennsylvania Rules of
                                            of Criminal Procedure
                                                        Procedure mandates     disclosure of
                                                                  mandates the disclosure of

certain infomation
certain information by
                    by the Coniumonwealth upon
                       the Commonwealth   upon request
                                               request by
                                                       by the defendant. These
                                                          the defendant. `dhcsc items
                                                                                items include,
                                                                                      include,

in
in pertinent
   pertinent part,
             pant, "any evidence favorable
                   "any evidence           to the
                                 favorable to     accused that
                                              the accused that is material either
                                                               is matcrial either to guilt or
                                                                                  to guilt or

punishment and is
punishment and is within
                  within the
                         the possession or control
                             possession or control of the attorney
                                                   of the attorney for
                                                                   for the Commonwealth."
                                                                           Commonwealth."l 2 In
                                                                                             [n

addition,
addition, Rule
          Rule 573 establishes
                   establishes that aatrial court
                               that         count has
                                                  has the discretion to
                                                      the discretion to mandate the disclosure
                                                                        mandate the disclosure of
                                                                                               of

certain
certain other
        other information
              information upon
                          upon pre Idai motion
                               pretrial        of the
                                        motion of the defendant and
                                                                and upon
                                                                    upon aa. showing
                                                                             showing that such
                                                                                     that such

information
information is
            is material
               material to
                        to the
                           the preparation of the defense
                               preparation of     defense and
                                                          and that
                                                              that the request is reasonable,
                                                                       request is reasonable. Thcse
                                                                                              These

items
items include,
      include, in pertinent part,
                            part, "all
                                  "all written
                                       written and recorded statements,
                                                            statements, and substantially verbatim
                                                                        and substantially verbatim

oral
oral statements,
     statements, of eyewitnesses the
                 of eyewitnesses     Commonwealth intends
                                 the Commonwealth intends to call at
                                                          to call at trial"'     and
                                                                     trial" 3 and "any
                                                                                  "any other
                                                                                       other

evidence specifically identified by
                                 by the defendant, provided
                                                   provided the defendant can
                                                            the defendant can additionally
                                                                              additionally

establish
establish that
          that its di&closure
                   disclosure would
                              would be in
                                       in the interests Of
                                          the interests    justiee."' 4 Rule
                                                        of justice.""   Rule 573
                                                                             573 also imposes aa
                                                                                 also imposes

continuing duty of
continuing duty of such
                   such disclosure,
                        disclosure, both prior
                                         prior to and during
                                               to and during tnat.'
                                                             trial.'

         Herein,
         Herein, Defendant alleges that
                 Defendant alleges that his constitutional due
                                        his constitutional due process
                                                               process rights
                                                                       rights were violated in that
                                                                                   violated in

the
the Commonwealth
    Commonwealth failed
                 failed to disolose certain
                        to disclose certain information regarding statements
                                            information regarding ma(cments made  to the
                                                                             made to

 ommon weal th by
Commonwealth   by Antasia
                  Antasia Bair.
                          Bair. As detailed above,
                                As detailed        on May
                                            above, on May 10,
                                                          10, 202 1, Antasia
                                                              2021,  Antasia Bair niet with
                                                                             Bair met  with

Assistant
Assistant District
          District Attorney Coder Wade
                   Attorney Cody  Wade and
                                       and iDctective Sergeant. Robert
                                           Detective Sergeant   Robert Whiteford of the
                                                                       Whiteford of the

Lancaster
Lancaster City
          City Bureau of Police
               Bureau of Police to
                                to prepare
                                   prepare for
                                           for her                     at trial.
                                                   ugcorning testimony at
                                               her upcoming                             the
                                                                          trial. During the

meeting,
meeting, Ms..
         Ms. Bair
              BHair     provided infon
                        provided       nation, which
                                 information,
                                       -       which she had not
                                                     she bad not previously disclosed, including
                                                                 previously disclosed,           an
                                                                                       including an

allegation
allegation that
           that Defendant
                Defendant had physically choked Quetesha
                              physically choked Quetesha. Payne at aaTurkey
                                                          Payne at   Turkey Hill
                                                                            dill convenience
                                                                                 convenience

   Pa.R-Crm.P.$730801%
pARCrim.P
12               57.i(B)(L)(a)-
'  Pa.R.Crun.P.573(3)(2)(a)(H)-
Pp.R.Crim.P.     573(BX26a¥i)
I• Pa.R. riin.P. 573(B)(2)
'pA.R.Crim.P                (a)(iv).
                 $7308X26Ki9)
Is Pa-R- rEm.P. 573(D).
puR.Crim.P,      5$73(D

                                                     99
store
store shortly
      shortly before
              before the instant
                         instant homicide
                                 homicide would occur at aaseparate
                                          would occur      separate location
                                                                    location in the City
                                                                             in the City of
                                                                                         of

Lancaster.
Lancaster. This
           This information
                information was not
                                not included in
                                             in. the supplemental
                                                     supplemental report
                                                                  report prepared
                                                                         prepared regarding the

meeting
meeting of
        of May
           May 10,
               10, 202 1, which
                   2021,  which was presented
                                    presented to counsel for Defendant
                                              to counsel               on May
                                                             Defendant on     12, 2021
                                                                          May 1,  202 1.

Additionally,
Additionally, Defendant asserts that the
                                     the attorneys
                                         attorneys for the Commonwealth failed
                                                                        failed to
                                                                               to mention this

information during
            during aadiscussi
                     discussion           court„ outside of the presence
                              on with the court,                presentee of the jury, on May 13,

'021.
2021 It is recognized
           recognized that this discussion pertaining
                                           pertaining to other information provided by Ms. Bair
                                                                                           air

during
during the
       the meeting of May
           meeting of May 10,
                          10, 2021.
                              2021.

       "A
       A party
          party seeking
                seeking Brady haled
                              based relief
                                    relief bears
                                           bears the burden
                                                     burden of establishing entitlement to such

relief by
       by proving
          proving that:
                  that. (I
                        () the evidence
                               evidence at
                                        at issue
                                           issue was
                                                 was favorable
                                                     favorable to the accused,
                                                                      accused, either
                                                                               either because
                                                                                      because it is
                                                                                                 is

exculpatory
exculpatory or
            or because itit impeaches;
                            impeaches; (2)
                                       (2) the evidence
                                               evidence vvas suppressed by
                                                        was suppressed  by the
                                                                           the prosecution, either
                                                                                            either

willf41.1
willfullyyor
          or inadvertently;     (3) prejudice
             inadvertently; and 6)  prejudice ensured to the
                                                         the defendant..
                                                             defendant."'° Commonwealth
                                                                           Common vealth v.v. Paddy,

15
15 A,3d
   A.3d 431,
        431, 450 (201.1).
             450 (2011).

        In the instant matter,
                       matter, the parties have presented
                               the parties      presented inconsistent positions relative to the

nature of
       ofthe
          the information in gaestion.
                             question. The         argues that the challenged comments of
                                       The defense argues                              orMs.
                                                                                          Ms.

Bair are favorable
         favorable to Defendant as impeachment
                                   impeachment evidence as
                                                        as "it was new
                                                                   new .information,
                                                                       information,

inconsistent with Bair's
                  air's previous
                         previous statements to police and prior sworn testimony
                                                                       testimony, ,as well as

inconsistent
inconsistent with other
                  outer eyewitnesses           Hill; all of which
                        eyewitnesses at Turkey Hill         which goes
                                                                  goes directly to
                                                                                to Bair'
                                                                                   Bair's

credibility."
credibility." (Defendant's
              (Defendant's Brief in
                                 in. Support of Granting Motion for Dismissal and Barring Retrial

—
p.p, 14).. Conversely, the
     I4). Conversely,      Commonweaith asserts that the disclosure in
                       the Commonwealth                             in question by Ms.
                                                                                   Nis. Bair
                                                                                        Bair is

not inconsistent
    inconsistent with her prior statements
                      her prior statements. Rather,
                                            Rather, the
                                                    the Commonwealth posits
                                                                     posits that M1Ms.;. Bair's

current statements,
        statements are simply
                       simply more detailed than her prior statements and would not be the

subject
subject of
        of proper
           proper impeachment. (Cominonwealth•s Brief
                  impeachment. (Commonwealth's           Opposition to the
                                                Brief in Opposition    the Defendant's
                                                                           Dcfendarlt';,•

Motion
Motion for Di =is sal and Barring retrial
           Dismissal              Retrial —pgs. 8,
                                          pgs.  9, 10-12),
                                                   10-12).

                                                  10
                                                  IO
       In
       In assessing
          assessing the
                    the parties'
                        parties' respective
                                 respective posiEions,
                                            positions, this court is
                                                       this court is placed
                                                                     placed into
                                                                            into the difficult
                                                                                 the difficult

situation
situation of
          of assessing
             assessing the
                       the favorability of this
                           favorability of this information
                                                information to
                                                            to the defer&dit. As
                                                               the defendant. As recognized ky our
                                                                                 recd sized by our

appellate
appellate courts,
          courts,

               A
               A deternaination
                  deternination of whether the                       prosecution witnesses
                                                the statements of prosccution      witnesses
               would   have been
               would have   been helpful
                                  helpful toto the
                                               the defense
                                                    defense is
                                                             is not
                                                                not to
                                                                     to be
                                                                        be made
                                                                           made byby the
                                                                                      the
               prosecution
               prosecution  or
                            or the
                               the trial
                                   trial court.
                                         court.,  ,.. Matters
                                                       Matters contained
                                                                contained   in
                                                                            in a
                                                                               a v6tness'
                                                                                 witness
               statement
               statement may   appear innocuous
                          may appear    innocuous to  to some, but
                                                                 but have great significance
               to counsel
               to counsel viewing
                           vewing   the
                                    the  statements
                                         statements    from
                                                       from  the
                                                             the  perspective of
                                                                  perspective   of an
                                                                                   an advocate
                                                                                       advocate
               for the
                   the accused
                       accused abort
                                about to   cross-examine aawitness.
                                       to cross-examine        witness,

Commonweallh
Commonwealth v.v, Alston,
                  41slon, 864 A.2d 539, 547 (Pa. Super.
                              A.2d 539,547(Pa.   Super. 200-4)
                                                        2004) (citing
                                                               (citi )g Commonwealth
                                                                        C'onimonwealth v.v. French.
                                                                                            French,
611 ,A2d
    A.24 175, 179-80 (Pa.
                      (Pa. 1992).
                           1992).

        The
        The allegations
            allegations of Ms.
                           Ms. Bair
                               Bair at issue herein
                                             herein .are clearer not of an inherent
                                                    arc clearly            inherent exculpatory

nature inasmueh
       inasmuch as said statements allege that
                                          that the defendant physically
                                                             physically assaulted aafemale
                                                                                    fernale in the
                                                                                               the

hours which preceded
            preceded the
                     the homicide.
                         homicide. As such, Ms.
                                   As such, Ms. Bair#s        are in the
                                                Bair's claims are    the nature of aaprior bad
                                                                         nature of

act.

        Defendant claims that the new
                                  pew information would be useful for impeachment purposes in

that M s. Bair had not previously
     Ms.               previously raised such claims.
                                              clainns. As noted by
                                                                by the Commonwealth,
                                                                       C;crmmonwcalth,

Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania jurisprudence has long
             jurisprudence has long held
                                    held that
                                         that "it
                                               it is
                                                  is well-established
                                                     well-established that
                                                                      that for
                                                                           for aastatement
                                                                                 statement to
                                                                                           to be

used for impeachment,
         impeachment, aastatement must be
                                       be inconsistent with, and not just different, .from
                                                                                     from trial

testimony. Mere omissions from prior
testimony.Mere                 prior statements do not render prior
                                                              prior statements inconsistent for

impeachment
impeachment purposes." Commonweallh v. Johnson,
            purposes." Commonwealth    ,luhnason, 758 A.2d 166, I70
                                                                170 (Pa.
                                                                     Pa. Super. 20100); ee
                                                                         Super 2000)    ,see

also,
also, Commonwealth v.
                   ». Washington,
                      Washington, 700 A.2d 400, 4I
                                                411 n.17 {Pa.
                                                         (Pa. 1.997); C mmon w
                                                                             ealth vV.
                                                              1997) Commonwealth

JWcEachin,
McEachin, 537
           537 A.2d 883, 891 (Pa.
               A.2d 883,891       Sapper. 1988);
                             (Pa. Super.  1988); Commonwealth v.
                                                              • Rue,      A.2d 973,976
                                                                 Rue, 524 A.24 97:3, 976 (Pa.

Super.
Super. 1987);
       1987); Commonwealth v.v. Hammond,
                                    end, 454 A.2d 60, 65 (a.
                                                         (Pa. Super. 1982). "Where aa

vvitrwss
witness offers
         offers testimony that is
                testimony that is more
                                  more detailed
                                       detailed than
                                                than the
                                                     the vdtness'
                                                         witness' prior statement, that
                                                                  prior statement,      is not
                                                                                   that is not an
                                                                                               ari

inconsistent
inconsistent statement upon which
             statement upon which one can impeach."
                                  one can impeach." Commonwealth ».v. layiner„ IS3
                                                                      Rayner,  15 3A.3d
                                                                                     ,3d

                                                     11
                                                     II
1049,
1049, 1062 (Pa.
           (Pa. Super. 2016), Accordingly,
                Super. 2016). Accordingly, the additional
                                               additional allegations                    Ms,. Bair
                                                          allegations at issue raised by Ms.

would
would not
      not be traditionally appropriate impeachment
             traditionally appropriate impeachment material as aaprior inconsistent statement
                                                                                    statement.

            Although
            Although the statement. at issue would not serve as the basis of impeachment as a
                     the statement                                                          aprior

inconsistent
inconsistent statement,
             statement, itit must
                             must be
                                  be recognized
                                     recognized that the Commonwealth
                                                that the Commonwealth has conceded that
                                                                      has conceded that the
                                                                                        the

statement
statement lacks
          lacks any
                any additional support from the
                    additional support      the other evidence
                                                      evidence in
                                                               in this
                                                                  this inatter. Stated. another
                                                                       matter. Stated

way,
way, the
     the Commonwealth
         Commonwealth went
                      went so far as to concede that they have no reason to believe that
                                                               no reason            that Ms.

Bair's statemew
       statement has any
                     any accuracy.
                         accuracy. Accordingly,
                                   Accordingly, Defendant.                                 of
                                                Defendant could arguably seek introduction ol

the statement to cast doubt upon
                            upon Ms. Fair's         credibility., independent of any concerns
                                     Hair's overall credibility,

regarding inconsistency. 16 As
regarding inconsistency."      such, this
                            As such,      court cannot
                                     this court cannot find
                                                       find this statement as
                                                            this statement as wholly
                                                                              wholly lacking
                                                                                     lacking

exculpatory
exculpatory value,
            value.

            Tinting
            Turning to the next prong
                                prong of the Brady
                                             Brady analysis, the burden of
                                                                        ofproof
                                                                           proof is on the defendant

to
to demonstrate
   demonstrate that
               that the Commonwealth withheld
                    the Commonwealth withheld or suppressed
                                                 suppressed evidence.
                                                            evidence. Commorwealth
                                                                      Commonwealth v_

Porter,
Porter, 728 A, 2d 890,
            A.2d  590, 898 (a.
                           (Pa. 1999).
                                1999). As argued
                                          argued by
                                                 by the
                                                    the Commonwealth herein, it is recognized

that
that Pennsylvania
     Pennsylvania jurisprudence
                  jurisprudence iinposes    constitutional requirement
                                imposes "no constitutional             tbat the
                                                           requirement that     prosecution
                                                                            the prosecution

make a
     a complete
       complete and detailed accounting
                             accounting to
                                        to the defense of all police investigatory work on aa.

case." Commonwealth
        •ommoniveulth v.
                      • Natividad, 200 A.3d 11, 26 (Pa. 2019) (quoting
                                            11,26                            v. Illinois, 08
                                                              (quoting Moore v».          408

UJ
US..786,795(1995))-
    786, 795 (1995)). Under Brady,
                            Brady, "the prosecutor
                                        prosecutor is not required to deliver his entire file
                                                                                         iile to

                     only to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would
defense counsel, but only

deprive
deprive the
        the defendanI
            defendant of a
                         a fair trial," Commonnealih v,
                                trial." Commonwealth v. Haskfna,
                                                        Haskins, 60 A.3d 528,546-47
                                                                         528, 546-47 (Pa
                                                                                     (Pa_

 uper. 2012)
Super. 2012) (gooting
             (quoting United Slates
                             States •v. Bagley,     U.S, 667, 677 (1985).
                                        Bagley, 473 11.$.         (1985)). That noted,
                                                                                nosed, the
                                                                                       the

'6 Whike
   while itit is not within the purview
                                 purview of   the court to speculate
                                           of the            speculate as to the strategic disions
                                                                                            decisions of counsel for the
deferndant,
defendant, it cannot be overlooked that inlroduction
                                               introduction of Ms.     Hair's statements
                                                                  M«. Baits    statemcnLs in this regard
                                                                                                  nerd would certainly expose
the jury to
t]wjury   to the
              the prejudicial
                   prejudicial nature of the
                                         the  prior
                                              prior  bad  acts
                                                          acts  alleged.
                                                                alleged  in the
                                                                            tbe statement.
                                                                                statement,  As  will
                                                                                                wit  Le addressed further herein, it
                                                                                                     be                           l
is
is the
   the prr judicial.  impact
       prejudicial impact    of  welt
                                 such statements    wllicl,
                                                    which   led.
                                                            led  the court  to grant
                                                                               gart  Defendant's   request
                                                                                                   request for a
                                                                                                               a mistrial in #his
                                                                                                                             this
 matt er.
 matter

                                                                 1
                                                                 12
appellate
appellate courts of this
          courts of      Commorkw alth have
                    this Commonwealth  have recognized
                                            recognized the pretrial disclosure
                                                       the pretrial disclosure of prior
                                                                               of prior

statements
statements of
           of Commonwealth
              Commonwealth witnesses
                           witnesses to
                                     to the defense. See, Commonwealth v.
                                        the defense.                      Conlakos, +24
                                                                       v. Contakos, x}2.4

A.2d
A.2d 1284 (Pa, 198
     1284 (Pa,     1) (majority
               1981)  (majority of
                                of court
                                   court agreeing
                                         agreeing that
                                                  that defense is entitled
                                                       defense is entitled to
                                                                           to notes of any
                                                                              notes of any

interviews
interviews conducted by the
           conducted by the prosecution
                            prosecution where
                                        where the
                                              the natcs
                                                  notes are
                                                        are aasubstantially
                                                              substantially verbatim record of
                                                                            verbatim record of

the
the ii}teruiew}; Commonwealth v. Grayson,
    interview); Commorwealth     Grayson, 353
                                          353 A.2d
                                              A4.24 1'1976)(a
                                                        761) (a new trial was
                                                                new trial     awarded where
                                                                          was awarded where the

defense was denied access to review pretrial
                                    pretrial statements made by
                                             statenents madc    Comm onwcalth witnesses),
                                                             by Commonwealth  witnesses);

Commonwealth a
             v. .Morris,
                Morris, 281 A.2.d 8.51 (Pa.
                            A.2d 85I   (Pa. 1971) (where: law enforcement officer conducted
                                            197D (where

an interview of
             of the victim
                    victim in
                           in aarape prosecution
                                     prosecution and took
                                                     took extensive notes,
                                                                    notes, those notes were

subject
subject to
        to disclosure
           disclosure to
                      to discovery
                         discovery by defense); Commonwealth V.
                                   by defense);              v. Parenle,
                                                                Parente, 440 A.2d     (Pa.
                                                                             A.2d 549 (Pa

Super. 1982)
Super. 1982) (the
             (the recorded or substantially
                              substantially verbatim statements by eyewitnesses that the

Commonwealth intends to call
Commonwealth            call at
                             at trial must be available
                                trial must    available to defense counsel
                                                        to defense counsel upon
                                                                           upon aamotion
                                                                                  motion for
                                                                                         for

pretrial discovery); see contra,
pretrial discovery);     c: nlra, Comorwealth
                                  Commoravealrh v.
                                                • Steder,
                                                   Stetler, 95 A.3d 864 (a.
                                                               A.3d 864 (Pa. Super. 204)
                                                                                    2014)

(informal
(informal notes
          notes compiled
                compiled by
                         by investigators during interviews
                            investigators during            are not
                                                 interviews are     subjcet to
                                                                not subject to discovery
                                                                               discovery

requirements
requirements under Rule 573 of the Pennsylvania
                                   Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure in that they are

not
not substantially
    substantially verbatim oral statements
                  verbatim oral statements ;signed, adapted, or
                                           signed, adopted,  or otherwise
                                                                otherwise shown
                                                                          shown to be
                                                                                to be

substantially
substantially verbatim statements of the witness),.
                                         witness). There can be no doubt that these holdings

have
have been
     been largely
          largely incorporated
                  incorporated into Rule            Pcnnsylvzinia Mules
                                    Rule 573 of the Pennsylvania                    Procedure.
                                                                  Rules of Criminal Procedure

        Applied
        Applied to the instant
                       instant matter,
                               matter, the statements at issue were first         by 14s.
                                                                    first offered by Ms, ]lair durhig
                                                                                          Bair during

a
a meeting
  meeting which occurred on May 1 p.2021
                            May 10, 2021 at the Lancaster City Bureau of Police Headquaders.
                                                                         Police Headquarters.

Present
Present at
        at this
           this meeting
                meeting were
                        wereMs.
                             Ms. Bair,
                                 Bair, Assistant
                                       Assistant District
                                                 District Altomey
                                                          Attomey Cody Wade,
                                                                       Wade, and Detective
                                                                                 Detective

Sergeant
Sergeant Robert Whileford.
                Whiteford. The purpose
                               purpose of this meeting was to permit
                                                              p      Ms. Bair to review her

prior
prior statements and te.•timany
      statements and testimony so
                                so as
                                   as to prepare
                                         prepare leer Ior testimeiiy
                                                 her for               trial. This meeting
                                                          testimony at trial               xvus not
                                                                                   meeting was  not

recorded,
recorded, nor
          nor were any verbati',
              were any           or substantially
                       verbatim or  substantially verbatim accounts preserved
                                                  verbatim account            of this
                                                                    preserved of this meeting.
                                                                                      meeting

                                                  13
As
As previously
   previously addressed,
              addressed, Assistant District Attorney
                         Assistant District Attorney Wade credibly testified
                                                     Wade credibly testified that he
                                                                                  he had
                                                                                     had no
                                                                                         lio

reason
reason to
       to believe
          believe the accuracy of
                  tbe accuraey of Ms.
                                  Ms. Bair's representations
                                             representations as
                                                             as they
                                                                they were not supported by
                                                                          not supported by any
                                                                                           any

other widence in
other evidence in this
                  this matter.
                       matter. As
                               As such„
                                  such, itit is clcar
                                                clear that. Attorney Wade discounted
                                                      that Attorney       discounted these

allegations and instructed
allegations     instructed Pis.
                           Ms. Bair
                                Bair that
                                     that they
                                          they woald
                                               would raised at trial.
                                                     raised at trial. At the direction
                                                                      At the direction of
                                                                                       of Attorney
                                                                                          Attorney

Wade,
Wade, Detective
      Detective Sergeant
                Sergeant Whitef"ord
                         Whiteford prepared
                                    prepared a supplemental report regarding the
                                             a supplemental                      interview
                                                                             the interview

which was promptly
          promptly provided
                   provided to counsel for the defendant,           Sergeant. %Vhiteford
                                               defendant. Detective Sergeant  Whiteford

credibly
credibly testified
         testified that
                   that lie
                        he did not
                               not recall hearing
                                          hearing Ms.
                                                  Ms. Bair
                                                      Bair making          statements during
                                                           making any such statements during the

meeting
meeting and
        and that
            that he had
                    had briefly
                        briefly .stepped    ofthe
                                stepped out of the mocting.
                                                   meeting. Additionally,
                                                            Additionally, Detective
                                                                          Detective Sergeant

Whiteford
Whiteford credibly
          credibly testified that any representations
                             that any                 suggestive to the
                                      representations suggestive        contrary made at the time
                                                                    the contrary

of trial
   trial were the
              the result of confusion
                            confusion between
                                      between this
                                              this case and other matters. It must also be
                                                                                        be noted
                                                                                           noted

that, at the time
that,        time of trial, Attorney Wade
                     trial, Attorney      indicated to
                                     Wade indicated to the cozu-t
                                                           court that     had aavague
                                                                  that he had   vague recollection

that
that lbs.
     Ms. Bair
          Bair had told him during
               had told     during the
                                   the meeting that Defendant
                                       meeting that Defendant and lots.
                                                                  Ms. Payne   had "gotten
                                                                        Payne had "gotten into
                                                                                          into if
                                                                                               it „

at
at the Turkey
       Turkey bill
              Hill convenience store, but.
                                      but he was
                                             was unable to describe her comments during the
                                                        to dcscribe

meeting
meeting with any additional
        with any additional specificity
                            specificity.

        With regard
             regard to the issue of
                    to the       of materi a] i
                                              ty, evidence
                                    materiality,  -evidence is material. ifthere
                                                               material if there is aareasonable
                                                                                      reasonable

possibility
possibility tliat,
            that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the trial would have

been
been different." Co root mreaf hv.
     different." Commonwealth   v. Lambert, 8$4 A.7d
                                   Lambent, 884 A2d at 854; See also, Commonwealth vV-

CChins•, 988
Collins, 888 A.2d
             A.24 Sb4,
                  564, 577-7
                       577-78 (Pa.
                              (Pa. 2005),
                                   2005). The
                                          The mere possibility
                                                   possibility that an item of undisclosed

information
information might
            might have helped
                       helped the defense, or might
                                              might have affected the outcome of the trial, does

not
not establish
    establish materiality in the
              materiality in the constitutional
                                 constitutional sense. Corm aniveafth v.
                                                sense. Commonwealth               807 A.2d
                                                                      • Chambers, 807 A,2d 8T2,
                                                                                           872.,

 87 (Pa.
887 (Pa. 2002).
         2002).

                     granted Defendaw's
        As the court granted Defendant's request
                                         request for aamistrial, this court cannot
                                                                            cni-not weigh any

determination
determination of
              of materiality against the
                 materiality against the outcome
                                         outcome of
                                                 of trial
                                                    trial as
                                                          as the
                                                             the matter never reached
                                                                 matter never         verdict.
                                                                              reached verdict

                                                  14
                                                  14
That said
     said,;it must be considered that Ms..Bair            eyewitness to the homicide. Rather,
                                      Ms. Bair was not an eyewitness

based upon
      upon the
           the credible
               credible representations
                        representations made
                                        made by
                                             by the attorneys for
                                                the attorneys         Commonwealth, Ms,
                                                              for the Commonwealth, lvls. Bait
                                                                                          Bair

was
was presented
    presented for the Iimi.ted
              for the limited purpose  of testifying
                               purpose of testi Cying regarding
                                                      regarding her
                                                                her observations of the argument
                                                                    observations of     argument

which occurred at the
                  the Turkey
                      Turkey Bill convenience store prior to the
                             Hill convenience                the homicide,
                                                                 homicide, as well to corroborate;
                                                                                   to corroborate

certain
certain prior
        prior consistent statements made
              consistent statements made by an eyewitness
                                         by an eyevkitness to
                                                           to the
                                                              the homicide
                                                                  homicide which identified
                                                                           which identified

Defendant
Defendant as     shooter.
          as the shooter.

        Mule
        While evidence
              evidence that Ids. Bair is
                            Ms. BEir  is currently
                                         currently raising claims that Defendant
                                                                       Dcfend ant physically
                                                                                  ply sic ally

grabbed
grabbed a
        a female during the argument
          female during     argument at
                                     at the Turkey
                                            Turkey Hi I
                                                   HillIconvenience
                                                        convenience store,
                                                                    store, and that such
                                                                           and that such

evidence
evidence is not supported
                supported by
                          by any other evidence,
                             any other evidence, may arguably
                                                 may arguably be helpful in
                                                              be helpful in the impeachment of
                                                                            the impeachment of

her credibility,
    credibility, it
                 it is
                    is not of such
                       not of      quality that
                              such quality that there is
                                                      is a
                                                         a reasonable
                                                           reasonable possibility that it
                                                                      possibility that    would .lead
                                                                                       it would       to aa
                                                                                                lead to

different
different verdict
          verdict at
                  at trial.
                     trial. Additionally,
                            Additionally, this court cannot
                                          this court cannot overlook
                                                            overlook the prejudicial impact
                                                                                     impact of
                                                                                            of such
                                                                                               such

testimony
testimony as reflective
             reflective of
                        of prior
                           prior violent
                                 violent acts
                                         acts orn
                                              on the
                                                  the part of the
                                                      part of the defendant
                                                                  defendant shortly before
                                                                                    before the

horn i6de. ire
homicide   In suggesting
               suggesting the benefit of
                          the benefit of introductio nof
                                         introduction of such
                                                         such evidence
                                                              evidence for
                                                                       for impeachment purposes,
                                                                           impeachment purposes,

Defendant, herein,
           herein, minimizes the integrated inculpatory
                             be integrated              aspcets, which, taken to
                                            inculpatory aspects,              in their context,

substantially
substantially undermine
              undermine the allegedly exculpatory
                        the allegedly exculpatory value of the
                                                  value of     staternent.
                                                           the statement.

        Accordingly, for the
        Accordingly, for the foregoing reasorps, the
                             foregoing reasons,  the court
                                                     count finds that Defendant
                                                           finds that Defendant has failed to
                                                                                has failed to

establish
establish ruateriality
          materiality in
                       in the constitutional
                              cons titudonal sense.
                                             sense. Therefore,
                                                    There Coro, Defendant
                                                                Defendant has
                                                                          has fail ed to
                                                                              failed  to prove
                                                                                         prove that
                                                                                               that

any
any Brady/Giglio
    Brady/Giglio viol adan occurred
                 violation occurred in this matter.
                                    in this matter. Assuming,
                                                    Assuming. arguendo,
                                                              arguendo, that
                                                                        that aarevieAins court
                                                                               reviewing court

may
may find such
         such a
              a violation,
                violation, there
                           there is
                                 is no evidence of
                                    no evidence of record    suggest that
                                                   record to suggest      any lack
                                                                     that any lack of
                                                                                   of disclosure
                                                                                      disclosure; by
                                                                                                  by

the attorneys
the attorneys for
              for the Commonwealth
                      Commonwealth resulted from any
                                   resulted from any intentional, willful, or
                                                     intentional, willful, or reckless
                                                                              reckless conduct,
                                                                                       conduct,

as opposed
   opposed to mere inadvertence.
                   inadvertence

        Mast
        Most importantly,
             importantly, it must be recognized
                                     recognized that the mistrial granted
                                                                  grwited in this matter, upon

Defendant's
Defendant's motion,
            motion, did not pertain
                            pertain to any purported discovery violations.
                                                               violations. Niore
                                                                           More specifically, the

                                                    15
court
court granted
      granted a
              a mistrial
                mistrial in
                         in this
                            this matter
                                 matter because the jury
                                        because the jury was
                                                         was presented
                                                             presented with
                                                                       with testimony
                                                                            testimony regarding aa

purported
purported prior
          prior bad
                bad act allegedly committed
                    act allegedly committed by the defendant some
                                               the defendant some time before, and at
                                                                  time before,     at aa

diff'mnt
different location,
          location. from
                    from the hom]6de 17 .
                             homicide"

         In assessing
         In assessing this
                      this claim, as noted
                           claim, as       above, the
                                     noted above, the count
                                                      court rinds that Attorney
                                                            finds that Attorney NVade credibly
                                                                                Wade credibly

testified
testified that:
          that: he
                he did
                   did not
                       not intend
                           intend to
                                  to in trod ace this
                                     introduce   this evidence at trial18;
                                                      evidence at trial"; he  admonished Ms.
                                                                           he admonished     Fair not
                                                                                         Ms. Bair not

to
to present
   present this
           this testimony at trial,
                testimony at trial; he did not
                                    he did     elicit such
                                           not elicit such testimony;    was surprised
                                                           testimony; he was surprised by such
                                                                                          such

testimony;
testimony; and,
           and, he
                he dial
                   did not  seek to
                        not seek    prejudice the
                                 to prejudice     defendant's right
                                              the defendant's       to aafair
                                                              right to   fair trial. Attorney Wade
                                                                              trial. Altomey  Wade

further credibly testified
further credibly testified that
                           that the Comronwealth has
                                the Commonwealth has received
                                                     received no
                                                              no benefit from the
                                                                 benefit from     award of
                                                                              the award of

Defendant's
Defendant's motion
            motion for
                   for a
                       a mistrial
                         mistrial in
                                  in this.
                                     this utter.
                                           matter

         Accordingly,
         Accordingly, based upon
                            upon the
                                 the totality of the
                                     totality of     evidence presented,
                                                 the evidence presen(ed, it is clear to
                                                                            is clear to this
                                                                                        this court
                                                                                             court that
                                                                                                   that

the
the introduction
    introduction of
                 of the challenged
                        challenged testimony     solely the
                                   testimony was solely the result
                                                            result of an unexpected "blurt out"
                                                                                           Out" on

the
tbe part
    part of
         of aalay
              lay witness,
                  witness, despile the reasonable
                           despite the reasonable attempts of the:
                                                  attempts of      attorneys for
                                                              the attorneys  for the Commonwealth
                                                                                 the Commonwealth

to
to prevent
   prevent such.     court finds
           such. The court finds that
                                 that the
                                      the record
                                          record in this
                                                    this natter
                                                         matter is devoid of
                                                                is devoid of any
                                                                             any evidence
                                                                                 evidence that
                                                                                          that the
                                                                                               the

Commonwealth
Commonwealth acted
             acted in
                   in an intentional or
                      an intentional or reckless manner. The court
                                                 manner. The       further finds
                                                             court further       that the
                                                                           finds that

record
record in this matter
       in this matter is devoid of
                      is devoid of any
                                   any evidence of prosecutorial
                                       evidence of prosecutorial overreaching
                                                                 overreaching which,    turn,
                                                                              which, in turn,

implicates
implicates .some
           some sort ofconscious        omission, Accordingly,
                       conscious act or omission. Accordingly, the double jeopardy bar of

retrial
retrial is
        is not wwrrantcd
               warranted in
                         in this
                            this matter.
                                 matter. Rather,
                                         Rather, this       correctly granted
                                                 this court correctly granted. Defendant's
                                                                               Defendant's motion for

a
a mistrial
  mistrial upon
           upon the
                the inadvertent
                    inadvertent admission of the
                                             the prejudicial
                                                 prejudicial prior
                                                             prior bad acts evidence. As the result
                                                                                             result

thereof,
thereof, Defendant
         Defendant will
                   will receive
                        receive the
                                the benefit of aainew
                                    benefit of   new trial
                                                      trial untainted by
                                                                      by such
                                                                         such evidence.
                                                                              evidence

"At  trial, the Conmonwralth
   Attial,      CorrowtAth offered no argument argumcrit regarding       admissibility of
                                                         regarding the admissibility    of such testimony
                                                                                                  testimony under any
recognized   exception
recognized exception    to
                        to the  general  prohibiticm
                               general prohibition   against the admission
                                                                 adoiso      of prior
                                                                                poor   bad  acts
                                                                                           act   evidence.
                                                                                                 evident.
I' The
   re court further
              further Cnds  ffiat the
                      fade that   the Communwea[th
                                      Conorwesth coted cDrnmitted, mo
                                                                    nip violation of any
                                                                                     any{ notice
                                                                                          nvti= requirements contained in
Rule
Rule 404(b)
     404(b) ofof the
                 the Pennsylvania
                     Pennsylvaia Rules         Evidmee in
                                      Rules of Evidence  in that
                                                            that the ComTnonwealth was not
                                                                 the Commonwealth            not intending to
                                                                                                            to introduce
                                                                                                               intrcAuce such
evidence_
evidence

                                                              16
       Rule
       Rule 587(B)
            587() of  the Pennsyl-vania
                   of the Pennsylvania Bales  of Criminal
                                        Rules of Crimizial Procedure directs that
                                                           Procedure directs      this court
                                                                             that this court must
                                                                                             must

make
make a
     a determination
       determination as
                     as to
                        to whether
                           whether Defendant's current challenge
                                   Defendant s current chaIJenge should
                                                                 should be
                                                                        be deemed as
                                                                                  as

frivolous.
frivolous. Said
           Said determination will impact
                                   impact tilt timing of
                                          the timing  ofany
                                                         any potential appeal of
                                                             potential appeal of this court's
                                                                                      cciurt's

decision. Our appellate
              appellate courts have held that
                                         that a frivolous double
                                              a frivolous double jeopardy claim i
                                                                 jeopardy claim iss"a claim
                                                                                      claim

clearly
clearly and
        and palpably
            palpably xiwithout
                         ithout merit,
                                merit; it
                                       it is
                                          is aaclaim [that]
                                                     [that] presents
                                                            presents no
                                                                     no debatable question."
                                                                        debatable question"

Commonweallh
Commonwealth v. Orie,
                Orle, 33 A.3d 17, 21 (Pa.
                              17,21  (a. Super. 2011) (quoting Commonwealth v.v. Gains, 5S56
                                                                                        556

A.2d 870, 874-.5 (Pa. Super.I989)
          874-5 (Pa.  Super.198x) (en
                                  (era bane)).
                                       bane)). Further, our appellate courts have held that,

               Where
                Where the trial   court has
                            trial court has rejected
                                              rejected a a criminal
                                                           criminal defendant's
                                                                      defendant s double
                                                                                     double
               jeopardy   claim which
               jeopardy claim     which isis at
                                             at least
                                                 least 'colorable' oror arguable',
                                                                         `arguable', access
                                                                                       access
               to
                to appellate review
                              review is  imperative. Otherwise,
                                      is imperative.      Otherwise, the     risk is
                                                                        the risk  is simply
                                                                                     simply
               too
                too great
                    great that the criminal
                                    criminal defendant
                                                defendant will
                                                             will be  deprived of
                                                                  be deprived     of his
                                                                                     his
                right to
               right  to be
                         be free from an unnecessary retria]        with its
                                                            retrial with       accornpan ing
                                                                           its accompanying
                4.. Iexpense, trauma,
                     expense,   trauma., and
                                         and rigors incident to   to aacriminal prose     ution
                                                                                   prosecution
               for the second time.

Gains, 502 A,2d
           A.2d at 875 (citing Commonwealth
                               Commonwealth'v.
                                             v. Brady, 502 A.2d
                                                           A 2d 286, 288 (Pa. 1986)).
                                                                              1986))

       This court has failed to discover any
                                         any :further appellate guidance
                                             further appellate  guidance to     its analysis in this
                                                                         to aid its

regard.
regard. This court is wholly cognizant
                             ccgnizant ofthe  cballen es, which
                                          the challenges  which may result to the parties
                                                                                  partics by any

rurther
further delay
        delay in
              in resolution of this
                 resolution of      i-nalter. That
                               this mater.    That noted, although this
                                                   noted, although this court
                                                                        court has determined that
                                                                              has determined that no
                                                                                                  no

evidence exists of record to support
                             support Defendant's claims regarding the nature of conduct of the

attorneys
attorneys for
          for the Commonwealth and that
                  Commonwealth and that Defendant's
                                        Defendant's claim
                                                    claim lack merit, this
                                                          lack merit, this court
                                                                           court cannot
                                                                                 cannot

conclude that
         that Defendant's claim presents no
                                         "no debatable question". Accordingly, this court finds

Defendant's claim to be
Defendant's claim    be of .aa non-frivolous mature.
                                             nature

                                                       17
IN
IN THE
   THE COURT
       COURT OF COM moN PLEAS OF
             OF COMMON        OF LAN CAS TER
                                 LANCASTER                        OU TY, PENN
                                                                 COUNTY,      SYLVANIA
                                                                         PENNSYLVANIA
                               RIMI  1'AL
                              CRIMINAL

COMMON WALTH OF
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

       VS.                                                 No.
                                                           No          CP-36-CR-0002279-2018
                                                                       CP-30-CIS-()0022.79-2018

WILBE  TOIviELENDE
WIL BERTO MELENDEZ

                                              ORDER
                                              ORDER

       AND
       AND NOW,
           NOW, this 2nd day
                         day of March, 2022,
                                       2022„ following an evidentiary bearing          in
                                                                      hearing relative to

Defendant's
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Bar Retrial and tije Arritten submissi
                                                  the written   submissions
                                                                         ons of the parties, it i
                                                                                                is

hereby
hereby ORDERED
       ORDERED that
               that said
                    said Motion
                         Motion is
                                is DENIED.
                                   DENIED.

       Pursuant
       Pursuant to
                to Rule
                   Rule 587(13)(5) of the
                        587(B)¥5) of  the Pennsylvania
                                          Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal
                                                       Rules of Criminal Procedure, Defendant
                                                                         Procedure, Defendant

is
is hereby
   hereby advised that this order is immediately appcalable
                                                 appealable as aacollateral order
                                                                            order.

                                                        BY
                                                        BY       :COURT:
                                                                   OURT-

                                                          •Ak
                                                              •
                                                        IMEi ': LL   M. SPAHN, JR., JUICE
                                                                               JR, JUDGE

 ATTEST.
 ATTEST

 Copies
 Copies to
        to:-    'T'ravis.
                Travis S, S. Ar dersola, Esquire,
                             Anderson,   Esquire, First
                                                  First Deputy
                                                        Deputy District.
                                                                 Distriet Attorney
                                                                          Attorney
                Cody
                Cody Wade,
                         Wade, Esquire,
                                 Esquire, Assistant
                                          Assistant District  Attorney
                                                     District AttomeY
                Jack
                Jack Mc      1Mon, Esquire,
                       McMahon,      Esquire, Counsel
                                              Counsel for
                                                        for Defendant,
                                                            Defendant, 139
                                                                         139 North
                                                                             North Croskey Street,
 Philadelphia,
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania„
               Pennsylvania, 19103
                Jeremy
                Jerem D.D, Williams,
                           Williams, Esquire,
                                     Esquire, Counsel for
                                                      for Defendant„
                                                          Defendant, 13
                                                                     13 East M ark[ Street,
                                                                        East Market
 York, Pennsylvania, 17401