Court Opinion

ID: 9928811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 22:10:54.301086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:48.399376
License: Public Domain

J-S45041-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  CURTIS CRAIG MORRIS                          :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 552 MDA 2023

     Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 22, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-06-CR-0003529-2021

BEFORE:      BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:                       FILED: JANUARY 26, 2024

       Appellant Curtis Craig Morris appeals the judgment of sentence entered

by the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County after a jury convicted Appellant

of accidents involving death or personal injury, accidents involving death or

personal injury while not properly licensed, accidents involving damage to

attended vehicle or property, driving while operating privilege is suspended or

revoked, careless driving, duty to give information and render aid, immediate

notice of accident to police department, and abandonment of vehicles. After

careful review, we affirm.

       Appellant was charged with these offenses in connection with a multi-

vehicle accident that occurred on June 27, 2019, at approximately 4:30 p.m.

in Spring Township, Berks County. At Appellant’s jury trial, Sharon Bedell

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S45041-23

testified that on the afternoon of June 27, 2019, she was stopped in her vehicle

past the intersection of Revere Boulevard and Cloister Court at rush hour in

“stop and go” traffic. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 12/12/22 – 12/14/22, at 106.

      Suddenly, after Bedell heard a loud screeching of breaks, her vehicle

was struck from behind and pushed into the car in front of her. N.T. at 106-

107. Bedell was left dazed from the impact of the collision, which caused her

airbags to deploy and her shoe to be knocked off. N.T. at 107. Bedell

attempted to call her spouse to inform her that Bedell would be at the hospital

as she felt her injuries would require hospitalization as “everything from the

waist down hurt” and she was in “severe pain.” N.T. at 107-109.

      Bedell recalled that a white male with light brown hair approached her

driver’s side window after the accident occurred. N.T. at 108. As the man had

blood running down his face, Bedell thought he must have been involved in

the accident. The man asked Bedell if she was okay and Bedell stated she was

“hurt bad.” N.T. at 108. Bedell never saw that man again. N.T. at 113.

      Bedell was pulled out of her vehicle by unidentified bystanders, who

stayed with her until the ambulance arrived. N.T. at 112. Bedell was

transported to the hospital after the accident and testified that she sustained

injuries to her leg and foot, which persisted for months and required the use

of crutches and a cane. N.T. at 111-12.

      Spring Township Police Officer Brian Heere responded to the scene of

the accident, which Officer Heere classified as a rear-end collision that

involved three or four vehicles. N.T. at 124-26. However, Officer Heere was

                                     -2-
J-S45041-23

unable to find the driver of the white Ford Focus that had started the chain

reaction accident. N.T. at 128. While looking into the Ford Focus, Officer Heere

saw blood on the windshield and driver’s door of the vehicle and observed

personal belongings in the back seat. N.T. at 131-32. As the vehicle was

“extremely damaged,” the police secured the vehicle, did not search it, and

arranged for Spitler’s Towing to tow the car from the roadway. N.T. at 131.

      After running the license plate through PennDOT, Officer Heere

discovered the vehicle was owned by a female named Cameo Morris. N.T. at

129-30. While Officer Heere testified that he contacted Ms. Morris and spoke

with her, Ms. Morris never came to claim the vehicle. N.T. at 134. Officer

Heere admitted that he did not file an application for a search warrant for the

vehicle. N.T. at 150. Officer Heere retired in January 2020, six months after

the accident occurred. N.T. at 133.

      Donald Spitler, one of the owners of Spitler’s Towing, testified that he

towed a Ford Focus from the accident scene on June 27, 2019 and placed in

a storage yard, where it was locked and secured. N.T. at 159-63. Spitler

indicated that no one was allowed to enter the vehicle as there was a police

hold on the vehicle. N.T. at 165. Spitler testified that the car sat in their

storage yard for eighteen months before Spitler filed abandonment paperwork

with PennDOT to obtain a nonrepairable vehicle certificate and ownership of

the vehicle. N.T. at 162-69.

      Spring Township Officer David Church was assigned to investigate the

accident in 2020, approximately eighteen months after the accident occurred.

                                      -3-
J-S45041-23

N.T. at 195-96. Officer Church prepared a search warrant application which

was denied by the magisterial district judge, who had highlighted the delay in

the filing of the warrant request. N.T. at 197, 244-45.

      Upon learning Spitler’s Towing had been granted possession and

ownership of the vehicle, Officer Church sought and received Spitler’s consent

to search the vehicle on January 28, 2021. N.T. at 170, 198. In searching the

Ford Focus, officers recovered a backpack containing men’s clothing and three

prescription pill bottles in the name of Appellant Curtis Morris, who was

identified as the son of the vehicle’s owner, Cameo Morris. N.T. at 205, 208,

212. Officers also recovered medical appointment paperwork for Curtis C.

Morris. N.T. at 239.

      The officers photographed the vehicle which had sustained considerable

front-end damage to the hood, windows, and windshield. N.T. at 200-203.

Officers discovered a crack in the front windshield on the driver’s side of the

vehicle along with hair fibers embedded into the windshield. N.T. at 218, 222-

23. Officer Church noted that the crash had caused the deployment of the

driver’s airbag which was covered in spots that were visually consistent with

blood droplets. N.T. at 214-217. There were similar spots on the doorsill of

the vehicle which were visually consistent with blood. N.T. at 221. Officers

removed the deployed airbag and placed it into evidence along with samples

of the suspected blood. N.T. at 223-27. These items were sent to the

Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) laboratory for testing. N.T. at 230, 237.

                                     -4-
J-S45041-23

      The Commonwealth offered the expert testimony of Michelle Lambert,

Laboratory System Quality Specialist for the serology department of the PSP

Bureau of Forensic Services. N.T. at 288-94. Lambert determined that the

airbag and the swabs from the driver’s door and doorframe contained traces

of blood. N.T. at 299, 302. Lambert then sent the samples for further testing

at the PSP DNA laboratory. N.T. at 301-304.

      The prosecution also presented the expert testimony of Timothy Gavel,

Forensic DNA Scientist for the PSP DNA Laboratory in Greensburg,

Pennsylvania. N.T. at 336. Gavel tested the samples and compared them with

Appellant’s DNA sample, finding the blood on the airbag and the driver’s door

were an exact match to Appellant’s DNA. N.T. at 351-54.

      The defense offered the testimony of Appellant’s mother, Cameo Morris,

who admitted the vehicle that caused the accident was registered in her name.

N.T. at 391. Mrs. Morris allowed Appellant to borrow her car with the condition

that he would not be the individual driving it. N.T. at 389. While Mrs. Morris

gave Appellant the keys to her vehicle on June 27, 2019, she claimed that

another individual drove Appellant to work in her vehicle. N.T. at 389. Mrs.

Morris admitted she did not see Appellant until ten days after the accident.

N.T. at 389. Mrs. Morris never reported to the police that her car was in an

accident. N.T. at 395.

      Appellant testified in his own defense, indicating that an individual

named “Brian” drove him on the day in question in Appellant’s mom’s car.

N.T. at 407. Appellant claimed that Brian dropped him off at his girlfriend’s

                                     -5-
J-S45041-23

house and had agreed to come back to take Appellant to work in exchange for

Brian having the opportunity to use the car. N.T. at 407. However, Appellant

claimed Brian never picked him up on the day of the accident. N.T. at 408.

Appellant denied driving his mother’s vehicle. N.T. at 408. The parties

stipulated that at the time of the accident, Appellant’s driver’s license was

suspended. N.T. at 285.

       At the conclusion of Appellant’s trial, on December 4, 2022, the jury

convicted Appellant of the aforementioned offenses. On December 22, 2022,

the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of three to twenty-

three months’ incarceration plus fines and restitution.

       On January 6, 2023, Appellant requested to file a post-sentence motion

nunc pro tunc. On January 10, 2023, the trial court expressly granted this

request and scheduled a hearing on the post-sentence motion. After the

hearing was held, the trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion on

March 14, 2023. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on April 10, 2023

and subsequently complied with the trial court’s order to file a concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).1
____________________________________________

1 A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the entry of the order

being appealed. See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). If the defendant files a timely-post
sentence motion, the notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days of the entry
of the order deciding the motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2)(a). If a a
defendant files a separate and distinct request to file a post-sentence motion
nunc pro tunc within 30 days of the imposition of sentence and the trial court
expressly permits the filing of the requested motion within the same thirty
day-period, the post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc will toll the appeal period.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -6-
J-S45041-23

       Appellant raises the following issues for our review on appeal:

       1. The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish
          beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the following
          crimes:

              a. Accidents Involving Death or Personal Injury, Accidents
                 Involving Death or Personal Injury while Not Properly
                 Licensed, Accidents Involving Damage to Attended
                 Vehicle or Property, Driving While Operating Privilege is
                 Suspended or Revoked, Careless Driving, Duty to Give
                 Information and Render Aid, Immediate Notice of
                 Accident to Police Department (two counts), and
                 Abandonment of Vehicles.

              b. The verdict was based on speculative and conflicting
                 testimony; and there was no evidence beyond a
                 reasonable doubt that [Appellant] was the driver of the
                 car.

              c. With respect to the crimes of Accidents Involving Death
                 or Personal Injury While Not Properly Licensed and
                 Careless Driving, the verdict was based on speculative
                 and conflicting testimony to establish [Appellant] acted
                 with criminal negligence.

              d. Finally for the offense of Abandonment of Vehicles, there
                 was no evidence that [Appellant] left the car on the
                 highway for more than 48 hours.

       2. The verdict of guilty to all charges of the above-captioned
          docket is contrary to the weight of the evidence presented at
          trial; the verdict was based on speculative and conflicting
          testimony that [Appellant] drove the car on the date in
          question.

              a. The verdict of guilty, specifically with respect to,
                 Accidents Involving Death or Personal Injury While Not
                 Properly Licensed and Careless Driving, is contrary to the
____________________________________________

Commonwealth v. Capaldi, 112 A.3d 1242, 1244 (Pa.Super. 2015)
(citations omitted). As the trial court granted Appellant’s request to file a post-
sentence motion nunc pro tunc within thirty days of the imposition of
sentence, the appeal period was tolled.

                                           -7-
J-S45041-23

               weight of the evidence presented at trial; that the verdict
               was based on speculative and conflicting testimony to
               establish [Appellant] acted with criminal negligence.

            b. For Abandonment of Vehicle, the verdict was not based
               on evidence that [Appellant] left the car on the highway
               for more than 48 hours.

            c. The verdict shocks the conscience of the Court.

      3. That the Court abused its discretion in permitting the
         Commonwealth’s DNA expert to testify about the statistical
         probabilities and its relation to the human population of the
         Earth; which led to confusion among the jurors and was not
         harmless error.

Appellant’s 1925(b) statement, at 1-3.

      In his first claim, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting his convictions. Our standard of review is as follows:

      As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency claims
      requires that we evaluate the record in the light most favorable to
      the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all
      reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence
      will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes
      each material element of the crime charged and the commission
      thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless,
      the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical
      certainty. Any doubt about the defendant's guilt is to be resolved
      by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive
      that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from
      the combined circumstances.

      The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly
      circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, [t]he fact that the evidence
      establishing a defendant's participation in a crime is circumstantial
      does not preclude a conviction where the evidence coupled with
      the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom overcomes the
      presumption of innocence. Significantly, we may not substitute
      our judgment for that of the fact finder; thus, so long as the
      evidence adduced, accepted in the light most favorable to the
      Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective elements of a
      defendant's crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant's
      convictions will be upheld.

                                      -8-
J-S45041-23

Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329, 336–37 (Pa.Super. 2019).

      Appellant’s sufficiency challenge is based on three specific arguments.

First, Appellant claims the evidence is insufficient to sustain all of his

convictions as the Commonwealth failed to prove that Appellant was the driver

of the vehicle that caused the accident.

      While it is undisputed that the driver of the vehicle that caused the

accident left the scene after the accident and was not identified by any of the

parties involved in the accident, circumstantial evidence would allow the jury

to infer that Appellant was the driver of that vehicle.

      The vehicle that caused the accident in question was registered to

Appellant’s mother, who testified that she allowed other people to use her car

to take Appellant to work and allowed Appellant to use the car on the day of

the accident. Appellant’s personal items, including prescription medication

bottles, were found in the vehicle. Forensic testing revealed Appellant’s blood

on the driver’s side door and the driver’s side airbag which was deployed as a

result of the accident and would have had contact with the individual driving

the vehicle at the time of the accident. As such, there was sufficient evidence

to prove that Appellant was driving the car that caused the multi-vehicle crash.

      Appellant also raises an alternative sufficiency challenge to his

convictions for Accidents Involving Death or Personal Injury While Not

Properly Licensed and Careless Driving. Appellant reasons that if this Court

finds there was sufficient evidence to prove Appellant was the driver of the

                                      -9-
J-S45041-23

vehicle that caused the accident, Appellant alleges that the prosecution failed

to show he acted with criminal negligence.

       The crime of Accidents Involving Death or Personal Injury While Not

Properly Licensed is defined as follows:

       A person whose operating privilege was disqualified, canceled,
       recalled, revoked or suspended and not restored or who does not
       hold a valid driver's license and applicable endorsements for the
       type and class of vehicle being operated commits an offense under
       this section if the person was the driver of any vehicle and:

       (1) caused an accident resulting in injury or death of a person; or

       (2) acted with negligence that contributed to causing the accident
       resulting in injury or death of a person.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3742.1. In this case, Appellant was convicted pursuant to

Section 3742.1(a)(1) for causing an accident resulting in injury to a person.

       In Commonwealth v. Hurst, 889 A.2d 624 (Pa.Super. 2005), the

defendant was convicted of a violation of a previous version of Section 3742.1

that contains similar language.2 While this Court recognized that Section

3742.1 did not contain an expressly defined mens rea requirement, this Court

determined that the offense defined within was not a strict liability crime. This

Court explained that “[t]he nature of the offense, which involves a causation

element, and the potentially severe penalty are sufficient indicia that the
____________________________________________

2 The Pennsylvania Legislature amended Section 3742.1(a) to create two
alternative bases for criminal liability. Section 3742.1(a)(1) contains the
language of the former statute for individuals that “caused an accident
resulting in injury or death of a person,” while Section 3742.1(a)(2) adds
criminal liability for individuals who “acted with negligence that contributed to
causing the accident resulting in injury or death of a person.” This amendment
became effective on December 24, 2018.

                                          - 10 -
J-S45041-23

legislature did not intend to eliminate the mens rea element and make

accidents involving death or personal injury while a driver is not properly

licensed a strict liability crime.” Id. at 626.

      After evaluating the general requirements of culpability, this Court

determined that “criminal negligence as defined in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302(b)(4)

is the minimum level of culpability the Commonwealth [must] establish at

trial” to sustain a conviction under Section 3742.1 of the Vehicle Code. Id. at

629. Criminal negligence is defined as follows:

      [a] person acts negligently with respect to a material element of
      an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and
      unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result
      from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree
      that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and
      intent of his conduct and the circumstances known to him,
      involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
      reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 302(b)(4).

      As noted above, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence that

Appellant was the driver of the Ford Focus that caused the accident. The

prosecution presented undisputed testimony that Sharon Bedell’s vehicle was

stopped in traffic when she was struck from behind by Appellant’s vehicle that

decelerated rapidly and produced a loud screeching sound from its brakes.

The impact of the collision was significant as both vehicles’ airbags deployed

as a result of the collision and Appellant’s vehicle was “extremely damaged”

and unable to be driven from the scene.

                                       - 11 -
J-S45041-23

      Despite the fact that Appellant caused an accident that resulted in injury

to other drivers, Appellant abandoned the vehicle he was driving on the

roadway and fled the scene before anyone could identify him or ascertain that

he was driving on a suspended license. Appellant’s mother admitted that she

did not see Appellant for ten days after the accident in which Appellant

smashed her car and left it in an undriveable state in the middle of a roadway.

      This Court has held that “[w]hen a person commits a crime, knows that

he is wanted therefor, and flees or conceals himself, such conduct is evidence

of consciousness of guilt, and may form the basis [of a conviction] in

connection    with   other   proof   from      which   guilt   may   be   inferred.”

Commonwealth v. Clark, 599 Pa. 204, 224, 961 A.2d 80, 92 (2008) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Rios, 546 Pa. 271, 684 A.2d 1025, 1035 (1996) (quoting

Commonwealth v. Coyle, 415 Pa. 379, 203 A.2d 782, 789 (1964))).

      Based on our review of the evidence presented at trial, there was

sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Appellant was criminally

negligent. While traffic was moving a slow rate due to the rush hour commute,

Appellant slammed his breaks as he approached the congested area, ran into

the back of a vehicle sitting motionless in traffic, and caused an accident

resulting in severe damage. Appellant’s consciousness of guilt caused him to

flee the scene and abandon his mother’s car in the middle of a roadway instead

of waiting to be identified by police. As such, this sufficiency challenge fails.

      Appellant also claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his

conviction for Abandonment of Vehicles pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A 3712.

                                      - 12 -
J-S45041-23

Specifically, Appellant claims that, in order to sustain a conviction under

Section 3712, the prosecution must prove that the vehicle remained on a

highway for more than 48 hours. We disagree.

     Section 3712 provides that “[n]o person shall abandon a vehicle upon

any highway.” The Vehicle Code defines “abandoned vehicle” as follows:

     A vehicle (other than a pedalcycle) shall be presumed to be
     abandoned under any of the following circumstances, but the
     presumption is rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence:

           (i) The vehicle is physically inoperable and is left unattended
           on a highway or other public property for more than 48
           hours.

           (ii) The vehicle has remained illegally on a highway or other
           public property for a period of more than 48 hours.

           (iii) The vehicle is left unattended on or along a highway or
           other public property for more than 48 hours and does not
           bear all of the following:

                 (A) A valid registration plate.

                 (B) A current certificate of inspection.

                 (C) An ascertainable vehicle identification number.

           (iv) The vehicle has remained on private property without
           the consent of the owner or person in control of the property
           for more than 24 hours.

           (v) The vehicle has remained on the private property of a
           salvor for 20 days.

75 Pa.C.S.A. § 102.

     Appellant argues that the prosecution did not show he abandoned his

mother’s vehicle for more than 48 hours as police secured the physically

                                    - 13 -
J-S45041-23

inoperable vehicle from the roadway and towed it from the roadway less than

48 hours after the accident occurred.

      We find this argument to be absurd as Appellant fails to acknowledge

that Section 102 provides multiple bases upon which a vehicle can be

determined to be abandoned including that the “vehicle has remained on the

private property of a salvor for 20 days.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 102.

      In this case, it was necessary for the police to secure and tow the

physically inoperable vehicle that Appellant had abandoned in the roadway as

it was interfering with the normal movement of traffic. As noted above, the

police arranged for Spitler’s Towing to tow the vehicle from the roadway to

their storage yard where the vehicle remained for eighteen months before

Spitler’s filed abandonment paperwork with PennDOT and obtained a

nonrepairable vehicle certificate and ownership of the vehicle. As the vehicle

remained on the private property of a salvor for well over twenty days,

Appellant’s sufficiency challenge has no merit.

      Appellant also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying

his challenge to the weight of the evidence supporting several of his

convictions. Our standard of review for challenges to the weight of the

evidence is well-established:

      The essence of appellate review for a weight claim appears to lie
      in ensuring that the trial court's decision has record support.
      Where the record adequately supports the trial court, the trial
      court has acted within the limits of its discretion.

      A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is against
      the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion of the

                                     - 14 -
J-S45041-23

      trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a mere
      conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts
      would have arrived at a different conclusion. Rather, the role of
      the trial judge is to determine that notwithstanding all the facts,
      certain facts are so clearly of greater weight that to ignore them
      or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.

      An appellate court's standard of review when presented with a
      weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review
      applied by the trial court. Appellate review of a weight claim is a
      review of the exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question
      of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Windslowe, 158 A.3d 698, 712 (Pa.Super. 2017)

(citations omitted).

      In his appellate brief, Appellant contends his convictions shocked the

conscience as the evidence showed that he was not the driver of the vehicle.

Appellant asks this Court to credit his testimony and his mother’s testimony

claiming that Appellant did not drive the vehicle on the day in question.

Appellant emphasizes that no witnesses could identify him as the driver of the

vehicle and no video of the accident was obtained. Appellant argues that his

theory that his DNA was only in the vehicle due to his casual use of vehicle

when other individuals would drive him as a passenger.

      However, Appellant is the son of the registered owner of the vehicle that

caused the multi-vehicle crash and Appellant’s blood was discovered on the

driver’s side door and the driver’s side airbag that deployed only as a result

of the crash. While Appellant would have this Court accept his version of the

events in question, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury as

“[t]he weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to

believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of

                                     - 15 -
J-S45041-23

the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Dunkins, 229 A.3d 622, 633 (Pa.Super.

2020) (quoting Commonwealth v. Johnson, 668 A.2d 97, 101 (Pa. 1995)).

Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim.

      Lastly, Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in

permitting the prosecution’s DNA expert to testify about the statistical

probabilities when he incorrectly stated the world population.

      “Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence are within the
      sound discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not reverse
      the trial court's decision absent an abuse of that discretion.”
      Commonwealth v. Laich, 566 Pa. 19, 777 A.2d 1057, 1060
      (2001); see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 545 Pa. 487, 681
      A.2d 1288, 1290 (1996) (explaining that “[d]iscretion is abused
      when the course pursued [by the trial court] represents not
      merely an error of judgment, but where the judgment is
      manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not applied or where
      the record shows that the action is a result of partiality, prejudice,
      bias or ill will” (internal citation omitted)).

Commonwealth v. Wallace, 289 A.3d 894, 900 (Pa. 2023).

      In this case, the trial court accepted Timothy Gavel as an expert in DNA

analysis and DNA profiling. In his role as PSP Forensic DNA Scientist, Gavel

opined that the blood samples found on the driver’s side door and deployed

airbag of the Ford Focus that caused the accident matched Appellant’s DNA.

      Gavel testified that the chance of the testing produced a coincidental

match for the airbag blood sample was “approximately one in 450 nonillion

from the Caucasian population[,] one in 2.4 undecillion from the African-

American population, and one in 780 nonillion from the Hispanic population.”

                                     - 16 -
J-S45041-23

N.T. at 352. Gavel explained that a nonillion is a number with 30 zeros after

it and an undecillion is a number with 36 zeros after it. N.T. at 352.

      In discussing the probability of obtaining a coincidental match in the

world population to the evidence in this case, Gavel stated that by way of

reference that the world population was four billion people. At that point,

Defense counsel made a general objection, but did not specify his grounds for

such objection. The trial court immediately overruled the objection indicating

that Gavel was testifying to the contents of his report.

      Our courts have long held that “[i]t is axiomatic that, in order to

preserve an issue for review, litigants must make timely and specific

objections during trial and raise the issue in post-trial motions.” Harman ex

rel. Harman v. Borah, 756 A.2d 1116, 1124 (Pa. 2000). We note that

defense counsel failed to preserve a specific objection at trial to Gavel’s

incorrect statement that the world population was four billion people. Defense

counsel neither challenged the admissibility of Gavel’s testimony nor asked

for a new trial. As such, Appellant did not preserve this issue for our review

on appeal.

      Even assuming Gavel had properly objected at trial, he would not be

entitled to relief. After Gavel had testified that the world population was four

billion people, the prosecutor asked Gavel if the world population was actually

eight billion people. Gavel conceded that he had not reviewed the world

population recently, but did not find that fact to be key to his analysis. N.T. at

353. Gavel indicated he had brought up this number to attempt to allow the

                                     - 17 -
J-S45041-23

jury to understand by way of comparison how small the chance was that the

DNA match to Appellant was coincidental. N.T. at 353. Since a billion is a

number with nine zeros, a nonillion is over three times the number of zeros

and an undecillion is four times the number of zeros. N.T. at 353.

      Thus, we agree with the trial court’s finding that Gavel’s statement was

harmless error. “The harmless error doctrine, as adopted in Pennsylvania,

reflects the reality that the accused is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial.”

Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697, 711 (Pa.Super. 2004). “A new

trial is not warranted merely because some irregularity occurred during the

trial or another trial judge would have ruled differently; the moving party must

demonstrate to the trial court that he or she has suffered prejudice from the

mistake.” Harman ex rel. Harman v. Borah, 756 A.2d 1116, 1122 (Pa.

2000).

      In this case, after Gavel incorrectly testified that the world population

was four billion, the prosecution pointed this discrepancy out to its witness.

Gavel was able to explain to the jury how this statement did not affect his

opinion that Appellant’s DNA was a match to the DNA found in the Ford Focus

given the infinitesimal chance that it was coincidental. As we fail to see how

Appellant was prejudiced by Gavel’s testimony, his evidentiary challenge fails.

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

      Affirmed.

                                        - 18 -
J-S45041-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/26/2024

                           - 19 -