Court Opinion

ID: 9401283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 17:10:13.975095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:51.868199
License: Public Domain

J-S17006-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    KAIJIN XAVIER SCOTT                        :
                                               :
                        Appellant              :   No. 634 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 22, 2021
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
                        No(s): CP-02-CR-0004375-2018

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                              FILED: JUNE 12, 2023

        Kaijin Xavier Scott appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in

the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, after he was convicted by a

jury of second-degree murder,1 robbery,2 conspiracy to commit robbery,3 and

tampering with/fabricating physical evidence.4 After careful review, we affirm.

        Scott was charged as a co-conspirator in the February 22, 2018 shooting

death of Keiauna Davis. Scott’s co-conspirator, Dane Taylor, fatally shot Davis

after struggling with her to steal her purse. Scott drove the get-away car

____________________________________________

1   18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b).

2   Id. at § 3701.

3   Id. at § 903.

4   Id. at § 4910(1).
J-S17006-23

after Taylor shot the victim twice. The trial court recounted the underlying

facts of the alleged conspiracy as follows:

      [O]n the morning of February 22, 2018, Keiauna Davis was
      working at the Dollar General store in Wilkinsburg. This was one
      of two jobs held by [] Davis, who was a single mother to two
      children under the age of six. During her shift, Ms. Davis’s
      grandmother, Linda Wilson, delivered [cash in the amount of]
      approximately $3,000[.00] to her, which represented her tax
      return. []Davis, who relied on public transportation or family
      members to drive her to and from work, was planning to shop for
      a car after work that day and to buy party supplies for her
      daughter’s upcoming birthday.

      Laya Whitley, who only started working at the Dollar General the
      day before, became aware of this money and texted Dane Taylor
      of the same. The text exchanges were presented through several
      exhibits and were read [into the record] by Allegheny County
      Police Detective Laurie McKee. On February 22, 2018[,] the
      following exchange occurred:

         Whitley: “Guess what?” (11:25 a.m.)

         Taylor: “Wat.” (11:31 a.m.)

         Whitley: "This girl at my job brought 7 bands to work. Ain't
         that some shit?" (11:31 a.m.)

         Taylor: “It's a go. Delete all dez [sic] texts.” (12:48 p.m.)

         Whitley: “They been gone.” (1:26 p.m.)

         Taylor: “Ite” (1:27 p.m.)

      Each of these messages from Whitley’s phone showed evidence of
      having been deleted.

      Shortly after Whitely told Taylor about [] Davis’s money, phone
      records offered at trial established that [Scott] and Taylor began
      communicating. The phone records for [] Whitley, [] Taylor, and
      [Scott] revealed the date and time of the communications but not
      the content.

      These exhibits illustrated that a call was placed by Taylor to
      [Scott] on February 22, 2018[,] at 12:01 p.m.[,] lasting one

                                     -2-
J-S17006-23

     minute and nineteen seconds; followed by a call from [Scott] to
     Taylor at 12:03 p.m. The records evidenced two more calls from
     [Scott] to Taylor at 1:55 p.m. and again at 2:29 p.m. [Scott] and
     Taylor also communicated by text message a total of 18 times
     between 12:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m.

     Video surveillance from inside the Dollar General showed that []
     Davis secured the money in the [m]anager’s office during her
     shift, and later retrieved the money along with her personal
     belongings at the end of her shift. She then proceeded to the
     counter to make some purchases at the register manned by
     Whitley. [Scott], who had already picked up [] Taylor, was parked
     in the rear lot of the Dollar General. Exterior surveillance footage
     then shows [] Davis exit at 2:36 p.m. Thereafter, [Scott] and
     Taylor leave the parking lot and drive onto Laketon Avenue. The
     events that followed, including [] Davis walking on Laketon
     Avenue, up to and including her murder, were captured on a
     residential surveillance camera. The entire event, beginning when
     [Scott] parked the vehicle until he drove away from the scene,
     was less than one minute.

     [Scott] and Taylor knew who [] Davis was based on the physical
     description provided by [] Whitley. Therefore, once they located
     her walking on Laketon Avenue, [Scott] drove past her, and
     parked the car along the sidewalk. [Scott] then exited the car and
     bent down near the rear driver’s side tire. As [] Davis walked
     alongside the passenger side of the vehicle, Taylor open[ed] the
     front passenger door and jump[ed] out of the car. [] Davis
     immediately r[an] and [wa]s chased by Taylor into an abandoned
     lot where she physically struggle[d] with him over her purse. At
     this time, [] Davis is on the ground with Taylor standing over her,
     and [Scott] is standing in the street beside the vehicle. After
     several seconds of wrestling over the purse to no avail, Taylor
     sho[t] at [] Davis two times. The first shot missed, and the second
     shot struck her in the right hip, later resulting in her death. At the
     time of the shooting, [Scott] quickly moved to the front of the
     vehicle and then seconds later he walked back to the driver’s door
     and reentered the car.

     Surveillance continued to capture the events which showed Taylor
     take the purse from a now[-]injured [] Davis. Taylor can be seen
     running back to the car at which time he tossed the purse inside
     through the open passenger door to [Scott], who [wa]s now
     seated in the driver’s seat. Taylor then returned to the location
     of [] Davis to retrieve an item which was later determined to be

                                     -3-
J-S17006-23

     his phone. As Taylor entered the passenger door, the purse [wa]s
     thrown out of the open door by [Scott] and [wa]s caught on a
     nearby tree, where it was later retrieved by police. [Scott]
     immediately drove away from the scene with Taylor as [] Davis
     continued to struggle on the ground, having been critically
     wounded by the gunshot. The surveillance footage recorded []
     Davis’s last living moments as she crawled to the sidewalk and
     attempted to wave at passing cars for help. Eventually, a
     passerby stopped and called for help as evidenced by the response
     of both police and EMS at the scene. [] Davis was transported to
     a local hospital[,] where she was pronounced dead at 3:39 p.m.
     on February 22, 2018.

     At trial[,] the Commonwealth presented testimony from Dr. Todd
     Luckasevic, a forensic pathologist with the Allegheny County
     Office of the Medical Examiner. He testified that [] Davis, a 27-
     year-old African American female, died from a gunshot wound to
     her pelvis. D[octor] Luckasevic stated that the bullet entered
     through the outside of her right thigh. He described it as a contact
     wound, directing the jury to the photographic evidence which
     showed soot on her skin, as well as a muzzle imprint abrasion,
     and an abrasion consistent with the recoil spring of a firearm. He
     explained to the jury that the bullet took a trajectory from right
     to left and back to front, severing two major arteries and
     fracturing her hip bone before exiting out her inner thigh.

     Following the homicide, [Scott] and Taylor were captured on video
     arriving at 2215 Wilner Drive, the residence of [] Whitley.

     The next day, on February 23, 2018, the vehicle operated by
     [Scott] was recovered in Penn Hills. This same day, police made
     contact with [Scott] at his residence in Turtle Creek and he
     indicated he wished to talk with Allegheny County detectives who
     were investigating the homicide of [] Davis. County detectives
     responded to [Scott’s] residence, and he voluntarily accompanied
     the detectives to Allegheny County police headquarters for an
     interview. The nine-hour interview was recorded and played for
     the jury.

     During the course of the interview[, Scott’s] statements as to the
     events of February 22, 2018[,] changed multiple times. Initially,
     he told police that he gave a jitney ride to an unknown person.
     Then [Scott] stated that during the drive to the Dollar General in
     Wilkinsburg, he learned that this individual knew both [Scott’s]
     brother and mother and went by the name “D Low.” [Scott] stated

                                    -4-
J-S17006-23

     that after arriving at the location, “D Low” robbed him at gunpoint,
     and continued to keep him at gunpoint as he threatened to hurt
     [Scott’s] mother if [Scott] didn’t do what he said. [Scott] told
     detectives that it was out of fear for his life and his mother’s, that
     he complied with the step-by-step instructions given by “D Low”
     regarding where to drive and what to do. [Scott] stated that “D
     Low” directed him to drive past [] Davis who was walking on the
     sidewalk, and then park along the street ahead of her. [Scott]
     was then ordered out of the car by Taylor and told to pretend that
     he was having car trouble. As [] Davis walked by the passenger
     door, “D Low” got out of the car and began to struggle with Ms.
     Davis over her purse. During the struggle, [Scott] heard two
     gunshots. The first did not strike [] Davis but the second one did.
     “D Low” then removed the purse from [] Davis, ran back to the
     car, threw the purse inside, and ordered [Scott] to “get it,” which
     [Scott] assumed meant money. At “D Low’s” instruction, [Scott]
     then threw the purse out of the vehicle and drove away with “D
     Low” in the car. Still under “D Low’s” direction, [Scott] drove a
     few blocks away where he then dropped off “D Low.” Prior to
     exiting the vehicle, "D Low" made another threat against [Scott’s]
     mother. From there, [Scott] re-counted that he drove to his
     residence in Turtle Creek and then downtown to get his phone
     fixed.

     [Scott’s] story then shifted as to how he initially encountered “D
     Low,” who he still maintained he did not know. He now explained
     that he was looking to buy marijuana when he came across “D
     Low” and that their interaction then turned into a jitney ride. He
     maintained[,] however[,] that his actions once they got to the
     Dollar General were all forced under gunpoint.

     Several hours into the interview police began talking about []
     Whitley, prompting another revision by [Scott] as to the events of
     February 22, 2018. He now admitted that the person he drove to
     the Dollar General was not a stranger, or a person known as “D
     Low,” but a man named “H.D.” He also divulged he knew the
     purpose of the trip to the Dollar General was to allow “H.D.” to get
     money, and disclosed that a girl inside the store told “H.D” that a
     female co-worker with red hair had $7,000. [Scott] also admitted
     that he had contact with “H.D.” after the shooting. Specifically,
     that he picked up “H.D.” that night and took him to Whitley’s
     residence in the East Hills section of Pittsburgh and messaged with
     “H.D.” through Facebook.

                                     -5-
J-S17006-23

     A forensic download of [Scott’s] phone confirmed these Facebook
     messages[,] which occurred from 7:23 p.m. on February 22,
     2018[,] through 1:13 p.m. on February 23, 2018. Throughout the
     messaging[, Scott] and Taylor refer to each other as “bro,”
     “"homie,” “dude[,]” and “cuhs,” which [i]s known [to be] short for
     [“]cousin.[”] The initial message came from [Scott] asking Taylor
     what he was doing. The two messaged about someone who died
     in Wilkinsburg, referencing a single mom. [Scott] also stated
     that[] “she was cute” and “lmao” which stands for “laughing my
     ass off.” Taylor responded that [Scott] is disgusting and “lol”
     which stands for “laughing out loud.” Taylor messaged [Scott]
     that he heard that the [police] had the car color but not the plate
     and [Scott] referenced that the story was on the news. The two
     continued to talk about football and splitting a jitney to go out that
     night. The messages ceased around 10:21 p.m. on February 22,
     2018[,] and resumed in the early morning hours of February 23,
     2018, when Taylor messaged [Scott] that he, “[p]assed out and
     woke up early.” They then engaged in talks about what they were
     doing that morning. At 10:40 a.m., [Scott] messaged Taylor that
     the police were at his house [and told] Taylor that he had been
     robbed the night before and was scared. The records revealed
     that Taylor continued to message [Scott] between 11:21 a.m.
     until 1:13 p.m., with no response from [Scott].

     At this time and day, 1:13 p.m. on February 23, 2018, [Scott]
     was at Allegheny County headquarters[,] where his recitation of
     the events of February 22, 2018[,] continued to evolve. Police
     asked [Scott] if he received any money from the robbery and he
     pointedly denied that he had. However, this statement quickly
     changed. First, he disclosed that he was offered money but
     refused it. Shortly thereafter, he admitted that there was $700-
     $800 in a bag located in a bedroom closet, however it was H.D.’s
     money that [Scott] was instructed to keep at his house and not
     touch.

     During the interview [Scott] agreed to give police his cell phone
     and his password to allow for a forensic download. From this
     download, a string of text messages w[as] discovered between
     [Scott] and Whitley that occurred after the murder on February
     22, 2018[,] between 6:06 p.m. and 6:13 p.m.

        [Scott]: “It's Rod Drey.” “How are you doing?” (6:06 p.m.)

        Whitley: “Lol. I am ite. Where you from?” (6:11 p.m.)

        [Scott]: “Homewood. Where you from?” (6:12 p.m.)

                                     -6-
J-S17006-23

        Whitley: “I’m from the hill G block to be exact. Lol. And I
        say show b-c that my second hood.” (6:12 p.m.)

        [Scott]: “Lol. I see. WYM. (Known as “what you mean”)
        That is cool doe. How old are you?” (6:12 p.m.)

     During the investigation police returned to [Scott’s] residence in
     Turtle Creek[,] where they encountered his girlfriend[,] India
     McDonald. [] McDonald lived with [Scott] and provided police with
     consent to search the residence. During the search, police seized
     two cell phones that were subsequently submitted for a forensic
     download. Afterward, detectives transported [] McDonald to her
     parents’ residence in Wilkinsburg. During the ride [] McDonald
     advised them that she had money she wanted to turn over to the
     police. [] McDonald then entered her parents’ residence and
     returned to the detective’s vehicle with $669. She explained that
     she was giving it to them because she received it from [Scott],
     who told her it was proceeds from a robbery that had been
     committed the night before.

     At trial, [Scott] testified on his own behalf. He stated that he
     accepted a Facebook request from [] Taylor for a jitney ride,
     explaining that he knew of him peripherally because Taylor was
     friends with Scott’s brother and that his nickname was H.D. He
     described exchanging multiple phone calls and text messages with
     Taylor prior to picking him up on Ray Street in Wilkinsburg. After
     picking him up, Taylor told him to drive to the Dollar General store
     and to back into a parking spot in the back lot. [Scott] then left
     the car to urinate outside an abandoned building while Taylor
     remained inside the vehicle. When [Scott] returned to the car,
     Taylor was now wearing a face mask and had a gun out and
     ordered [Scott] to shut the door. According to [Scott], Taylor told
     him that he needed this money and that [Scott] was going to do
     what he said. Although [Scott] described that Taylor was aiming
     the gun in his direction, he denied that he was being held at
     gunpoint. Despite telling the jury he was not under threat, [Scott]
     testified he did what Taylor wanted and repeatedly asked him not
     to shoot him.

     [Scott] testified that he exited the parking lot. At this time[,]
     Taylor instructed him to drive past the female with red hair and
     park along the street. [There]after, [Scott] was ordered out of
     the car and instructed to act like he was fixing something on the
     car. According to [Scott], Taylor threatened to shoot [Scott] if he
     tried to run away. [Scott] felt like his life was in danger and told

                                    -7-
J-S17006-23

       the jury he did as he was instructed. Consistent with the video
       evidence, [Scott] described that Taylor jumped out of the car as
       [] Davis walked by and immediately began to tussle with her over
       her purse. [Scott] then heard one gunshot and started to run
       towards the victim when a second gunshot stopped him in his
       tracks. [Scott] got back into the car at Taylor's instruction. Taylor
       then threw the purse at him and ordered him to take out the
       money. [Scott] removed the money and then threw the purse
       out the window.[5] [Scott] explained that Taylor still had the gun
       out when he told [Scott] to drive away, further instructing him to
       drive to [Scott’s] house. Once inside the house, Taylor, who was
       still holding the gun, ordered [Scott] to hide some of the money
       upstairs. [Scott] told the jury that Taylor followed him upstairs
       and watched him hide the money in a closet. Taylor then told
       [Scott] where to drop him off and threatened to “off” him and his
       brother if he called the police. [Scott] explained that it was fear
       for himself and his family that kept him from calling 911 or the
       police. He described how he then drove around for a bit when he
       remembered that he needed to go downtown and pick up his
       phone. Thereafter[, Scott] received a call from Taylor demanding
       that [Scott] come pick him up. [Scott] complied and drove Taylor
       to the East Hills residence of [] Whitley. [Scott] maintained that
       he had never met Whitely prior to this. He said that they
       exchanged telephone numbers because he wanted to make sure
       he had Whitley’s phone number so if he talked to the police he
       could give them her information. He further explained that he
       messaged with Taylor after the shooting, as part of a plan he and
       his wife concocted in an effort to get Taylor to his house so they
       could call the police.

       [Scott] admitted on cross[-]examination that he was not truthful
       with the detectives during his interview when he denied knowing
       [] Taylor, however, he continued to deny any advanced knowledge
       that Taylor was going to rob [] Davis.

____________________________________________

5 Video footage shows Scott throw the victim’s purse out of the open
passenger-side door and into a nearby tree. The court found that Scott’s
actions supported the jury’s verdict that Scott discarded the victim’s purse
with the intent to prevent its accessibility for any future investigation,
resulting in Scott’s conviction for tampering with evidence. Critically, Scott
testified at trial that he threw the victim’s purse to get rid of it because he was
concerned it may have had his DNA and/or fingerprints on it. N.T. Jury Trial,
8/26/21, at 409-10.

                                           -8-
J-S17006-23

        [Scott] also offered three character witnesses[,] who testified that
        [Scott] had a good reputation for peacefulness and non-violence
        in the community.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/4/22, at 3-13.

        After a five-day jury trial held in August 2021, Scott was found guilty of

the above-stated offenses. On November 22, 2021, the court sentenced Scott

to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder, 6-12 years of

imprisonment for robbery, and 6½ -13 years of imprisonment for conspiracy.6

The court ran the sentences consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of life,

plus 12½ -25 years’ imprisonment. Scott filed a timely post-sentence motion

and an amended nunc pro tunc7 post-sentence motion challenging the

sufficiency and weight of the evidence.          On April 25, 2022, the trial court

denied the motion.

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

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. He raises the following

issues for our consideration:

        (1)   Did the trial court abuse its discretion in excluding
              statements made by [] Taylor that he forced Scott to
              participate in the robbery of the victim where those
              statements implicated Taylor in the crimes against the
              victim and crimes against Scott, and where they [were]
              made under circumstances clearly corroborating their
              trustworthiness and, thus, were admissible statements
              against interest pursuant to Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3)?

____________________________________________

6   No further penalty was imposed on the tampering conviction.

7 Scott requested, and the trial court granted him, leave to file an
amended/supplemental post-sentence motion nunc pro tunc. See Order,
1/4/22.

                                           -9-
J-S17006-23

      (2)   Was the evidence at trial insufficient to support Scott’s
            convictions for second-degree murder, robbery, and
            conspiracy to commit robbery because the evidence was in
            equipoise as to whether [it] required speculation to conclude
            that Scott intended to rob, aided the robbery of, or agreed
            to rob [] the victim, as opposed to being Taylor’s unwitting
            and subsequently threat-compelled pawn?

Appellant’s Brief, at 4.

      In his first issue, Scott contends that the trial court erred in not

admitting evidence of statements that Taylor made to a fellow inmate, David

Tyus, that would have been admissible as a statement against Taylor’s penal

interest. See Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3).

      Under the rules of evidence,

      Statement Against Interest — A statement which was at the
      time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or
      proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declaration to
      civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the
      declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the
      declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless
      believing it to be true. In a criminal case, a statement tending
      to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not
      admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly
      indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3) (emphasis added). See also Commonwealth v. Bracero,

528 A.2d 936, 941 (Pa. 1987) (plurality opinion) (holding “declarations against

penal interest are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule only when

there are circumstances that provide clear assurance that such declarations

are trustworthy and reliable”).

      Instantly, Tyus testified that in 2018 he was cellmates in the Allegheny

County Jail with Taylor, whom he referred to as “Gusto.” Tyus testified that

                                     - 10 -
J-S17006-23

Taylor wrote down what occurred during the instant robbery and shooting,

indicating that Scott had no intent to rob the victim. Taylor asked Tyus to

give Scott this note, but Tyus explained that he did not know Scott at the time

Taylor relayed this information to him. Tyus later changed cells in jail and

was placed near Scott but never gave him the note, having thrown it away

several months before he relocated cells.

      Tyus also testified that, at some point later in time, Taylor authored and

gave to Tyus a second note, which Tyus did give to Scott. That second note

also indicated that Scott did not intend to rob the victim.       The defense,

however, was unable to produce this second note at the evidentiary hearing.

See N.T. Hearing, 8/26/21, at 500 (“[T]hat note is unavailable, Your Honor.”).

Tyus, however, claimed he wrote a four-page letter detailing what Taylor had

told him in August of 2018 and mailed it to Scott’s mother. Scott sought to

have Tyus testify to the substance of what was in the letter— that, in fact,

Taylor told him that he was solely responsible for robbing and killing the

victim, and that Scott was unaware of the robbery plan.

      In August 2021, the trial court held a hearing, outside the presence of

the jury, on Scott’s request to admit Tyus’ four-page letter from August 2018

and to have Tyus testify regarding conversations he had with Taylor in jail.

Taylor invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and was deemed unavailable.

See Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3). Ultimately, the court excluded the proposed testimony

on the basis that it did not deem the statements trustworthy or reliable due

to the circumstances under which they were made.          Commonwealth v.

                                    - 11 -
J-S17006-23

Colon, 846 A.2d 747 (Pa. Super. 2004). Specifically, the court determined

that “there are no assurances of reliability to the jailhouse statement Dane

Taylor made to fellow inmate David Tyus” where:

   •   There is no corroborative evidence to establish reliability of statement;
   •   Both alleged notes Taylor wrote were no longer available;
   •   Statements were made while Taylor was incarcerated and not
       spontaneously after robbery and homicide;
   •   There is nothing self-incriminatory about statements; and
   •   Statements would have been uncorroborated hearsay as Taylor not
       subject to examination under oath about any claim that Scott did not
       participate in robbery.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/4/22, at 22.

       In Commonwealth v. Robins, 812 A.2d 514 (Pa. 2002), our Supreme

Court noted “that in every circumstance where the admission of testimony

pursuant to this [hearsay] exception is considered, corroboration independent

of the statement itself is necessary.” Id. at 525. With regard to factors that

may be helpful in determining whether a statement is independently

corroborated, the Robins Court reiterated:

       [C]ourts have evaluated: the circumstances under which the
       statements were uttered, including the custodial/non-custodial
       aspect of the setting and the identity of the listener; the contents
       of the statement, including whether the statements minimize the
       responsibility of the declarant or spread or shift the blame; other
       possible motivations of the declarant, including improper motive
       such as to lie, curry favor, or distort the truth; the nature and
       degree of the “against interest” aspect of the statements,
       including the extent to which the declarant apprehends that the
       making of the statement is likely to actually subject him to
       criminal liability; the circumstances or events that prompted the
       statements, including whether they were made with the
       encouragement or at the request of a listener; the timing of the
       statement in relation to events described; the declarant’s

                                       - 12 -
J-S17006-23

       relationship to the defendant; and any other factors bearing upon
       the reliability of the statement at issue.

Id. at 526-27.

       We agree with the trial court that the evidence is inadmissible due to its

lack of independent corroboration where Taylor’s notes were unavailable or

had been thrown away, see N.T. Hearing, 8/26/21, at 500, no one witnessed

Tyus write or send his four-page letter to Scott’s mother, id. at 503; the

defense had no proof that Tyus ever mailed the letter to Scott’s mother, id.;

the information in Tyus’ letter and Taylor’s statements were “100 percent []

opposite to all of the testimony that [was] present[ed] during the course of

the trial,” id. at 505-06; and the information does not inculpate Taylor. Id.

at 506.8 Bracero, supra.

       In his next issue, Scott contends the evidence was insufficient to prove

that he was guilty of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy to

commit robbery.9 Specifically, Scott asserts that the evidence presented at

trial to prove that he “was an intentional participant in the plot [to rob the

____________________________________________

8 We note that the court also found the evidence inadmissible on the grounds
that a declarant’s exculpatory statement with regard to an accomplice is not
considered a statement against interest. Commonwealth v. Colon, 337
A.2d 554, 558 (Pa. 1975).
9 Scott has abandoned any claim as to the sufficiency or weight of the evidence
with regard to his tampering with evidence conviction as he has failed to argue
it in his appellate brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a), (b) (requiring properly
developed argument for each question presented including a discussion of and
citation to authorities in appellate brief); Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh,
91 A.3d 1247, 1262 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc) (failure to conform to Rules
of Appellate Procedure results in waiver of the underlying issue).

                                          - 13 -
J-S17006-23

victim], rather than an unwitting and, later, threat-compelled pawn,”

Appellant’s    Brief,   at 13, was speculative    at    best.      “In short, the

Commonwealth’s failure to provide any evidence about how Scott came to

participate in the robbery leaves a hole in its case as to whether he intended

to do so, or, rather, was Taylor’s threat[-]compelled instrument.” Id. at 31.

We disagree.

      In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must

determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Commonwealth as verdict winner, together with all reasonable inferences

therefrom, the trier of fact could have found that each and every element of

the   crimes    charged    was   established   beyond    a      reasonable   doubt.

Commonwealth v. Randall, 758 A.2d 669, 674 (Pa. Super. 2000).

      After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the relevant case law, and the

evidence of record, we rely upon the well-written opinion, authored by the

Honorable Bruce R. Beemer, to dispose of Scott’s sufficiency of the evidence

claims on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 10/4/22, at 22-34. The evidence

established, beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements for second-degree

murder, robbery, and conspiracy. We instruct the parties to attach a copy of

Judge Beemer’s decision in the event of further proceedings in the matter.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                     - 14 -
J-S17006-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/12/2023

                          - 15 -
                                                                Circulated 05/25/2023 10:35 AM

                  Allegheny County - Department of Court Records
                       Criminal Division - Filings Information

County caseID:CP-02-CR-0004375-2018(Opinion)
Case Description: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LNAME SCOTT
Official Docket Entry, Sort By Document Number Ascending

Document    Title/Entry                                                   Filing Date
Number

1           OPINION                                                       10/04/2022

                                    (Index Page-1)
                                     1-OPINION

                COMMON PLEAS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
                             OF ALLEGHENY
                                ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
                                          COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                                  PENNSYLVANIA
                      CRIMINAL DIVISION
                      CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH OF
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
                PENNSYLVANIA       CP-02-CR-0004375-2018
                                   CP-02-CR-0004375-2018
                                   634 WDA
                                   634 WDA2022
                                           2022

         vv..

KAIJIN XAVIER
KAIJIN XAVIER SCOTT
              SCOTT
         Appellant,
         Appellant,

                                    OPINION
                                   OPINION
                                    JUDGE BRUCE R.
                                   JUDGE BRUCE  R. BEEMER
                                                   BEEMER

                                          served by
                                   Copiesserved
                                   Copies           firstclass
                                                 byfirst  class mail
                                                                mailto:
                                                                     to:

                                    CorrieWoods,
                                          Woods, Esq.
                                                  Esq.

 2 ORIGINAL
                                   Corrie

 1) «nu                             WoodsLaw
                                   Woods
                                    200
                                           LawOffices

                                    MoonTwp.,
                                   Moon
                                               OfficesPLLC
                                        Commerce
                                          Twp.,PA
                                                  Drive
                                                PA15108
                                                       PLLC

                                                   15108
                                                        Ste210
                                   200 Commerce Drive Ste   210

                                                       DistrictAttorney's
                                               CountyDistrict
                                    AlleghenyCounty
                                   Allegheny                   Attorney's
                                    Office
                                   Office
                                    Michael
                                   Michael W.W.Streily,
                                                Streily,Esq.
                                                         Esq.
                                    401  Allegheny County  Courthouse
                                   401 Allegheny County Courthouse
                                    436Grant
                                   436   GrantStreet
                                               Street
                                    Pittsburgh, PA15219
                                   Pittsburgh, PA   15219

                                                    111V
                               0                    JO
                                             1103 AO 1d30

                                    92lH
                                   91          - 130VA
                                      :al Wci 1-100  220%

                                       Gal
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

                                         CRIMINAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA                                                CP-02-CR-0004375-2018
                                                                             634 WDA 2022
                                                                                 WDA2022
                 vv..

KAIJIN XAVIER SCOTT
                 Appellant,

                                                 OPINION

BRUCE R. BEEMER, J.

        Appellant, Kaijin Scott, appeals from the judgment of sentence order imposed after a jury

trial wherein he was found guilty of Murder of the Second Degree, 18
                                                                  18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(B);

Robbery, 18
         18 Pa.C.S. § 3701; Conspiracy (Robbery), 18
                                                  18 Pa.C.S. § 903; and Tampering with or

Fabricating Physical Evidence, 18
                               18 Pa.C.S. § 4910(1).

        The trial commenced on August 23, 2021. After a five-day trial, Appellant was

                        2021 of the charges referenced above. On November 22, 2021, the
convicted on August 27, 2021

                                                 1, Murder of the Second Degree; 6-12 years
Court imposed a mandatory life sentence at Count 1,

                             Robbery;1 and at Count 3, Conspiracy (Robbery), a sentence of 6 Y2
of incarceration at Count 2, Robbery;1                                                       ½-

13 years of incarceration. The Court ran each count consecutively for an aggregate sentence of
13

                    12 'A
life in prison plus 12 ½ - 25 years.

1
 The sentence imposed at Count 2 Robbery was vacated during the post sentence motion hearing held on April 22,
                              l. Amended Order of Sentence, April 22, 2022.
2022, as it merged with Count 1.

                                                       2
                On December 2, 2022, Appellant filed a timely Post Sentence Motion with a request to
·.
     supplement. Upon receiving a time extension, an Amended Post Sentence Motion was filed on

     March 3, 2022 challenging both the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. The motion was

                         2022.2 A timely Notice of Appeal was filed on May 25, 2022, followed by a
     denied on April 25, 2022.2

     Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal (hereinafter Statement) on June 21,

     2022. This Opinion follows.

                                                     FACTUAL BACKGROUND

                The majority of evidence adduced at trial was uncontested by Appellant, including that he

     was present at the time co-conspirator Dane Taylor3
                                                 Taylor' shot and killed Keiauna Davis on February

         2018.4 Appellant's dispute with the Commonwealth's case centered around the reasons and
     22, 2018.4

     circumstances for his actions.

               The Commonwealth presented evidence regarding the events leading up to Davis's death

     through various witnesses. Collectively,                                    of February 22, 2018,
                                Collectively, they testified that on the morning of

     Keiauna Davis was working at
                               at the Dollar General store
                                                     store in Wilkinsburg. This was one of
                                                                                        of two

     jobs held by Ms. Davis, who was aa single
                                        single mother to two children under the age of
                                                                                    of six.5
                                                                                       six.' During

         shift, Ms.
     her shift, Ms. Davis's grandmother, Linda Wilson, delivered approximately $3,000
                                                                               $3,000 to her, which

     2
     2  The April
        The          25, 2022
             April 25,   2022 order
                               order was
                                      was timely     inasmuch as
                                            timely inasmuch      as the
                                                                    the Court
                                                                          Court granted
                                                                                granted Appellant's       March 8,
                                                                                          Appellant's March      8, 2022
                                                                                                                    2022 Motion
                                                                                                                          Motion forfor
      Extension of
     Extension     ofTime
                      Time toto rule
                                rule on
                                     on the
                                         the Amended
                                              Amended PostPost Sentence
                                                                 Sentence Motion.
                                                                             Motion.
     3 Dane Taylor was                 in connection
                                          connection withwith the
                                                               the death
                                                                   death ofofKeiauna    Davis atat CP-02-CR-0004793-2018.
                                                                                                   CP-02-CR-0004793-2018. On        On July 16,
                                                                                                                                              16,
     3 Dane                  charged in
               Taylor was charged                                             Keiauna Davis
     2019, Dane
     2019,    Dane Taylor    entered aa guilty
                     Taylor entered      guilty plea   to Murder
                                                 plea to  Murder of of the
                                                                        the Third
                                                                            Third Degree,
                                                                                   Degree, 18
                                                                                            18 Pa.C.S.
                                                                                                 Pa.C.S. §2502(c);
                                                                                                           §2502(c); Robbery,
                                                                                                                      Robbery, 18 18 Pa.C.S.
                                                                                                                                      Pa.C.S.
      $3701(a)(1)(); Conspiracy
     §3701(a)(1)(i);     Conspiracy (Robbery),
                                       (Robbery), 18  18 Pa.C.S.
                                                         Pa.C.S. §903;
                                                                   §903; and
                                                                           and Violations
                                                                                Violations of
                                                                                            of the
                                                                                               the Uniform
                                                                                                    Uniform Firearms
                                                                                                               Firearms Act
                                                                                                                          Act (VUFA),
                                                                                                                               (VUFA), 18  18
     Pa.C.S. §6106.
     Pa.C.S.    §6106. He He was
                              was sentenced
                                   sentenced in in accordance
                                                   accordance withwith aa negotiated   agreement to
                                                                          negotiated agreement      to aa period
                                                                                                          period of
                                                                                                                 of30-60   years of
                                                                                                                    30-60 years    of
      incarceration. A
     incarceration.     A post   sentence motion
                           post sentence    motion waswas filed
                                                           filed and
                                                                 and subsequently      denied by
                                                                      subsequently denied     by operation
                                                                                                   operation ofof law
                                                                                                                  law on
                                                                                                                      on July
                                                                                                                          July 28,
                                                                                                                                28, 2020.
                                                                                                                                     2020. OnOn
     November 10,
     November       10, 2020
                        2020 Taylor    filed aa PCRA
                               Taylor filed     PCRA petition.      After an
                                                         petition. After    an evidentiary
                                                                               evidentiary hearing
                                                                                            hearing held
                                                                                                       held on
                                                                                                             on November
                                                                                                                November 22, 22, 2021,
                                                                                                                                 2021, the
                                                                                                                                         the
      Court issued
     Court    issued an
                      an order
                          order denying    the PCRA
                                 denying the    PCRA petition     on February
                                                        petition on   February 17,17, 2022.
                                                                                      2022. No
                                                                                             No direct
                                                                                                   direct appeal
                                                                                                           appeal was
                                                                                                                   was filed.
                                                                                                                       filed.
     4
              Trial Transcript,
        Jury Trial
        Jury                      (J.T.) August
                     Transcript, (J.T.)  August 23,23, 2021
                                                        2021 —-August
                                                                 August 27,27, 2021,
                                                                               2021, 57-64,
                                                                                      57-64, 96-97,
                                                                                             96-97, 548,548,563.
                                                                                                             563.
      5
        J.T. at
     5 J.T.  at 69.
                69.
                                                                          33
                    retum.6 Ms. Davis, who relied on public transportation or family members to
represented her tax return.6

drive her to and from work, was planning to shop for a car after work that day and to buy party

                                     birthday.7
supplies for her daughter's upcoming birthday.7

              Whitley8, who only started working at the Dollar General the day before, became
         Laya Whitley8,

                                                  same.9 The text exchanges were presented
aware of this money and texted Dane Taylor of the same.9

through several exhibits and were read by Allegheny County Police Detective Laurie McKee1.1°
                                                                                   McKeel."

On February 22, 2018 the following exchange occurred:

         Whitley: "Guess what?" (11:25
                                (11 :25 a.m.)
        Taylor: "Wat." (11:31
                       (11:31 a.m.)
        Whitley: "This girl at my job brought 7 bands to work. Ain't that some shit?" (11:31
                                                                                      (11 :31 a.m.)
        Taylor: "It's a go. Delete all dez texts." (12:48 p.m.)
        Whitley: "They been gone." (1:26
                                   ( 1 :26 p.m.)
        Taylor "Ite" (1:27
                     (1 :27 p.m.)

Each of these messages from Whitley's phone showed evidence of having been deleted."
                                                                           deleted.'

        Shortly after Whitely told Taylor about Ms. Davis's money, phone records offered at trial

established that Appellant and Taylor began communicating.12
                                            communicating.' The phone records for Laya

6
6  J.T. at 68, 70-72, 82.
7
   J.T. at 69-73, 82.
 8
8 Laya Whitley was charged in connection with the death of    Keiauna Davis at CP-02-CR-0004374-2018. On July
                                                           ofKeiauna
                                                                        18 Pa.C.S. §2502(c); Robbery, 18
 16, 2019, Whitley entered a guilty plea to Murder of the Third Degree, 18
 16,                                                                                                   18 Pa.C.S.
 §370l(a)(l)(i); Conspiracy (Robbery), 18
 §3701(a)(1)(i);                         18 Pa.C.S. §903; Criminal use of Communication Facility, 18
                                                                                                  18 Pa.C.S.
 $7512(a) and Tampering with evidence, 18
§7512(a)                                   18 Pa.C.S. §4910 (1). She was sentenced in accordance with a negotiated
agreement to a period of 20-50 years of incarceration. No post sentence motion or direct appeal were filed. On
 March 25, 2020 Whitley filed a PCRA petition. The denial of her PCRA petition was appealed and affirmed by the
 Pennsylvania Superior Court. Commonwealth v.                        1051 (Pa. Super. 2022); 850 WDA 2021. A
                                                • Whitley, 273 A.3d 1051
 Petition for Allowance of Appeal was denied on July 5, 2022; 9191 WAL 2022.
99 J.T. at 79.
 I0JT.
    J.T. at 266- 272; Commonwealth Exhibit 41, 42, 45-51.
 11 J.T. at 270-272.
 ''J.T.
    J.T. at 313-316; Commonwealth Exhibit 60.
 12J.T.

                                                        4
Whitley, Dane Taylor, and Appellant, revealed the date and time of the communications
                                                                       communications but
                                                                                      but not
                                                                                          not

the content.'3
    content.'

                                                                                    on February
                                                                          Appellant on
           These exhibits illustrated that a call was placed by Taylor to Appellant             22,
                                                                                       February 22,

     at 12:01
2018 at 12:01 p.m. lasting one minute and
                                      and nineteen seconds;
                                                   seconds; followed by aa call
                                                                           call from
                                                                                from Appellant
                                                                                     Appellant

          at 12:03
to Taylor at 12:03 p.m. The records evidenced two more calls from Appellant to
                                                                            to Taylor at
                                                                                      at 1:55
                                                                                         1 :55

     and again
p.m. and again at
               at 2:29
                  2:29 p.m. Appellant
                            Appellant and
                                      and Taylor
                                          Taylor also
                                                 also communicated
                                                      communicated by text
                                                                      text message
                                                                           message aa total
                                                                                      total of
                                                                                            of

18 times between 12:00
18               12:00 p.m. and 2:30 p.m.14
                            and 2:30 p.m.14

           Video surveillance
           Video surveillance from
                              from inside
                                   inside the
                                          the Dollar
                                              Dollar General
                                                     General showed
                                                             showed that
                                                                    that Ms.
                                                                         Ms. Davis
                                                                             Davis secured
                                                                                   secured the
                                                                                           the

money in
money in the
         the Manager's
             Manager's office
                       office during her shift,
                              during her shift, and
                                                and later
                                                    later retrieved
                                                          retrieved the
                                                                    the money
                                                                        money along with her
                                                                              along with her

personal belongings
personal belongings at
                    at the
                       the end
                           end of
                               ofher  shift.15 She
                                  her shift.15 She then
                                                   then proceeded to the
                                                        proceeded to the counter
                                                                         counter to
                                                                                  to make
                                                                                     make some
                                                                                          some

purchases at
purchases at the
             the register
                 register manned
                          manned by Whitley.' Appellant,
                                 by Whitley.16            who had
                                               Appellant, who had already
                                                                  already picked
                                                                          picked up Dane
                                                                                 up Dane

Taylor, was
Taylor, was parked
            parked in
                    in the
                       the rear
                           rear lot
                                 lot of
                                     ofthe
                                        the Dollar
                                            Dollar General.
                                                   General. Exterior
                                                            Exterior surveillance
                                                                     surveillance footage  then
                                                                                  footage then

shows Keiauna
shows Keiauna Davis
              Davis exit
                    exit at
                         at 2:36 p.m.17 Thereafter,
                            2:36 p.m.17 Thereafter, Appellant and Taylor
                                                    Appellant and         leave the
                                                                  Taylor leave   the parking  lot
                                                                                     parking lot

and drive
and drive onto
          onto Laketon
               Laketon Avenue.
                       A venue. The
                                The events
                                    events that
                                            that followed,
                                                 followed, including
                                                            including Ms.
                                                                      Ms. Davis
                                                                          Davis walking on
                                                                                walking on

Laketon Avenue,
Laketon Avenue, up
                up to
                    to and
                       and including  her murder,
                            including her murder, were
                                                  were captured
                                                       captured on
                                                                on aa residential
                                                                       residential surveillance
                                                                                    surveillance

camera.' The
camera.18 The entire
              entire event,
                     event, beginning when Appellant
                            beginning when Appellant parked  the vehicle
                                                     parked the  vehicle until
                                                                         until he
                                                                               he drove
                                                                                  drove away
                                                                                        away

 from the
from   the scene,
            scene, was
                   was less
                        less than  one minute.'9
                              than one minute.19

                     and Taylor
           Appellant and
           Appellant            knew who
                         Taylor knew who Keiauna
                                         Keiauna Davis
                                                 Davis was
                                                       was based
                                                           based on
                                                                 on the
                                                                     the physical
                                                                         physical description
                                                                                  description

provided by
provided by Laya
            Laya Whitley. Therefore, once
                 Whitley. Therefore, once they
                                           they located
                                                 located her
                                                         her walking
                                                             walking on
                                                                     on Laketon
                                                                        Laketon Avenue,
                                                                                A venue,

          drove past
Appellant drove
Appellant            her, and
                past her,  and parked  the car
                               parked the   car along
                                                 along the
                                                        the sidewalk.
                                                             sidewalk. Appellant
                                                                       Appellant then
                                                                                  then exited
                                                                                        exited the
                                                                                                the car
                                                                                                     car

 J.T
13J.T atat312-314;
           312-314; Commonwealth
                     CommonwealthExhibits
                                 Exhibits57-60.
                                          57-60.
 J.T.
14          318-322.
  J.T. atat318-322.
     J,T. atat82,
15ISJ.T.       82,90-92;
                   90-92; Commonwealth
                          Commonwealth Exhibit
                                       Exhibit1.1.
     JT. atat91-92.
16I6J.T.      91-92.
17J,T.
    J.T. atat91.
              91.
    J.T. atat144-148;
18I8JT.       144-148;Commonwealth
                      CommonwealthExhibit
                                        Exhibit22(audio
                                                  (audionot
                                                          notavailable).
                                                              available).
  "9 CommonwealthExhibit
'Commonwealth          Exhibit2,2,(Time
                                   (TimeStamp
                                         Stamp(T.S.)
                                                (T.S.)6:41-7:36).
                                                       6:41-7:36).

                                                              55
and bent down near the rear driver's side tire. As Ms. Davis walked alongside the passenger side

of the vehicle, Taylor opens the front passenger door and jumps out of the car. Ms. Davis

immediately runs and is chased by Taylor into an abandoned lot where she physically struggles

with him over her purse. At this time, Ms. Davis is on the ground with Taylor standing over her,

and Appellant is standing in the street beside the vehicle. After several seconds of wrestling over

the purse to no avail, Taylor shoots at Ms. Davis two times. The first shot missed, and the

second shot struck her in the right hip, later resulting in her death. At the time of the shooting,

Appellant quickly moved to the front of the vehicle and then seconds later he walked back to the

driver's door and reentered the car.

        Surveillance continued to capture the events which showed Taylor take the purse from a

now injured Keiauna Davis. Taylor can be seen running back to the car at which time he tossed

the purse inside through the open passenger door to Appellant, who is now seated in the driver's

seat. Taylor then returned to the location of Ms. Davis to retrieve an item which was later

determined to be his phone. As Taylor entered the passenger door, the purse is thrown out of the

                                                                                       police.?
open door by Appellant and is caught on a nearby tree, where it was later retrieved by police.20

Appellant immediately drove away from the scene with Taylor as Ms. Davis continued to

struggle on the ground, having been critically wounded by the gunshot. The surveillance footage

recorded Ms. Davis's last living moments as she crawled to the sidewalk and attempted to wave

at passing cars for help. Eventually, a passerby stopped and called for help as evidenced by the

response of both police and EMS at the scene. Ms. Davis was transported to a local hospital

                                                           2018.21
where she was pronounced dead at 3:39 p.m. on February 22, 2018.21

20 J.T. at 171;                      18 and 19.
           171; Commonwealth Exhibit 18     19.
2!J.T.
21 J.T. at 151.
           151.

                                                  6
                                                                       Luckasevic, aa forensic
           At trial the Commonwealth presented testimony from Dr. Todd Luckasevic,    forensic

                                                                      He testified
pathologist with the Allegheny County Office of the Medical Examiner. He testified that
                                                                                   that

                                                                          wound to
Keiauna Davis, a 27-year-old African American female, died from a gunshot wound to her
                                                                                   her

pelvis.22 Dr. Luckasevic stated
pelvis.22                stated that the bullet entered through the outside of
                                                                            of her
                                                                               her right thigh. He
                                                                                         thigh. He

             as aa contact wound, directing the jury to the photographic evidence which
described it as                                                                   which showed
                                                                                        showed

soot on
soot on her skin,
            skin, as
                  as well
                     well as
                          as aa muzzle imprint abrasion, and
                                       imprint abrasion, and an
                                                             an abrasion
                                                                abrasion consistent
                                                                         consistent with
                                                                                    with the
                                                                                         the recoil
                                                                                             recoil

spring of
spring       firearm.23 He
       of aa firearm.23 He explained to the
                           explained to the jury that
                                                 that the
                                                      the bullet took
                                                                 took aa trajectory from right to
                                                                         trajectory from       to left
                                                                                                  left

and back
and back to
         to front,
            front, severing
                   severing two major arteries and
                                major arteries and fracturing her hip bone before exiting
                                                   fracturing her                         out her
                                                                                  exiting out her

inner thigh.24
inner thigh.?"

           Following the
           Following the homicide,
                         homicide, Appellant and Taylor
                                   Appellant and Taylor were
                                                        were captured
                                                             captured on
                                                                      on video
                                                                         video arriving
                                                                               arriving at
                                                                                        at 2215
                                                                                           2215

Wilner Drive,
Wilner Drive, the
              the residence
                  residence of
                            ofLaya  Whitley.25
                               Laya Whitley.25

           The next
           The next day,
                    day, on
                         on February 23, 2018,
                            February 23, 2018, the
                                               the vehicle
                                                   vehicle operated
                                                           operated by
                                                                    by Appellant was recovered
                                                                       Appellant was recovered in
                                                                                                in

Penn Hills.
Penn Hills. This
            This same
                 same day,
                      day, police made contact
                           police made contact with
                                               with Appellant at his
                                                    Appellant at his residence
                                                                     residence in
                                                                                in Turtle
                                                                                   Turtle Creek
                                                                                          Creek

and he
and he indicated
        indicated he
                  he wished
                     wished to
                             to talk
                                 talk with
                                      with Allegheny
                                           Allegheny County detectives who
                                                     County detectives who were
                                                                           were investigating   the
                                                                                 investigating the

homicide of
homicide ofMs.  Davis.26 County
            Ms. Davis.26        detectives responded
                         County detectives             to Appellant's
                                            responded to               residence, and
                                                          Appellant's residence,  and he
                                                                                      he

voluntarily accompanied
voluntarily accompanied the
                         the detectives
                             detectives to
                                         to Allegheny County police
                                            Allegheny County        headquarters for
                                                             police headquarters  for an
                                                                                      an

 interview.27 The
interview.27  The nine-hour
                  nine-hour interview
                             interview was
                                       was recorded
                                            recorded and
                                                      and played
                                                          played for
                                                                  for the  jury.28
                                                                       the jury.28

                   the course
           During the
           During      course of
                              ofthe
                                 the interview
                                      interview Appellant's
                                                Appellant's statements
                                                             statements as
                                                                         as to
                                                                             to the
                                                                                 the events
                                                                                     events of
                                                                                            ofFebruary
                                                                                               February 22,
                                                                                                        22,

2018 changed
2018                   times. Initially,
             multiple times.
     changed multiple                     he told
                               Initially, he  told police  that he
                                                   police that  he gave
                                                                   gave aajitney
                                                                           jitney ride
                                                                                   ride to
                                                                                         to an
                                                                                             an unknown
                                                                                                unknown

 J.T.
 J.T. atat232-234.
22         232-234.
    JT. atat227-229;
 2 J.T.
23           227-229; Commonwealth
                      Commonwealth Exhibit
                                   Exhibit31
                                           31 and
                                               and32.
                                                   32.
24J.T.
24J.T. atat229-234;
            229-234; Commonwealth
                     Commonwealth Exhibit
                                  Exhibit33
                                          33 and
                                              and34.
                                                  34.
   CommonwealthExhibit
 25Commonwealth
25              Exhibit38.
                        38.
    J.T. atat178,
 26J.T.
26            178,197.
                   197.
    J,T. atat179-180.
 27J.T.
27            179-180.
    JT. atat184-190,
 28J.T.
28           184-190,199;
                      199;Commonwealth
                           CommonwealthExhibit
                                             Exhibit27
                                                     27 and
                                                         and28.
                                                             28. By  agreementthe
                                                                 Byagreement    thevideo
                                                                                    videowas
                                                                                         wasredacted
                                                                                             redactedto
                                                                                                      toremove
                                                                                                         removethe
                                                                                                                the
 arrestof
arrest  ofAppellant    andportions
            Appellantand            ofthe
                           portionsof  theinterview
                                           interviewwhen
                                                      whenpolice    werenot
                                                            policewere   notpresent.
                                                                             present.

                                                           77
                       stated that during the drive
person. Then Appellant stated                 drive to
                                                    to the
                                                       the Dollar
                                                           Dollar General
                                                                  General in
                                                                          in Wilkinsburg, he
                                                                             Wilkinsburg, he

                                                   brother and
learned that this individual knew both Appellant's brother and mother
                                                               mother and
                                                                      and went
                                                                          went by
                                                                               by the
                                                                                  the name
                                                                                      name "D
                                                                                           "D

      Appellant stated
Low". Appellant stated that
                       that after
                            after arriving at the
                                  arriving at the location,
                                                  location, "D
                                                            "D Low"
                                                               Low" robbed
                                                                    robbed him
                                                                           him at
                                                                               at gunpoint, and
                                                                                  gunpoint, and

continued to
continued to keep him
                  him at
                      at gunpoint as he
                         gunpoint as he threatened
                                        threatened to
                                                   to hurt
                                                      hurt Appellant's mother if
                                                           Appellant's mother if Appellant didn't
                                                                                 Appellant didn't

do what
do what he
        he said.29
           said.? Appellant  told detectives
                   Appellant told detectives that
                                             that itit was
                                                       was out
                                                           out of
                                                               offear
                                                                  fear for
                                                                       for his
                                                                           his life
                                                                                life and
                                                                                     and his
                                                                                         his mother's,
                                                                                             mother's,

that he
that he complied with the
        complied with the step-by-step  instructions given
                          step-by-step instructions  given by "D Low"
                                                           by "D Low regarding  where to
                                                                      regarding where  to drive
                                                                                          drive

and what
and what to
          to do.3°
             do." Appellant  stated that
                   Appellant stated  that "D
                                          "D Low"
                                             Low" directed
                                                  directed him
                                                           him to
                                                                to drive
                                                                   drive past Ms. Davis
                                                                         past Ms. Davis who
                                                                                        who was
                                                                                            was

walking on
walking on the
            the sidewalk,
                 sidewalk, and
                           and then
                                then park along the
                                     park along  the street
                                                      street ahead
                                                             ahead of
                                                                   ofher.
                                                                      her. Appellant was then
                                                                           Appellant was  then

ordered out
ordered out of
            ofthe
               the car
                   car by
                       by Taylor and told
                          Taylor and  told to
                                            to pretend  that he
                                               pretend that  he was
                                                                was having      trouble. 31 As
                                                                           car trouble.31
                                                                    having car              As Ms.
                                                                                               Ms.

Davis walked
Davis walked by
             by the
                 the passenger door, "D
                     passenger door,  "D Low"
                                         Low got  out of
                                              got out ofthe
                                                         the car
                                                             car and
                                                                 and began  to struggle
                                                                     began to            with Ms.
                                                                                struggle with Ms.

Davis over
Davis over her
           herpurse.
               purse. During  the struggle,
                      During the   struggle, Appellant heard two
                                             Appellant heard  two gunshots. The first
                                                                  gunshots. The  first did
                                                                                       did not
                                                                                           not strike
                                                                                                strike

Ms. Davis
Ms. Davis but
          but the
               the second
                    second one
                           one did.
                               did. "D
                                     "D Low"
                                        Low then
                                             then removed
                                                   removed the
                                                            the purse  from Ms.
                                                                purse from  Ms. Davis,
                                                                                Davis, ran
                                                                                        ran back
                                                                                            back to
                                                                                                  to

 the car,
the   car, threw
            threw the
                   the purse  inside, and
                       purse inside,   and ordered
                                           orderedAppellant  to"get
                                                   Appellantto  "get it",
                                                                      it", which
                                                                           which Appellant
                                                                                 Appellant assumed
                                                                                            assumed

meantmoney.
meant        At"D
      money. At    Lows" instruction,
                "D Low's" instruction, Appellant thenthrew
                                       Appellantthen  threwthe
                                                            thepurse
                                                               purseout
                                                                     outof
                                                                         ofthe
                                                                            thevehicle
                                                                                vehicleand
                                                                                        and

 droveaway
drove      with"D
       awaywith "D Low"
                   Low" in
                         in the  car.32 Still
                             thecar.32   Still under
                                               under"D
                                                     "D Low's"
                                                        Low's" direction,
                                                                direction, Appellant
                                                                           Appellantdrove
                                                                                     droveaafew
                                                                                             few

 blocksaway
blocks      wherehe
        awaywhere hethen
                     thendropped  off"D
                          droppedoff    Low. Prior
                                     "D Low". Priorto
                                                    to exiting  thevehicle,
                                                        exitingthe  vehicle,"D
                                                                             "D Low"
                                                                                Low"made
                                                                                     made

 anotherthreat
another  threatagainst
                againstAppellant's mother. From
                       Appellant'smother.   Fromthere,
                                                 there,Appellant
                                                       Appellantre-counted
                                                                 re-countedthat
                                                                            thathe
                                                                                 hedrove
                                                                                    drovetotohis
                                                                                              his

 residencein
residence  inTurtle
             TurtleCreek
                    Creekand
                          andthen
                              thendowntown
                                   downtowntotoget
                                                gethis
                                                    hisphone
                                                        phonefixed.33
                                                              fixed.°

                           thenshifted
                     storythen
         Appellant'sstory
         Appellant's            shiftedas
                                        astotohow
                                               howhe
                                                   heinitially
                                                      initiallyencountered
                                                                encountered"D
                                                                            "DLow",
                                                                               Low",who
                                                                                    whohe
                                                                                        hestill
                                                                                           still

maintainedhe
maintained hedid
              didnot
                  notknow.
                      know. He
                            Henow
                               nowexplained  thathe
                                   explainedthat  hewas
                                                    waslooking
                                                        lookingtotobuy
                                                                    buymarijuana
                                                                       marijuanawhen
                                                                                 whenhe
                                                                                      he

    Exhibit28,
293Exhibit  28,Time
                TimeStamp
                     Stamp(T.S.)  12:33-12:40.
                           (T.S.)12:33-12:40.
     T.S.12:40-12:44.
3030T.S.  12:40-12:44.
    T.S.12:40-12:42.
311T.S.  12:40-12:42.
    1.S.12:42-12:45.
323T.S.  12:42-12:45.
33
 T.S.  12:45-12:48.
 T.S. 12:45-12:48.

                                                   88
came across "D Low"
               Low and that their interaction then turned into a jitney ride.34
                                                                        ride. He maintained

                                                                                   gunpoint.35
however that his actions once they got to the Dollar General were all forced under gunpoint.35

          Several hours into the interview police began talking about Laya Whitley, prompting

another revision by Appellant as to the events of February 22, 2018. He now admitted that the

person he drove to the Dollar General was not a stranger, or a person known as "D Low",
                                                                                  Low, but a

man named "H.D." He also divulged he knew the purpose of the trip to the Dollar General was

to allow "H.D." to get money, and disclosed that a girl inside the store told "H.D" that a female

                            $7,000.36 Appellant also admitted that he had contact with "H.D"
co-worker with red hair had $7,000.36

after the shooting. Specifically, that that he picked up "H.D." that night and took him to
                                                         "H.D. that

Whitely's residence in the East Hills section of Pittsburgh and messaged with "H.D." through

Facebook.37
Facebook.37

          A forensic download of Appellant's phone confirmed these Facebook messages which

occurred from 7:23 p.m. on February 22, 2018 through 1:13                      2018.38
                                                     1:13 p.m. on February 23, 2018.38

Throughout the messaging Appellant and Taylor refer to each other as "bro", "homie", "dude"

and "cuhs", which was known as short for cousin. The initial message came from Appellant

asking Taylor what he was doing.39
                          doing." The two messaged about someone who died in Wilkinsburg,

referencing a single mom. Appellant also stated that, "she was cute" and "lmao" which stands

                     ofP." Taylor responded that Appellant is disgusting and "lol" which
for "laughing my ass off'.40

                         loud".41 Taylor messaged Appellant that he heard that they [police] had
stands for "laughing out loud".41

4        1:06-1:08.
   T.S. 1:06-1:08.
3·1.S.
35 T.S. 2:25-2:31.
36
36 T.S.
   T.S. 3:38-3:54.
37 T.S. 4:23-4:48.
   J,T. at 273, 275-291; Commonwealth Exhibit 52.
3 J.T.
38
   1.T. at 275.
39 J.T.
ao
«J.T.
   J.T. at 279.
   J.T. at 279-280
"JT.
41

                                                    9
     car color
 the car color but not the plate and
                                 and Appellant referenced that
                                     Appellant referenced that the
                                                               the story was on
                                                                   story was on the
                                                                                the news.42
                                                                                    news. The
                                                                                            The
 two continued
 two continued to
               to talk
                  talk about
                       about football
                             football and
                                      and splitting
                                          splitting aa jitney to go
                                                       jitney to    out that
                                                                 go out      night.43 The messages
                                                                        that night.43 The messages
 ceased around
 ceased around 10:21
               10:21 p.m. on February
                     p.m. on          22, 2018
                             February 22, 2018 and
                                               and resumed
                                                   resumed in
                                                            in the
                                                                the early
                                                                    early morning hours of
                                                                          morning hours
                                                                                        of
          23, 2018,
 February 23, 2018, when
                    when Taylor                     that he,
                                                         he, "[p]assed  out and
                                                              "[p]assed out and woke
                                                                                woke up early."
 February                Taylor messaged
                                messaged Appellant
                                         Appellant that                              up early.44
 They  then engaged
 They then           in talks
            engaged in   talks about
                                about what
                                      what they  were doing
                                            they were        that morning.
                                                      doing that           At 10:40
                                                                  morning. At  10:40 a.m., Appellant
                                                                                    a.m., Appellant
 messaged Taylor
 messaged        that the
          Taylorthat   the police wereat
                           police were at his
                                          his house,
                                              house, informing
                                                      informing Taylor that he
                                                                Taylorthat  he had
                                                                               had been
                                                                                   been robbed the
                                                                                        robbed the
       beforeand
  nightbefore
 night        andwas scared.45 The
                 wasscared.'   Therecords
                                   records revealed
                                            revealed that
                                                      thatTaylor continued to
                                                          Taylorcontinued   to message
                                                                               message Appellant
                                                                                       Appellant
  between11:21
 between  11 :21 a.m.
                  a.m. until
                        until 1:13
                               1: 13 p.m., withno
                                      p.m.,with noresponse  fromAppellant.
                                                   responsefrom Appellant.

          Atthis
          At thistime
                  timeand
                       andday,  1:13 p.m.
                           day,1:13        onFebruary
                                      p.m.on           23,2018,
                                              February23,  2018,Appellant wasatat Allegheny
                                                                Appellantwas     Allegheny
  Countyheadquarters
 County              wherehis
         headquarterswhere hisrecitation
                               recitationof
                                          ofthe
                                             theevents
                                                 eventsof
                                                        ofFebruary  22,2018
                                                           February22,  2018continued
                                                                             continuedtoto evolve.
                                                                                          evolve.
  Policeasked
 Police  askedAppellant
               Appellantififhe
                             hereceived
                                receivedany       fromthe
                                            moneyfrom
                                         anymoney      therobbery  andhe
                                                           robberyand  hepointedly  denied that
                                                                          pointedlydenied
                                                                                          that
 hehad.
he  had. However,
          However,this
                   thisstatement
                        statementquickly
                                  quicklychanged.   First,he
                                          changed. First,  hedisclosed
                                                              disclosedthat
                                                                        thathe
                                                                             hewas
                                                                                was offered money
                                                                                   offered money
 butrefused
but  refusedit.it. Shortly  thereafter,he
                    Shortlythereafter,  headmitted
                                           admittedthat
                                                    thatthere
                                                         therewas
                                                               was$700-$800
                                                                   $700-$800ininaabag
                                                                                   bag located in a
                                                                                      located in a
 bedroomcloset,
bedroom  closet,however
                 howeverititwas
                             wasH.D.'s
                                 H.D.'smoney  thatAppellant
                                        moneythat            wasinstructed
                                                   Appellantwas  instructedtoto keep at his house
                                                                               keep at his house
 andnot
and  nottouch.46
         touch.°

                 theinterview
          Duringthe
         During      interviewAppellant  agreedtotogive
                               Appellantagreed      givepolice  hiscell
                                                         policehis  cellphone  andhis
                                                                         phoneand  his password to
                                                                                      password to
 allowfor
allow  fora aforensic  download.47 From
              forensicdownload.47   Fromthis
                                         thisdownload,
                                              download,a astring
                                                            stringofoftext
                                                                        textmessages  were discovered
                                                                             messageswere
                                                                                          discovered
 betweenAppellant
between            andWhitley
         Appellantand           thatoccurred
                       Whitleythat   occurredafter
                                              afterthe
                                                     themurder
                                                         murderononFebruary  22,2018
                                                                    February22,  2018 between
                                                                                     between
 6:06p.m.
6:06       and6:13
      p.m.and       p.m.."
               6:13p.m..48

                       "It'sRod
           Appellant:"It's
          Appellant:         RodDrey."  "Howare
                                 Drey.""How   areyou
                                                  youdoing?"   (6:06p.m.)
                                                      doing?"(6:06   p.m.)

42 4  JT. at 280.
   JT.at280.
43 4J,T.
   J.T. at at  284-285.
            284-285.
    J.T.at at
44 J.T.        286.
            286.
      JT.at at
   J.T.
45 4           289-291
            289-291
      T.S.4:55-4:58,
   T.S.
46 4        4:55-4:58,  5:26-5:32,
                     5:26-5:32,    5:53.
                                 5:53.
   47JT.    at 190-191;  Commonwealth
   J.T. at 190-191; Commonwealth Exhibit Exhibit
                                               2929 and
                                                  and 30.30.Commonwealth
                                                             Commonwealth Exhibit
                                                                         Exhibit 2828 (T.S.
                                                                                    (T.S.   1:09).
                                                                                          1:09).
      JT.   at 292; Commonwealth     Exhibit
48 J.T. at 292; Commonwealth Exhibit 53.
   48                                        53.

                                                         1010
                   "Lol. I am
          Whitley: "Lol.   am ite. Where you from?"
                                             from?" (6:11
                                                    (6:11 p.m.)
                                                          p.m.)
          Appellant: "Homewood.
                     "Homewood. Where you from?"
                                          from?" (6:12
                                                 (6:12 p.m.)
                                                       p.m.)
                   "Im from
          Whitley: "Im from the hill G
                                     G block
                                       block to
                                             to be
                                                be exact.
                                                   exact. Lol.
                                                          Lol. And
                                                               And II say
                                                                      say show
                                                                          show b-c
                                                                               b-c that
                                                                                   that my
                                                                                        my second
                                                                                           second
          hood." (6:12
          hood." (6:12 p.m.)
                       p.m.)
          Appellant: "Lol.
          Appellant: "Lol. II see.
                              see. WYM.
                                   WYM. (Known
                                        (Known as
                                               as "what
                                                  "what you
                                                        you mean")
                                                            mean") That
                                                                   That is
                                                                        is cool
                                                                           cool doe.
                                                                                doe. How
                                                                                     How old
                                                                                         old
          are you?"
          are        (6:12 p.m.)
              you?" (6:12  p.m.)

          During the
          During  the investigation
                       investigation police returned to
                                     police returned  to Appellant's residence in
                                                         Appellant's residence  in Turtle
                                                                                   Turtle Creek
                                                                                          Creek where
                                                                                                where

 they encountered
they  encountered his
                  his girlfriend  India McDonald.
                      girlfriend India  McDonald. Ms.
                                                  Ms. McDonald
                                                      McDonald lived
                                                                lived with
                                                                      with Appellant and
                                                                           Appellant and

provided police
provided        with consent
         police with consent to
                              to search
                                  search the   residence.49 During
                                          the residence.49          the search,
                                                            During the   search, police  seized two
                                                                                 police seized   two cell
                                                                                                     cell

phones that
phones  that were
             were subsequently   submitted for
                   subsequently submitted   foraa forensic
                                                   forensic download.50
                                                            download." Afterward,
                                                                        Afterward, detectives
                                                                                   detectives

             Ms. McDonald
 transported Ms.
transported      McDonald to
                           to her
                              herparents'   residence in
                                  parents' residence   in Wilkinsburg.
                                                          Wilkinsburg. During  the ride
                                                                       During the   ride Ms.
                                                                                         Ms.

McDonald advised
McDonald  advised them
                   themthat
                        thatshe
                             shehad
                                 hadmoney shewanted
                                    moneyshe wantedto
                                                    toturn
                                                       tumover
                                                           overto
                                                                tothe
                                                                   thepolice. Ms.
                                                                      police. Ms.

McDonaldthen
McDonald thenentered
              enteredher
                     herparents'   residenceand
                         parents' residence  andreturned
                                                 returnedto
                                                          tothe
                                                             thedetective's
                                                                 detective's vehicle
                                                                             vehiclewith
                                                                                     with$669.
                                                                                          $669.

 Sheexplained
She  explainedthat
               thatshe
                    shewas
                       wasgiving
                           givingititto
                                      tothem
                                         thembecause
                                              becauseshe
                                                      shereceived
                                                          receivedititfrom
                                                                       fromAppellant, whotold
                                                                           Appellant,who  told

 herititwas
her     wasproceeds  fromaarobbery
            proceedsfrom            thathad
                            robberythat  hadbeen
                                             beencommitted
                                                  committedthe
                                                            thenight  before.51
                                                                nightbefore.51

          Attrial,
          At trial,Appellant testifiedon
                   Appellanttestified  onhis
                                          hisown
                                              ownbehalf
                                                  behalf. He
                                                          Hestated
                                                             statedthat
                                                                    thathe
                                                                         heaccepted
                                                                            acceptedaaFacebook
                                                                                       Facebook

         fromDane
 requestfrom
request      DaneTaylor  foraajitney
                  Taylorfor           ride,explaining
                               jitneyride,             thathe
                                            explainingthat  heknew
                                                               knewof
                                                                    ofhim
                                                                       himperipherally  because
                                                                           peripherallybecause

       wasfriends
 Taylorwas
Taylor     friendswith
                  withAppellant's  brotherand
                       Appellant'sbrother  andthat
                                               thathis
                                                    hisnickname
                                                        nicknamewas H.D.52 He
                                                                wasH.D.52  Hedescribed
                                                                              described

 exchangingmultiple
exchanging multiplephone  callsand
                    phonecalls  andtext
                                    textmessages withTaylor
                                        messageswith  Taylorprior
                                                             priortotopicking
                                                                       pickinghim
                                                                               himup
                                                                                   upon
                                                                                      onRay
                                                                                         Ray

Street     Wilkinsburg.53 After
 StreetininWilkinsburg.53  Afterpicking  himup,
                                 pickinghim  up,Taylor  toldhim
                                                 Taylortold  himtotodrive
                                                                     drivetotothe
                                                                               theDollar
                                                                                   DollarGeneral
                                                                                          General

 storeand
store  andtotoback
               backinto
                    intoaaparking  spotininthe
                           parkingspot      theback  lot.54 Appellant
                                                backlot.54             thenleft
                                                             Appellantthen  leftthe
                                                                                 thecar
                                                                                     cartotourinate
                                                                                             urinate

49«9J.T. 241.
   J.T. 241.
     J,T.atat240-241.
" 50J.T.       240-241.
  SJ.T.     at 242-243,249;
51 J.T. at 242-243,     249;Commonwealth
                             CommonwealthExhibit
                                          Exhibit39.
                                                  39.
    J.T. atat392-394.
529J,T.        392-394.
53$ J.T. at 394-397.
    J.T. at 394-397.
      J.T.atat397-399.
54$4J.T.       397-399.

                                                         11
                                                        11
 outsidean
outside  anabandoned
            abandoned building whileTaylor
                      buildingwhile        remained inside
                                    Taylorremained   inside the
                                                             thevehicle.
                                                                vehicle. When hereturned
                                                                         Whenhe  returnedto
                                                                                          to

 the car,
the   car, Taylor
           Taylorwas
                  was now
                      now wearing
                          wearingaa face
                                     face mask
                                          maskand
                                               and had
                                                   had aa gun out and
                                                          gun out  and ordered
                                                                       ordered Appellant  to shut
                                                                               Appellant to   shut

the  door.55 According
 the door.55            to Appellant,
             According to                     told him
                                      Taylor told
                           Appellant, Taylor       him that
                                                        thathe
                                                            he needed
                                                               needed this
                                                                       this money
                                                                            money and
                                                                                   and that
                                                                                        that

Appellant was
Appellant was going  to do
              going to  do what
                           what he
                                he said.
                                    said. Although
                                          Although Appellant described that
                                                   Appellant described  that Taylor was aiming
                                                                             Taylorwas   aiming

 the gun
the  gun in
          in his
             his direction,
                 direction, he
                            he denied
                               denied that
                                       that he
                                            he was
                                               was being           gunpoint.56 Despite
                                                         held atat gunpoint.56
                                                   being held                  Despite telling   the jury
                                                                                        telling the  jury

he was
he was not
       not under
           under threat,
                  threat, Appellant  testified he
                          Appellant testified  he did
                                                  did what
                                                      what Taylor
                                                           Taylor wanted
                                                                  wanted and  repeatedly asked
                                                                         and repeatedly  asked him
                                                                                               him

not to
not  to shoot
         shoot him.57
               him."

         Appellant testified
         Appellant  testified that
                               that he
                                    he exited
                                       exited the
                                               the parking  lot. At
                                                   parking lot.  At this
                                                                     this time  Taylor instructed
                                                                           time Taylor  instructed him
                                                                                                   him to
                                                                                                        to

drive past
drive       the female
      past the   female with
                        with red
                             red hair
                                 hair and
                                      and park
                                          park along  the street.
                                               along the   street. Whereafter,
                                                                   Whereafter, Appellant was ordered
                                                                               Appellant was ordered

out of
out ofthe
       the car
           car and
               and instructed
                    instructed to
                                to act
                                   act like
                                        like he
                                             he was
                                                was fixing
                                                     fixing something  on the
                                                             something on  the car.
                                                                               car. According  to
                                                                                    According to

Appellant, Taylor
Appellant,         threatened to
           Taylor threatened   to shoot
                                  shoot Appellant  ifhe
                                        Appellant if     tried to
                                                     he tried   to run away.58 Appellant
                                                                   run away.58                 like his
                                                                                         felt like
                                                                               Appellant felt       his

 life was
life  was in
           in danger and told
              danger and  told the
                                the jury he did
                                    jury he did as
                                                as he
                                                   he was
                                                      was instructed.
                                                           instructed. Consistent
                                                                       Consistent with
                                                                                  with the
                                                                                        the video
                                                                                            video

evidence, Appellant
evidence,           described that
          Appellant described  that Taylor
                                    Taylor jumped out of
                                           jumped out of the
                                                         the car
                                                             car as
                                                                 as Ms.
                                                                    Ms. Davis
                                                                        Davis walked
                                                                              walked by
                                                                                     by and
                                                                                        and

 immediately began
immediately        to tussle
             began to tussle with
                             with her
                                  her over
                                      over her
                                           her purse.
                                               purse. Appellant then heard
                                                      Appellant then heard one
                                                                           one gunshot and
                                                                               gunshot and

started to
started to run
           run towards
               towards the
                       the victim
                           victim when
                                  when aa second
                                          second gunshot
                                                 gunshot stopped him in
                                                         stopped him in his
                                                                        his tracks.59
                                                                            tracks." Appellant

    back into
got back
got      into the
              the car
                  car at
                      at Taylor's instruction. Taylor
                         Taylor's instruction.        then threw
                                               Taylor then threw the
                                                                 the purse at
                                                                           at him
                                                                              him and ordered him
                                                                                  and ordered him

to take
to take out
        out the
            the money.6°
                money. Appellant   removed the
                         Appellant removed the money and then
                                               money and then threw
                                                              threw the
                                                                    the purse out
                                                                              out the
                                                                                  the

window.61 He
window.61 He explained
             explained that Taylor still
                                   still had
                                         had the gun
                                                 gun out              him to drive away,
                                                     out when he told him          away, further

instructing him to drive
instructing                                    Once inside the house, Taylor, who was still
                   drive to Appellant's house. Once                                   still

        the gun, ordered Appellant to hide some
holding the                                     of the money upstairs. Appellant told the jury
                                           some of

$5
55 J,T. at
   J.T. at 399.
           399.
56
56 J,T. at 400-401.
   J.T. at 400-401.
   1,T. at
S1 J.T.
57      at 404.
           404.
   JT. at
$8 J.T.
58      at 403.
           403.
   J,T. at
"9 J.T. at 407-408.
           407-408.
60
   J.T. at
   J.T. at 409.
           409.
   J.T. at
6 J.T.
61      at 409-410.
           409-410.

                                                      12
                                                      12
 that Taylor followed him upstairs and watched
                                       watched him
                                               him hide
                                                   hide the
                                                        the money in aa closet.62
                                                            money in    closet.°? Taylor then
                                                                                  Taylor then

                where to drop him off
 told Appellant where             off and
                                      and threatened
                                          threatened to
                                                     to "off"
                                                        "off' him
                                                              him and
                                                                  and his
                                                                      his brother
                                                                          brother if
                                                                                  ifhe  called the
                                                                                     he called the

 police. He
 police.63 He explained
              explained that
                        that itit was
                                  was fear
                                      fear for
                                           for himself
                                               himself and
                                                       and his
                                                           his family
                                                               family that
                                                                      that kept him from
                                                                           kept him from calling
                                                                                         calling 911
                                                                                                 911

 or the
 or the police.64
        police. HeHe described
                     described how
                               how he
                                   he then
                                      then drove
                                           drove around
                                                 around for
                                                        for aa bit
                                                               bit when
                                                                   when he
                                                                        he remembered
                                                                           remembered that
                                                                                      that he
                                                                                           he

 needed to
 needed to go
           go downtown
              downtown and
                       and pick
                           pick up his phone.
                                up his        Thereafter he
                                       phone. Thereafter he received
                                                            received aa call
                                                                        call from
                                                                             from Taylor
                                                                                  Taylor

 demanding that
 demanding  that Appellant come pick
                 Appellant come      him up.
                                pick him     Appellant complied
                                         up. Appellant          and drove
                                                       complied and drove Taylor  to the
                                                                          Taylor to   the East
                                                                                          East

Hills residence
Hills residence of
                ofLaya  Whitley.65 Appellant
                   Laya Whitley.65           maintained that
                                   Appellant maintained  that he
                                                              he had
                                                                 had never
                                                                     never met
                                                                           met Whitely
                                                                               Whitely prior  to
                                                                                       prior to

 this. He
this.  He said
           said that
                 that they
                       they exchanged
                            exchanged telephone  numbers because
                                       telephone numbers because he
                                                                 he wanted
                                                                    wanted to
                                                                            to make
                                                                               make sure
                                                                                     sure he
                                                                                          he had
                                                                                             had

Whitley's phone
Whitley's phone number
                number so
                        so ififhe
                               he talked
                                   talked to
                                           to the
                                               the police
                                                   police he
                                                          he could
                                                              could give  them her
                                                                    give them       information.66 He
                                                                               her information.66  He

 further explained
further              that he
          explained that  hemessaged  with Taylor
                             messaged with        afterthe
                                           Taylorafter  theshooting,   as part
                                                            shooting, as       ofaaplan
                                                                          partof        heand
                                                                                   planhe  and his
                                                                                               his

wifeconcocted
wife concoctedin
               inan
                  an effort
                      effortto
                             to get        to his
                                    Taylorto
                                 getTaylor    his house
                                                  houseso
                                                        so they   could call
                                                            they could   call the
                                                                               the police.67
                                                                                   police.°

                     admittedon
           Appellantadmitted
           Appellant          oncross
                                 crossexamination
                                       examinationthat
                                                   thathe
                                                        hewas
                                                          wasnot
                                                              nottruthful
                                                                  truthfulwith
                                                                          withthe
                                                                               thedetectives
                                                                                   detectives

 duringhis
during  hisinterview
            interviewwhen
                     whenhe
                          hedenied
                             deniedknowing
                                    knowingDane
                                           DaneTaylor,
                                                Taylor,however,
                                                        however, he
                                                                  hecontinued
                                                                     continuedto
                                                                               todeny
                                                                                  denyany
                                                                                       any

 advancedknowledge
advanced            thatTaylor
          knowledgethat        wasgoing
                        Taylorwas  goingtotorob
                                             robMs. Davis.68
                                                Ms. Davis.68

                     alsooffered
           Appellantalso
           Appellant      offeredthree
                                  threecharacter
                                        characterwitnesses
                                                 witnesseswho
                                                           whotestified
                                                               testifiedthat
                                                                         thatAppellant hadaagood
                                                                             Appellanthad    good

            forpeacefulness
 reputationfor
reputation                   andnon-violence
                peacefulnessand  non-violenceininthe  community.69
                                                  thecommunity.69

      J,T.atat413-414.
6262J.T.       413-414.
     J.T.atat415.
636J.T.       415.
6464J.T.
      J.T.atat416.
               416.
      J.T.atat418.
6565J.T.       418.
  66J.T.    at 421-422.
66 J.T. at 421-422.
      J.T.atat424-425,
  67J.T.       424-425,516-517.
                        516-517.
6868 J,T. at 441-470.
    J.T. at 441-470.
6969JT.
    J.T. atat333-336,
               333-336,519-521,
                        519-521,522-524.
                                 522-524.

                                                   1313
                           MATTERS COMPLAINED
                           MATTERS            OF ON
                                   COMPLAINED OF    APPEAL
                                                 ON APPEAL

                   raised seven
         Appellant raised
         Appellant              claims of
                          seven claims    error in
                                       of error    his Statement.
                                                in his            The first
                                                       Statement. The           claims challenge
                                                                            two claims
                                                                      first two        challenge

 the Court's
 the         ruling on
     Court's ruling     the admissibility
                    on the  admissibility of evidence. Specifically,
                                          ofevidence.  Specifically, that   the Court
                                                                      that the                its
                                                                                      abused its
                                                                                Court abused

 discretion when
 discretion           allowed admission
            when itit allowed           ofautopsy
                              admission of                     because the
                                                   photographs because
                                           autopsy photographs          the prejudicial value
                                                                            prejudicial value

 outweighed  the probative
 outweighed the            value. Next,
                 probative value.        that the
                                  Next, that             erred when
                                                   Court erred
                                               the Court                 denied admissibility
                                                               when itit denied               ofaa
                                                                                admissibility of

 statement made
statement          Dane Taylor
                by Dane
           made by      Taylor to      third party
                                to aa third        under Pa.R.E.
                                             party under         804(b)(3).
                                                         Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3).

                    also challenges
         Appellant also
         Appellant                    thesufficiency
                          challenges the              ofthe
                                          sufficiency of      evidence for
                                                         the evidence       the convictions.
                                                                        forthe                He cites
                                                                                 convictions. He         to
                                                                                                  cites to

 In the
In       Interestof
     theInterest    J.B., 189
                 ofJ.B.,       A.3d390
                           189 A.3d           2018) ininsupport
                                        (Pa. 2018)
                                    390(Pa.              supportof hisargument
                                                                 ofhis          thatthe
                                                                       argumentthat  the

Commonwealth'sevidence
Commonwealth's             insufficienttotoestablish
                       wasinsufficient
               evidencewas                                intentelement
                                                      theintent
                                            establishthe                 fortampering
                                                                 elementfor           with
                                                                             tamperingwith

evidence,  andininsupport
 evidence,and      supportof  hisglobal
                           ofhis                  thatthe
                                         argumentthat
                                  globalargument           evidencewas
                                                       theevidence     insufficienttotoshow
                                                                   wasinsufficient           he
                                                                                        showhe

 actedas
acted     anaccomplice
       asan             orco-conspirator.
             accompliceor                   Briefly,J.B.
                           co-conspirator. Briefly,        involvedthe
                                                     J.B. involved      convictionof
                                                                    theconviction                for
                                                                                        juvenilefor
                                                                                   ofaajuvenile

 themurder
the           hisstep-mother
           ofhis
    murderof                  andher
                  step-motherand      unbornchild.
                                  herunborn              thePennsylvania
                                                    Whenthe
                                             child. When                          Court
                                                                          SupremeCourt
                                                             PennsylvaniaSupreme

vacated  J.B.'sadjudication
 vacatedJ.B.'s  adjudicationfor murderbased
                             formurder          insufficientevidence,
                                             oninsufficient
                                       basedon                             reiteratedthe
                                                             evidence,ititreiterated      well-
                                                                                      thewell-

 establishedprecedent
established  precedentthat  when,"the
                       thatwhen,       trialevidence
                                  "thetrial                      viewedininthe
                                                          recordviewed
                                             evidenceofofrecord                 lightmost
                                                                            thelight       favorable
                                                                                      mostfavorable

totothe               andall
         Commonwealthand
     theCommonwealth                     inferencesdrawn
                              reasonableinferences
                          allreasonable                   fromthat
                                                    drawnfrom       evidenceisisonly,
                                                               thatevidence                most,
                                                                                 only,atatmost,

         consistentwith
 equallyconsistent
equally                                innocenceasasititisiswith
                           defendant'sinnocence
                    withaadefendant's                                 guilt,the
                                                                  hisguilt,
                                                             withhis             Commonwealthhas
                                                                             theCommonwealth      not
                                                                                              hasnot

 sustainedits
sustained       burdenofofproving
            itsburden      provingthe  defendant'sguilt
                                   thedefendant's        beyonda areasonable
                                                   guiltbeyond     reasonabledoubt."          415.
                                                                                      Id.atat415.
                                                                              doubt."Id.

          thisstandard
 Applyingthis
Applying                        factsininJB.,
                            thefacts
               standardtotothe                  theCourt
                                          J.B.,the        heldthat
                                                    Courtheld       theevidence
                                                               thatthe               insufficienttoto
                                                                                 wasinsufficient
                                                                        evidencewas

 establishJ.B's
establish                     theperson
                 identityasasthe
           J.B'sidentity                 whokilled
                                  personwho             victimsbecause,
                                                    thevictims
                                             killedthe                   "allreasonable
                                                                because,"all             inferences
                                                                              reasonableinferences

derived             viewedinina alight
         therefrom,viewed
 derivedtherefrom,                 lightmost  favorabletoto[the
                                         mostfavorable            Commonwealth],was,
                                                             [theCommonwealth],           best,inin
                                                                                 was,atatbest,

             suchthat
 equipoise",such
equipoise",                 wasequally
                   thatititwas  equallyconsistent  withhim
                                        consistentwith            responsiblefor
                                                            beingresponsible
                                                        himbeing                       commissionofof
                                                                                   thecommission
                                                                              forthe

the   crimeasasititwas
  thecrime              forananunknown
                    wasfor                     party.
                                         thirdparty.
                                unknownthird

                                                    1414
         Lastly, Appellant asserted that the Court erred when it denied his post sentence motion

seeking a new trial wherein, he argued that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

                                ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

         The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence define "relevant evidence" as evidence that "has any

tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence" as long as

"the fact is a consequence in determining the action." Pa.R.E. 401(a)-(b). Relevant evidence is

admissible, and irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. See Pa.R.E. 402. Even relevant evidence

may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by prejudice. See Pa.R.E. 403.

         The standard of review of a trial court's evidentiary rulings is narrow, as the

admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only if the

trial court has abused its discretion. Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 230 A.3d 480, 489 (Pa.

Super. 2020) (internal citations omitted). An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of

judgment, but is rather the overriding or misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment is

manifestly unreasonable, or the result of bias, prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown by the

evidence or the record. Commonwealth v. Seilhammer, 862 A.2d 1263,
                                                             1263, 1270
                                                                   1270 (Pa.Super. 2004).

         Appellant's first evidentiary claim is that this Court erred and/or abused its discretion in

admitting autopsy photographs, arguing that they lacked any significant probative value to any

fact at issue. This claim surrounds the admissibility of seven photographs the Court permitted to

be admitted and displayed to the jury during the course of testimony of the forensic pathologist,

Dr. Todd Lukasevic. During an evidentiary hearing Appellant argued that the photographs had

                                                                  uncontested." Thus, the
                                                  Davis death was uncontested.7°
no probative value as the cause and manner of Ms. Davis'

70 J.T. at 97-98.

                                                  15
                                                  15
 autopsyphotos
autopsy photos are
                areinflammatory  andare
                    inflammatoryand  aremore
                                        moreprejudicial   than probative.
                                             prejudicial than             The Commonwealth
                                                               probative. The Commonwealth

 countered the
countered   thephotos
               photos were
                      were probative and would
                           probativeand  would assist
                                                assist the
                                                        thepathologist in describing
                                                           pathologistin             his findings
                                                                          describinghis             to
                                                                                          findings to

      jury.71
 the jury.7'
the

            Ifthe
           If  the Commonwealth
                   Commonwealth offers
                                offers photographic evidence depicting
                                       photographic evidence            an autopsy
                                                             depicting an            the trial
                                                                            autopsy the   trial

 court should
court   should conduct
                conduct aa two-part   analysis to
                            two-part analysis   to determine
                                                   determine whether
                                                             whether the
                                                                      the evidence
                                                                          evidence is
                                                                                    is admissible.
                                                                                        admissible.

First, itit should
First,       should be
                    be determined
                       determined whether
                                  whether the
                                           the photograph  is inflammatory.
                                               photograph is                  Ifitit isis not,
                                                               inflammatory. If           not, then
                                                                                                then itit

may be
may be admitted
       admitted as
                as long  as itit is
                    long as       is relevant
                                      relevant and
                                               and may assist the
                                                   may assist  the jury  in understanding
                                                                   jury in  understanding aa fact
                                                                                              fact at
                                                                                                   at

issue.   Ifthe
 issue. If  the photograph  is inflammatory,
                photograph is                  the court
                                inflammatory, the  court must
                                                         mustthen
                                                              then determine
                                                                   determinewhether
                                                                             whetherthe
                                                                                     thepicture
                                                                                        picture

isis of
     of such
         such essential
              essential evidentiary value that
                        evidentiary value  that the
                                                 the need
                                                     need clearly
                                                          clearly outweighs  the likelihood
                                                                  outweighs the   likelihood of
                                                                                             of

 inflaming the
inflaming   the minds
                minds and
                      and passions
                          passions of
                                   ofthe
                                      the jurors. Commonwealth v.v. Murray,
                                          jurors. Commonwealth              83 A.3d
                                                                    Murray, 83 A.3d 137,
                                                                                     13 7,

 157 (Pa.
157   (Pa. 2013).
           2013). A
                  A criminal
                    criminal homicide
                             homicide trial
                                       trial can
                                             can be
                                                 be by  its very
                                                    by its  very nature
                                                                 nature unpleasant, and
                                                                        unpleasant, and

 therefore aa disturbing
therefore     disturbing image  of the
                          image of  the victim
                                        victim should
                                               should not
                                                      not be
                                                          be allowed
                                                             allowed to
                                                                      to rule
                                                                         rule the
                                                                               the question of
                                                                                   question of

admissibility. There
admissibility. There is
                      is no
                         no need
                            need to
                                 to overextend
                                    overextend an
                                               an attempt to sanitize
                                                  attempt to sanitize the
                                                                      the evidence
                                                                          evidence of
                                                                                   of the
                                                                                      the

condition of
condition ofthe
             the body
                 body as
                      as to
                         to deprive the Commonwealth
                            deprive the Commonwealth of
                                                     ofopportunities  ofproof
                                                        opportunities of proofin support
                                                                              in support

of the
of the onerous
       onerous burden
               burden of
                      of proof beyond aa reasonable
                         proof beyond    reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v.
                                                    doubt. Commonwealth v. Mollett,
                                                                           Mollett, 55

A.3d 291
A.3d 291 (Pa.Super.
         (Pa.Super. 2010)
                    2010) (citing Commonwealth v.
                          (citing Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d
                                                  Tharp, 830 A.2d 519,
                                                                  519,531  (Pa. 2003).
                                                                       531 (Pa. 2003).

           A trial
           A trial court
                   court abuses
                         abuses its
                                its discretion
                                    discretion if
                                               if itit is
                                                       is "indifferent"
                                                          "indifferent" to
                                                                        to the
                                                                           the photograph's prejudicial

effect, or
effect, or any
           any precaution taken is
                                is not commensurate
                                       commensurate with the nature of
                                                                    of the scene
                                                                           scene depicted.
                                                                                 depicted.

Commonwealth v. Ballard,
Commonwealth    Ballard, 80
                         80 A.3d 380,
                                 380, 393
                                      393 (Pa.
                                          (Pa. 2013).
                                               2013). A photo should
                                                              should be excluded when it is

in fact
in fact inflammatory and its probative value so
                                             so limited as to be outweighed by the prejudice. See

                                      (Pa. Super. 1998)
Commonwealth v. LeGares, 709 A.2d 922 (Pa.              ( color photos depicting the victims
                                                  1998) (color

71
71   J,T. at
     J.T. at 99-100.
             99-100.

                                                       16
                                                       16
 headwired
head wired together
            togetherafter
                     aftersustaining
                           sustainingaa20-gauge         blastwere
                                                 shotgunblast
                                        20-gaugeshotgun       wereinflammatory   andlacked
                                                                   inflammatory and  lacked

probative value
probative value as
                 as the
                     the defendant
                         defendant never
                                   never contested
                                          contested the
                                                     the death
                                                         death was
                                                               was not
                                                                   not homicidal).
                                                                       homicidal).

        After careful
        After  careful consideration,
                        consideration, this
                                        this Court
                                             Court determined
                                                   detennined that
                                                               that the
                                                                     the autopsy              would
                                                                                  photographs would
                                                                          autopsy photographs

 assist the
assist   the Commonwealth's
             Commonwealth's witness,
                            witness, Dr.
                                     Dr. Lukasevic,
                                         Lukasevic, in
                                                     in describing  the nature
                                                        describing the  nature of
                                                                               ofthe
                                                                                  the wounds
                                                                                      wounds

 suffered, as
suffered,   as well
               well as
                     as explaining how he
                        explaining how he determined
                                          detennined the
                                                      the entrance
                                                          entrance wound
                                                                   wound indicated
                                                                          indicated the
                                                                                     the muzzle
                                                                                         muzzle of
                                                                                                of

 the firearm
the   fireann was
              was pressed
                  pressed tightly
                           tightly against  the skin.
                                   against the   skin.

        The seven
        The  seven photos
                   photos clearly had probative
                          clearly had           value, as
                                      probative value, as they  assisted Dr.
                                                           they assisted Dr. Lukasevic
                                                                             Lukasevic in
                                                                                        in

explaining the
explaining  the nature
                nature of
                       ofthe
                          the wounds,
                              wounds, which
                                      which included
                                             included aa description ofthe
                                                         description of the entrance
                                                                            entrance wound
                                                                                     wound which
                                                                                           which

 indicated the
indicated   the muzzle
                muzzle of
                       ofthe
                          the firearm
                               fireann was
                                       was pressed
                                           pressed tightly
                                                    tightly against  the skin.
                                                            against the   skin. Although
                                                                                Although Appellant did
                                                                                         Appellant did

not contest
not contest that
             that Dane
                  Dane Taylor
                       Taylor shot
                               shot and
                                    and killed
                                        killed Ms.
                                               Ms. Davis
                                                   Davis while
                                                         while robbing her of
                                                               robbing her ofmoney,   the photos
                                                                              money, the  photos

were evidence
were evidence that
               that assisted
                    assisted Dr.
                             Dr. Lukasevic
                                 Lukasevic in
                                            in explaining  the trajectory
                                               explaining the              ofthe
                                                                trajectory of the bullet
                                                                                  bullet through  her
                                                                                          through her

body and
body and the
          the level
               level of
                     ofincapacitation
                        incapacitation that
                                        that prevented her from
                                             prevented her from offering
                                                                offering any further resistance.
                                                                         any further resistance.

        Three photographs
        Three photographs depicted only clothing
                          depicted only           that had
                                        clothing that  had been
                                                           been removed
                                                                removed from
                                                                        from the
                                                                             the victim
                                                                                 victim and
                                                                                        and the
                                                                                            the

 location of
location  ofthe
             the bullet
                 bullet hole
                        hole and
                             and only
                                 only aa small
                                         small amount
                                               amount of blood. 72 These
                                                      ofblood.72   These photographic exhibits were
                                                                         photographic exhibits were

not inflammatory
not  inflammatory and
                  and were
                      were admissible
                           admissible relevant
                                      relevant evidence.
                                               evidence. The
                                                         The remaining four autopsy
                                                             remaining four autopsy

photographs did
photographs did not
                not display
                    display her
                            her face
                                face or
                                     or head
                                        head and
                                             and the
                                                 the genitalia
                                                     genitalia region
                                                               region was
                                                                      was blacked
                                                                          blacked out.73
                                                                                  out. Two
                                                                                         Two of
                                                                                             of

these photographs were
these             were close-up        of the
                                images of
                       close-up images    the entrance wound
                                                       wound to
                                                             to the
                                                                the left
                                                                    left hip without depicting
                                                                         hip without depicting

any other
any other part of     body.74 The Court
               of the body.74     Court did
                                        did not deem
                                                deem these inflammatory and
                                                                        and determined
                                                                            detennined that

they were
     were probative. The last two photographs which showed
                                                    showed the victim from the mid-torso to

               were potentially inflammatory as they displayed the abdominal area where organs
the mid-thigh, were

had been
had been removed. To minimize any impact, the Court instructed the Commonwealth to crop

72
72 J.T. at
   J.T. at 101;
           IOI; Commonwealth Exhibits 35-37.
7  JT. at
   J.T. at 102,
           102, 121.
                121.
74J,T.
74      at 121;
   J.T. at 121; Commonwealth
                Commonwealth Exhibits 33 and 34.

                                                     17
                                                     17
 outthe
out  thetorso
         torsososothat
                   thatonly
                        onlythe
                             thevictim's
                                 victim'slower
                                          lowerwaist
                                                waistand
                                                      andleg  areawere
                                                          legarea  werevisible
                                                                        visiblerelevant
                                                                                relevanttotothe
                                                                                             the

 locationofofthe
location      theentrance
                  entranceand
                           andexit
                               exitwound.75
                                    wound.'

         Additionally,the
        Additionally,  theCourt
                           Courtprovided  thefollowing
                                 providedthe  followingcautionary  instructiontotothe
                                                        cautionaryinstruction      thejury
                                                                                       jury

 contemporaneouslywith
contemporaneously  withthe
                        theadmission
                            admissionofofthe
                                          theexhibits:
                                              exhibits:

         So,Ladies
        So,   Ladiesand
                      andGentleman,
                            Gentleman,these  theseparticular
                                                    particularphotos
                                                               photosarearebeing    admittedinto
                                                                            beingadmitted      intoevidence
                                                                                                    evidence
         forthe
        for   thepurpose
                  purposeof   ofshowing
                                  showingthe   thenature
                                                    natureofofthe
                                                               thewounds
                                                                   woundsthat  thatwere
                                                                                    werereceived
                                                                                            receivedbybyMs.Ms.
         Davisand
        Davis    and toto aid
                           aidthe
                                thedoctor
                                      doctorinin explaining     whathe
                                                    explainingwhat     he found
                                                                           foundtoto you.     Several ofofthe
                                                                                        you. Several        the
         photographsmay
        photographs       maynotnotnecessarily
                                      necessarilybe   bepleasant
                                                         pleasanttoto look
                                                                       lookat.at. But
                                                                                   ButI I caution
                                                                                           cautionyou,
                                                                                                    you, you
                                                                                                           you
         shouldnot
        should   notallow
                       allowthat
                               thattotostir
                                         stirup   emotionsororprejudice
                                              upemotions        prejudiceininanyanyway.
                                                                                     way. Any    verdictyou
                                                                                            Anyverdict     you
         ultimatelyreach
        ultimately    reachininthis
                                  thiscase
                                        casemust
                                               mustbe bebased
                                                         basedononfactual
                                                                    factualand
                                                                             andfair
                                                                                   fairconsideration
                                                                                        considerationof  ofall
                                                                                                             all
         of the
        of   the evidence
                  evidence and  and notnot onon any    passion oror prejudice
                                                  any passion                     against the
                                                                     prejudice against       the Defendant,
                                                                                                  Defendant,
         Commonwealth or
        Commonwealth          or anyone
                                   anyone else else connected
                                                     connected with
                                                                 with this
                                                                        this case.
                                                                              case. TheThe purpose
                                                                                             purpose ofofthethe
         photographsisislimited,
        photographs         limited,and andyouyoushould
                                                   shouldconsider
                                                           considerthem
                                                                     themonly
                                                                            onlyforforthat
                                                                                       thatpurpose   andnot
                                                                                             purposeand    not
         forany
        for       other."°
             anyother.76

        Whilefive
        While fiveof
                   ofthe
                      theseven
                          sevenadmitted
                                admittedphotos  containedwere
                                         photoscontained werenot
                                                              notdeemed
                                                                  deemedinflammatory,
                                                                         inflammatory,the
                                                                                       the

Courttook
Court tookmeasures
          measures to
                    tominimize
                      minimizethe
                               theinflammatory
                                   inflammatoryeffect
                                                effectof
                                                       ofthe
                                                          theother
                                                              othertwo
                                                                    two photographs. The
                                                                        photographs. The

Courthad
Court hadportions
          portions of
                   ofboth
                      bothphotos
                          photos cropped   to exclude
                                  cropped to   exclude the
                                                        the abdominal
                                                             abdominal cavity   andonly
                                                                        cavity and        depictthe
                                                                                    only depict  the

 lowerbody
lower bodywhere
           where the
                  the entrance
                       entrance and
                                 and exit
                                      exit wounds
                                           wounds were
                                                  were located.
                                                        located. Additionally,
                                                                 Additionally, aa limiting
                                                                                   limiting

 instruction was
instruction  was given  to the
                 given to   the jury
                                jury prior  to showing
                                     prior to   showing the  photographs. 77 The
                                                         the photographs.77  The instruction
                                                                                  instruction explained
                                                                                               explained

 the purpose
the  purpose of
             ofshowing
                showing the
                         the photographs  and explained
                             photographs and             to the
                                              explained to   the jury
                                                                 jury they
                                                                       they should
                                                                             should not
                                                                                    not let
                                                                                         let the
                                                                                              the photos
                                                                                                  photos

 stir their
stir   their emotions.
             emotions.

         Here, the
         Here,  the probative
                    probative value
                              value of
                                    ofthe
                                       the above
                                           above described
                                                 described photographs outweighed the
                                                           photographs outweighed  the prejudicial
                                                                                       prejudicial

value in
value  in light
           light of
                 ofthe
                    the protective measures and
                        protective measures and precautionary  instruction to
                                                precautionary instruction   to the
                                                                               the jury, which
                                                                                         which served
                                                                                               served

 to minimize
to  minimize that
             that impact.  Thus, the
                   impact. Thus, the Court
                                     Court did
                                           did not
                                               not abuse
                                                   abuse its
                                                         its discretion
                                                             discretion in
                                                                        in admitting
                                                                           admitting the
                                                                                     the

            into evidence.
photographs into
photographs      evidence.

 75 J,T. at 122; Commonwealth Exhibit 31 and 32.
 75 J.T. at 122; Commonwealth Exhibit 31 and 32.
 76 J.T. at 226-227.
 76 J.T. at 226-227.
 7 J.T. at 226-227.
 77 J.T. at 226-227.

                                                          18
                                                          18
                     second evidentiary
        Appellant's second
        Appellant's                      issueisis that
                             evidentiaryissue       thatthe
                                                         the court
                                                              court erred
                                                                     erredwhen
                                                                          whenititexcluded
                                                                                   excluded evidence
                                                                                             evidenceof
                                                                                                     of

 statements allegedly
statements             made by
             allegedly made     co-defendant Dane
                            by co-defendant  DaneTaylor   to aa fellow
                                                  Taylor to      fellow inmate,
                                                                         inmate, David
                                                                                 David Tyus.
                                                                                       Tyus.

Appellant claimed
Appellant  claimed this
                    this evidence
                          evidencewas
                                  was admissible
                                       admissibleas
                                                  as aastatement
                                                        statement against
                                                                   against Taylor's
                                                                           Taylor's penal  interest
                                                                                    penal interest

pursuant to
pursuant  to Pa.R.E.
             Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3).
                      804(b)(3).

        The rules
        The  rules of
                   ofevidence
                      evidence provide  in pertinent
                               provide in  pertinent part  as follows:
                                                     part as   follows:

         Statement Against
        Statement                 Interest —--A
                      Against Interest             statement which
                                               A statement      which was
                                                                       was at  at the
                                                                                   the time
                                                                                        time ofofitsits making
                                                                                                        making so  so
         far contrary
        far             to the
              contrary to   the declarant's
                                declarant's pecuniary
                                               pecuniary or or proprietary      interest, or
                                                               proprietary interest,        or soso far
                                                                                                     far tended
                                                                                                          tended to to
                  the declaration
         subject the
        subject       declaration to to civil
                                         civil or
                                                or criminal
                                                   criminal liability,   or to
                                                              liability, or   to render
                                                                                   render invalid
                                                                                            invalid aa claim
                                                                                                           claim byby
         the declarant
        the   declarant against    another, that
                          against another,     that aa reasonable
                                                        reasonable person
                                                                     person in   in the
                                                                                     the declarant's
                                                                                          declarant's position
                                                                                                            position
         would not
        would    not have
                     have made
                             made the
                                   the statement
                                        statement unless
                                                     unless believing
                                                             believing itit to
                                                                             to bebe true.
                                                                                      true. In
                                                                                             In aa criminal
                                                                                                   criminal case,
                                                                                                               case,
        aa statement
            statement tending
                       tending to to expose
                                     expose the the declarant
                                                     declarant toto criminal
                                                                    criminal liability
                                                                                  liability isis not
                                                                                                  not admissible
                                                                                                        admissible
         unless corroborating
        unless    corroborating circumstances
                                    circumstances clearlyclearly indicate
                                                                  indicate the the trustworthiness
                                                                                      trustworthiness of      of the
                                                                                                                  the
         statement.
        statement.

Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3).
Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3).

        At trial,
        At  trial, the
                    the Court
                        Court conducted
                              conducted an
                                        an evidentiary
                                           evidentiary hearing outside the
                                                       hearing outside  the presence ofthe
                                                                            presence of the jury.

                 to call
          sought to
Appellant sought
Appellant           call Dane
                         Dane Taylor to question
                              Taylor to          him about
                                        question him about statements
                                                           statements he
                                                                      he purportedly made to
                                                                         purportedly made  to

 inmate David
inmate  David Tyus
              Tyus that
                   that were
                        were exculpatory as to
                             exculpatory as    Appellant.78 Alternatively,
                                            to Appellant.78 Alternatively, Appellant
                                                                           Appellant offered
                                                                                     offered

          from David
testimony from
testimony      David Tyus
                     Tyus regarding     conversations he
                                    any conversations
                          regarding any               he had
                                                         had with
                                                             with Taylor
                                                                  Taylor at
                                                                         at the
                                                                            the Allegheny
                                                                                Allegheny

       Jail relative
County Jail
County      relative to
                     to Appellant's
                        Appellant's participation. The Commonwealth
                                    participation. The Commonwealth sought
                                                                    sought to
                                                                           to exclude
                                                                              exclude the
                                                                                      the

                   on the basis
proposed testimony on     basis that itit was
                                          was not
                                              not against                interest, and
                                                  against Taylor's penal interest, and itit did
                                                                                            did not
                                                                                                not

contain sufficient
contain sufficient indicia
                   indicia of
                           of reliability as
                                          as there were no corroborating circumstances that would
                                                           corroborating circumstances

indicate the trustworthiness of
indicate                     of the statement.79
                                    statement."

7
78        asserted his
   Taylor asserted
   Taylor               Fifth Amendment privilege through counsel, Marco Attisano, and thus was deemed by the
                   his Fifth
parties and the
parties and the Court
                Court  to
                       to be unavailable pursuant to Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3). At the time of Appellant's trial Taylor had a
                          be
pending PCRA
pending                   wherein he sought to withdraw his plea of guilty to Third Degree Murder, Robbery, and
         PCRA petition wherein
Criminal Conspiracy due
Criminal                    to alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition was subsequently denied
                       due to
           an evidentiary hearing on February 17,
following an
following                                         17, 2022. No appeal has been filed.
   Commonwealth Motion in Limine filed on August 18,
79 Commonwealth
79                                                        18, 2021.

                                                             19
                                                             19
         Tyus testified that in 2018 he was cellmates with Dane Taylor who he referred to as

"Gusto"." He stated that Taylor wrote down his "life story" and an explanation of what
"Gusto".8°

occurred during the robbery and shooting indicating that Appellant had no intent to rob the

              case.81 Taylor asked him to get this note to Appellant. Tyus explained that he did
victim in the case.81

                                                                               him.82 Tyus
not know Appellant or Ms. Davis at the time Taylor relayed this information to him.82

                                                               Appellant.83 He further
switched pods in the Allegheny County Jail and was placed near Appellant.83

explained that although Taylor had provided him this handwritten note with his life story and an

explanation of how Appellant was not involved with the robbery, he nevertheless threw the note

                                                                               pod.84
away because it was several months before he actually located Appellant on the pod.84

         Tyus further explained that at some time later Taylor authored a second note and gave it

                               second note to Appellant, but the defense was unable to produce
to Tyus. He then provided this second

it at the evidentiary hearing."
                      hearing. He then claimed he wrote a four page letter detailing what Taylor

                       of 2018
had told him in August of                                   mom.86 Appellant sought to have
                          2018 and mailed it to Appellant's mom.86

Tyus testify to the substance
                    substance of
                              of what was in the letter, that in fact Taylor told him that he was

solely responsible for robbing and
solely                         and killing Ms. Davis, and
                                                      and that Appellant was unaware of
                                                                                     of the

robbery plan.

            accused has
         An accused has aa fundamental right to present defense evidence so
                                                                         so long as it is relevant

and not
and not excluded by an established rule of
                 by an                  of evidence. Commonwealth v. Seibert,
                                                                     Seibert, 799 A.2d 54,
                                                                                       54, 67

(Pa. Super.
(Pa.               In this
            2002). In
     Super. 2002).    this instance,
                           instance, before the hearsay statement
                                                        statement of
                                                                  of what Taylor told Tyus can be

    JT. at
"80 J.T. at 493-494.
            493 -494.
"'JT.    at 494.
    J.T. at 494.
    J.T. at
 $2 J.T.
82       at 495.
            495.
 3JT.
83       at 497.
    J.T. at 497.
 4JT.
84       at 497-498.
    J.T. at 497-498.
    J,T. at
 85 J.T.
85       at 498-500.
            498-500.
 86J,T.  at 491-493.
86 J.T. at 491-493. TheThe letter
                            letter was
                                   was admitted
                                        admitted forfor purposes  of the
                                                        purposes of  the hearing
                                                                         hearing as
                                                                                 as Defendant
                                                                                    Defendant Exhibit
                                                                                              Exhibit A.
                                                                                                      A. No
                                                                                                         No evidence
                                                                                                            evidence was
                                                                                                                     was
 presented to
presented    to establish
                establish when
                          when in    fact the
                                  in fact  the note
                                               note was
                                                     was written
                                                          written by
                                                                  by Tyus.
                                                                      Tyus.

                                                            20
                                                            20
admitted under Rule 804(b)(3) it must be shown the statement was made under circumstances

that provide considerable assurance of its reliability. Commonwealth v. Colon, 846 A.2d 747 (Pa.

Super 2004). In addition, any statement would need to actually be against the penal interest of

the individual who purportedly uttered it. Our Supreme Court has held that a confession or

statement which exculpates a declarant's accomplices is not a statement against interest because

it does not subject the declarant to any additional crime or punishment. Commonwealth v. Colon,

337 A.2d 554, 558 (Pa. 1975).
                       1975).

       The reliability of a declarant's statement that is arguably against penal interest may be

established through the circumstances in which the statement was given. See Chambers v.

                          (1973). In Chambers, another person confessed multiple times to a
Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973).

murder for which Chambers was standing
                              standing trial. This person confessed to three known associates

shortly after the murder and explained he had fired the gun that killed the victim. He further
shortly

       sworn confession to attorneys who were representing Chambers. The trial court excluded
gave a sworn

     statement and
each statement and the United States
                              States Supreme
                                     Supreme Court held the Due Process Clause of
                                                                               of the United

States Constitution
States Constitution requires aa defendant be afforded
                                             afforded the right to present such
                                                                           such evidence if
                                                                                         if the

statements are
statements are made under circumstances that provide considerable assurance of
                                                                            of their reliability.

         at 300.
410 U.S. at 300. The Supreme Court found an
                     Supreme Court       an assurance
                                            assurance of
                                                      ofreliability  in Chambers as follows:
                                                         reliability in

       Each ofof(confessor's)
                 (confessor's) confessions was  was made spontaneously                    acquaintance
                                                              spontaneously to a close acquaintance
                after the
       shortly after
       shortly         the murder
                            murder occurred.
                                      occurred. Second,
                                                     Second, each
                                                               each one
                                                                    one was
                                                                          was corroborated
                                                                              corroborated by somesome
       other evidence
       other  evidence inin the
                            the case....Third,
                                 case .... Third, ...
                                                   ... each
                                                       each confession
                                                             confession here was
                                                                              was in
                                                                                  in aa very real sense
                                                                                                  sense
       self-incriminatory and
       self-incriminatory     and unquestionably against         interest. Finally, if
                                                        against interest.            if there was any
                                                                                                    any
                  about the
       question about
       question          the truthfulness
                              truthfulness ofof the
                                                 the extrajudicial
                                                       extrajudicial statements,
                                                                     statements, (the
                                                                                 (the confessor)
                                                                                        confessor) was
                in the
       present in  the courtroom
                        courtroom andand waswas under
                                                under oath.
                                                         oath.
Id. at
Id. at 300-301.
       300-301.
Based on
Based on the
         the above
             above circumstances,
                   circumstances, the
                                  the Supreme Court found
                                      Supreme Court found the
                                                          the mechanistic
                                                              mechanistic application
                                                                          application of
                                                                                      of

              rules of
Mississippi's rules
Mississippi's       of evidence
                       evidence deprived Chambers of
                                deprived Chambers of his
                                                     his right
                                                         right to
                                                               to due
                                                                  due process
                                                                      process of
                                                                              oflaw.
                                                                                 law.

                                                     21
                                                     21
                                                                                        statement
                        judice, there are no assurances of reliability to the jailhouse statement
        In the case sub Judice,

Dane Taylor made to fellow inmate David Tyus. There is no corroborative evidence to establish

                of the statement, and in fact both alleged statements authored by Taylor himself
the reliability of                                                                       himself

               available. The statement
were no longer available.     statement was made while Taylor was incarcerated and
                                                                               and not
                                                                                   not

spontaneously shortly
spontaneously         after the robbery and
              shortly after             and homicide. There is nothing self-incriminatory and
                                                                       self-incriminatory and

                       interest about
               against interest
unquestionably against          about aa statement
                                         statement that
                                                   that seeks
                                                        seeks to
                                                              to exculpate
                                                                 exculpate Appellant from
                                                                           Appellant from

              in the
participation in
participation    the robbery of
                             of Ms.
                                Ms. Davis.
                                    Davis. Taylor would not have been subject
                                           Taylor would               subject to
                                                                              to examination
                                                                                 examination

under oath
under oath about
           about any claim that
                 any claim that Appellant did not
                                Appellant did not participate in
                                                              in the
                                                                 the robbery.
                                                                     robbery. Tyus would simply
                                                                              Tyus would simply

have taken
have taken the
           the witness
               witness stand
                       stand and
                             and offered
                                 offered an
                                         an uncorroborated
                                            uncorroborated hearsay
                                                           hearsay statement
                                                                   statement made
                                                                             made by
                                                                                  by Taylor
                                                                                     Taylor

seeking to
seeking to exculpate
           exculpate Appellant. As the
                     Appellant. As the proposed testimony is
                                       proposed testimony  is aa far
                                                                 far different
                                                                     different factual
                                                                               factual scenario
                                                                                       scenario

from the
from the type offered in
         type offered  in Chambers
                          Chambers (both   in its
                                    (both in   its lack
                                                    lack of
                                                         ofassurance
                                                            assurance of
                                                                      of reliability and its
                                                                         reliability and  its failure
                                                                                              failure to
                                                                                                       to

        as aa statement
qualify as
qualify       statement against  the declarant's
                        against the  declarant's interest),
                                                  interest), this
                                                             this Court
                                                                  Court did
                                                                        did not
                                                                            not err
                                                                                err in
                                                                                     in excluding
                                                                                        excluding itit

          to Pa.R.E.
pursuant to
pursuant     Pa.R.E. 804(b)(3).
                     804(b)(3).

                               SUFFICIENCY OF
                               SUFFICIENCY OF THE
                                              THE EVIDENCE
                                                  EVIDENCE

        The applicable
        The             standard for
            applicable standard   for assessing
                                      assessing aa challenge  to the
                                                   challenge to   the sufficiency
                                                                       sufficiency of
                                                                                   ofthe
                                                                                      the evidence
                                                                                          evidence is
                                                                                                    is

whether, viewing
whether,         all the
         viewing all  the evidence
                          evidence admitted
                                   admitted at
                                             at trial
                                                 trial in
                                                        in the
                                                            the light
                                                                 light most
                                                                       most favorable
                                                                             favorable to
                                                                                        to the
                                                                                            the verdict
                                                                                                verdict

winner, there
winner,  there is
                is sufficient
                    sufficient evidence
                               evidence to
                                         to enable
                                            enable the
                                                    the factfinder
                                                         factfinder to
                                                                     to find
                                                                         find every
                                                                              every element
                                                                                    element of
                                                                                            ofthe
                                                                                               the crime
                                                                                                   crime

beyond aa reasonable
beyond     reasonable doubt.
                      doubt. Commonwealth
                             Commonwealth v.v. Johnson,
                                               Johnson, 236
                                                        236 A.3d
                                                            A.3d 1141,
                                                                  1141, 1151-1152
                                                                         1151-1152 (Pa.
                                                                                    (Pa. Super.
                                                                                         Super.

       The Commonwealth
2020). The
2020).     Commonwealth isis not
                             not burdened
                                 burdened with
                                          with precluding  every possibility
                                               precluding every              ofinnocence.
                                                                 possibility of innocence.

Commonwealth v.v. Shaw,
Commonwealth      Shaw, 203
                        203 A.3d
                            A.3d 281,
                                 281,284   (Pa. Super.
                                      284 (Pa.         2019). Moreover,
                                                Super. 2019). Moreover, the
                                                                         the Commonwealth
                                                                             Commonwealth

    sustain its
maysustain
may          its burden
                 burdenof
                        ofproving
                          proving every   elementof
                                   every element ofthe
                                                    the crime
                                                         crimebeyond
                                                              beyond aa reasonable
                                                                         reasonable doubt
                                                                                    doubt by
                                                                                          by

means of
means ofwholly   circumstantial evidence.
         wholly circumstantial   evidence. Id.  Whenthe
                                            Id. When the evidence
                                                          evidence isis circumstantial
                                                                         circumstantial rather
                                                                                         ratherthan
                                                                                                than

                                                      22
                                                     22
 direct,ititisissufficient
direct,          sufficientwhen
                            whenaacombination
                                   combinationof
                                               ofthe
                                                  theevidence
                                                      evidencelinks
                                                               linksthe
                                                                     theaccused
                                                                         accusedtotothe
                                                                                     thecrime
                                                                                         crimebeyond
                                                                                               beyondaa

 reasonabledoubt.
reasonable  doubt.Commonwealth
                   Commonwealthv.v. Cassidy,  668A.2d
                                     Cassidy,668  A.2d1143,
                                                       1143,1144
                                                             1144(Pa.
                                                                  (Pa.Super.  1995).
                                                                       Super.1995).

        InInaccordance
             accordancewith
                       withthe
                            theabove
                                abovestandard,
                                      standard,ititisisnecessary
                                                        necessarytotoreview
                                                                      reviewthe
                                                                             therelevant
                                                                                 relevantstatutory  law
                                                                                          statutorylaw

withrespect
with respecttotoAppellant's
                Appellant'sarguments
                            argumentsthat
                                      thatthe
                                           theevidence
                                               evidencewas
                                                        wasinsufficient
                                                            insufficienttotosustain
                                                                             sustainhis
                                                                                     his

 convictionsfor
convictions  forconspiracy,
                 conspiracy,robbery,
                             robbery,second-degree murder,and
                                      second-degreemurder, andtampering withevidence.
                                                               tamperingwith evidence.

                               CONSPIRACYTO
                               CONSPIRACY TOCOMMIT
                                            COMMITROBBERY
                                                   ROBBERY

        Conspiracyisisdefined
        Conspiracy     definedinin18   Pa.c.S. §$ 903,
                                   18 Pa.C.S.      903, ininrelevant
                                                             relevantpart,  asfollows:
                                                                      part,as  follows:

    (a)Definition
   (a)   Definitionof  ofconspiracy.
                           conspiracy. AAperson
                                              personisisguilty
                                                          guiltyofofconspiracy
                                                                      conspiracywith  withanother
                                                                                            anotherperson
                                                                                                      personor orpersons
                                                                                                                  persons
    to commit
   to   commitaacrimecrimeififwith
                                withthe
                                      theintent
                                           intentofofpromoting
                                                      promotingor   orfacilitating
                                                                        facilitatingitsitscommission
                                                                                           commissionhe:   he:
           (1) agrees
          (1)   agrees with
                        withsuch
                               suchother
                                     otherperson
                                             personor orpersons    thatthey
                                                         personsthat      theyororone
                                                                                    oneorormore
                                                                                             moreof ofthem
                                                                                                        themwill
                                                                                                              will engage
                                                                                                                    engage
           in conduct
          in   conduct which
                         which constitutes
                                  constitutessuch
                                                suchcrime
                                                      crimeor  oran
                                                                  anattempt
                                                                      attemptor  orsolicitation
                                                                                     solicitationtoto commit
                                                                                                       commitsuch
                                                                                                                such
           crime; or
          crime;    or
           (2) agrees
          (2)   agrees to
                        to aid
                            aidsuch
                                 suchother
                                       otherperson
                                              personor orpersons
                                                           persons inin the
                                                                         theplanning
                                                                             planningor   orcommission
                                                                                             commissionof    ofsuch
                                                                                                                 such
           crime or
          crime    orof
                      ofan
                         an attempt
                              attempt oror solicitation
                                            solicitation to
                                                          to commit
                                                              commitsuchsuch crime....
                                                                              crime ....
    (e) Overt
   (e)   Overt Act.
                 Act. NoNo person
                             person may
                                      may be be convicted
                                                 convicted of ofconspiracy
                                                                 conspiracy to  to commit
                                                                                    commit aacrime
                                                                                                crime unless
                                                                                                         unless an
                                                                                                                 an overt
                                                                                                                    overt
    act in
   act   in pursuance
             pursuance of ofsuch
                              such conspiracy
                                    conspiracy isis alleged     and proved
                                                      alleged and    proved to to have
                                                                                   have been
                                                                                          been done
                                                                                                done by    him or
                                                                                                        by him   orby
                                                                                                                    by aa
    person with
   person      with whom
                     whom he  he conspired.
                                  conspired.

18  Pa.C.S. §$ 903.
 18 Pa.C.S.    903.

        The Court
        The Court in
                   in Commonwealth
                      Commonwealth v.v. Lambert, 795 A.2d
                                        Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010
                                                           1010 (Pa.
                                                                 (Pa. Super.
                                                                      Super. 2002),
                                                                             2002), thoroughly
                                                                                     thoroughly

discussed the
discussed  the necessary
               necessary components  to establish
                         components to  establish conspiracy.
                                                  conspiracy.

        A conviction
        A  conviction forfor criminal
                             criminal conspiracy,
                                        conspiracy, 18      Pa.C.S.A. §$ 903,
                                                        18 Pa.C.S.A.       903, is
                                                                                 is sustained
                                                                                    sustained where
                                                                                                where the
                                                                                                       the
        Commonwealth establishes
        Commonwealth        establishes that
                                          that the
                                                the defendant
                                                     defendant entered
                                                                  entered anan agreement
                                                                               agreement to to commit
                                                                                               commit or or
        aid in
        aid  in an
                 an unlawful
                    unlawful act
                               act with
                                   with another
                                         another person
                                                   person or or persons   with aa shared
                                                                persons with      shared criminal
                                                                                          criminal intent
                                                                                                    intent
        and an
        and   an overt
                   overt act
                         act was
                              was done
                                    done inin furtherance
                                               furtherance of  of the
                                                                   the conspiracy.    Commonwealth v.v.
                                                                       conspiracy. Commonwealth
                546 Pa.
        Rios, 546
        Rios,        Pa. 271,
                         271,684    A.2d 1025,
                               684 A.2d     1025, 1030
                                                    1030 (1996),
                                                           (1996), cert.
                                                                     cert. denied,   520 U.S.
                                                                           denied, 520   U.S. 1231,
                                                                                                1231, 117
                                                                                                       117
        S.Ct. 1825,
        S.Ct.   1825, 137
                       137 L.Ed.2d
                           L.Ed.2d 1032
                                      1032 (1997),
                                             (1997), citing        Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903.
                                                               18 Pa.C.S.A.
                                                       citing 18                  903.

         The essence
         The  essence of
                       of aa criminal
                             criminal conspiracy   is the
                                        conspiracy is the common
                                                          common understanding     that aa particular
                                                                    understanding that
         criminal objective
         criminal objective is is to
                                  to be
                                     be accomplished.   Commonwealth v. Keefer, 338
                                         accomplished. Commonwealth                  338 Pa. Super.
                                                                                              Super.
         184, 487
         184,  487 A.2d
                    A.2d 915,915, 918
                                    918 (1985).          association with the
                                         (1985). Mere association           the perpetrators, mere
                   at the
         presence at
         presence     the scene,
                            scene, oror mere
                                        mere knowledge of  of the crime is insufficient. Id. Rather,

                                                           23
    the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant        defendant shared
                                                                         shared the
                                                                                  the criminal
                                                                                       criminal
•                                          "an active participant
    intent, i.e., that the Appellant was "an          participant in in the
                                                                        the criminal
                                                                            criminal enterprise
                                                                                      enterprise
    and that he had knowledge of
    and                           of the conspiratorial
                                          conspiratorial agreement."
                                                         agreement." Hennigan,      753 at
                                                                         Hennigan, 753   at 253.
                                                                                            253.
                                        commit the overt
    The defendant does not need to commit           overt act;
                                                           act; aa co-conspirator
                                                                   co-conspirator may   commit
                                                                                   may commit
    the overt
    the overt act.
                act. Commonwealth
                     Commonwealth v. Johnson, 719 719 A.2d
                                                       A.2d 778,
                                                              778, 784
                                                                     784 (Pa.
                                                                          (Pa. Super.
                                                                               Super. 1998)
                                                                                      1998) (en
                                                                                             (en
    bane), appeal
    banc),                    559 Pa.
                      denied, 559
             appeal denied,       Pa. 689,
                                       689, 739
                                            739 A.2d
                                                 A.2d 1056
                                                       1056 (1999).
                                                             (1999).

    A conspiracy
    A     conspiracy is is almost
                              almost always always proved                       circumstantial
                                                                   through circumstantial
                                                        proved through
    evidence. Commonwealth
    evidence.  Commonwealth v.  v. Swerdlow,
                                   Swerdlow, 431431 Pa.
                                                      Pa. Super.
                                                          Super. 453,
                                                                  453, 636
                                                                       636 A.2d
                                                                             A.2d 1173,
                                                                                    1173, 1176
                                                                                           1176
    (1994). "The
    (1994).  "The conduct
                   conduct ofof the
                                 the parties    and the
                                      parties and     the circumstances
                                                           circumstances surrounding
                                                                            surrounding their
                                                                                           their
    conduct may
    conduct        create 'a
              may create   'a web
                              web of of evidence'
                                          evidence' linking
                                                       linking the
                                                                the accused
                                                                     accused toto the
                                                                                   the alleged
                                                                                        alleged
                beyond aa reasonable
    conspiracy beyond
    conspiracy            reasonable doubt."
                                        doubt." Johnson,     719 A.2d
                                                  Johnson, 719    A.2d at
                                                                        at 785.
                                                                           785. The
                                                                                 The evidence
                                                                                      evidence
    must, however,
    must,   however, "rise
                        "rise above
                                above mere mere suspicion
                                                   suspicion or  or possibility
                                                                      possibility of of guilty
                                                                                          guilty
    collusion." Swerdlow,
    collusion."             636 A.2d
                Swerdlow, 636   A.2d atat 1177
                                           1177 (citation
                                                 (citation omitted).
                                                            omitted).

    This Court
    This Court has
               has identified
                    identified factors
                                factors to
                                         to be
                                            be considered:
                                               considered:

     Among the
    Among       the circumstances
                    circumstances which which are
                                                are relevant,
                                                     relevant, butbut not
                                                                       not sufficient
                                                                             sufficient byby themselves,
                                                                                              themselves, to to
     prove aa corrupt
    prove                confederation are:
                corrupt confederation       are: (1)
                                                  (1) an
                                                      an association
                                                           association between
                                                                          between alleged
                                                                                     alleged conspirators;
                                                                                                conspirators;
     (2) knowledge
    (2)   knowledge of   of the
                             the commission
                                  commission of    of the
                                                        the crime;
                                                             crime; (3)
                                                                      (3) presence
                                                                           presence atat the
                                                                                           the scene
                                                                                                 scene ofofthe
                                                                                                            the
     crime;   and
    crime; and (4)      in some    situations,
                   (4) in some situations, participation          in  the
                                                 participation in the object       of the   conspiracy.
                                                                           object of the conspiracy. The   The
     presence    of  such  circumstances      may    furnish
    presence of such circumstances may furnish a web of evidencea web   of  evidence linking
                                                                                        linking an an accused
                                                                                                       accused
     to an
    to   an alleged
             alleged conspiracy       beyond aa reasonable
                       conspiracy beyond           reasonable doubt
                                                                  doubt when
                                                                           when viewed
                                                                                   viewed in  in conjunction
                                                                                                  conjunction
     with each
    with    each other
                   other and
                           and inin the
                                      the context
                                           context in  in which
                                                           which they      occurred. Commonwealth
                                                                    they occurred.      Commonwealth v.v.
     Carter, 272
    Carter,     272 Pa.
                     Pa. Super.   411,416
                          Super. 411,         A.2d 523
                                        416 A.2d      523 (1979).
                                                            (1979).

     Commonwealth v.v. Olds,
    Commonwealth               322 Pa.
                       Olds, 322    Pa. Super.   442, 469
                                         Super. 442,    469 A.2d
                                                            A.2d 1072,
                                                                  1072, 1075
                                                                         1075 (1983).
                                                                               (1983). See
                                                                                        See
     also, Commonwealth
    also,  Commonwealth v.v. Azim,  313 Pa.
                             Azim, 313   Pa. Super.
                                              Super. 310,
                                                      310,459  A.2d1244
                                                          459 A.2d  1244(1983).
                                                                          (1983).

     Once there
    Once    there isis evidence
                        evidence of ofthe
                                       the presence
                                            presence ofofaa conspiracy,
                                                             conspiracy, conspirators
                                                                           conspirators are
                                                                                          are liable
                                                                                               liable for
                                                                                                       for
     acts
    acts       of
              of         co-conspirators
                        co-conspirators          committed
                                                committed           in
                                                                   in       furtherance
                                                                           furtherance        of the
                                                                                             of        the
                      Commonwealth v.v. Stocker,
     conspiracy. Commonwealth
    conspiracy.                                         424 Pa.
                                              Stocker, 424    Pa. Super.
                                                                    Super. 189,
                                                                             189, 622
                                                                                   622 A.2d
                                                                                        A.2d 333,
                                                                                               333, 342
                                                                                                     342
               Even ifif the
     (1993). Even
    (1993).                 the conspirator     did not
                                  conspirator did    not act
                                                           act as
                                                                as aa principal
                                                                       principal inin committing
                                                                                       committing the  the
                   crime,he
     underlyingcrime,
    underlying               heisisstill
                                    stillcriminally   liablefor
                                          criminallyliable    forthe
                                                                  theactions
                                                                       actionsofofhis
                                                                                    hisco-conspirators
                                                                                        co-conspirators
     takenininfurtherance
    taken      furtheranceof   ofthe
                                   theconspiracy.    Commonwealthv.v.Soto,
                                        conspiracy. Commonwealth                   693A.2d
                                                                            Soto, 693   A.2d226,
                                                                                              226,229-
                                                                                                    229-
     230 (Pa.
    230    (Pa. Super.     1997),appeal
                 Super. 1997),                         550 Pa.
                                              denied, 550
                                     appeal denied,          Pa. 704,
                                                                  704, 705
                                                                        705 A.2d
                                                                               A.2d 1308
                                                                                      1308 (1997).
                                                                                            (1997).SeeSee
            18Pa.C.S.A.
     also, 18
    also,      Pa.C.S.A.§§306.  306.

     Thegeneral
    The            ruleof
          general rule   oflaw
                            law pertaining
                                 pertaining toto the
                                                  the culpability  ofconspirators
                                                       culpabilityof   conspirators isis that
                                                                                          that each
                                                                                                each
     individualmember
    individual  memberof  ofthe
                             theconspiracy
                                 conspiracyisiscriminally     responsiblefor
                                                  criminallyresponsible    forthe
                                                                               theacts
                                                                                   actsof ofhis
                                                                                             hisco-
                                                                                                  co-
                   committedininfurtherance
     conspirators committed
    conspirators                   furtheranceof   ofthe
                                                      the conspiracy.
                                                           conspiracy. The
                                                                        The co-conspirator
                                                                             co-conspiratorrule  rule
     assigns legal
    assigns   legal culpability    equally toto all
                     culpability equally          all members
                                                       members of of the
                                                                      the conspiracy.
                                                                           conspiracy. All  All co-
                                                                                                  co-
                   areresponsible
     conspiratorsare
    conspirators                    foractions
                       responsiblefor   actionsundertaken
                                                  undertakenininfurtherance
                                                                  furtheranceofofthe
                                                                                  theconspiracy
                                                                                       conspiracy

                                                        24
                                                       24
        regardless of
       regardless   oftheir
                       their individual
                              individual knowledge
                                         knowledge ofofsuch
                                                        such actions
                                                              actions and
                                                                       and regardless  ofwhich
                                                                            regardless of which
        memberof
       member    ofthe
                    the conspiracy   undertook the
                         conspiracy undertook   theaction.
                                                    action.

       Commonwealth v.v. Galindes,
       Commonwealth      Galindes, 786
                                   786 A.2d
                                       A.2d 1004,
                                             1004, 1011
                                                    1011 (Pa.
                                                          (Pa. Super. 2001).
                                                               Super. 2001).

        Thepremise
       The  premiseof ofthe
                         therule
                             ruleisisthat
                                      thatthe
                                            theconspirators
                                                 conspiratorshave haveformed
                                                                        formedtogether
                                                                                togetherfor  foran
                                                                                                 anunlawful
                                                                                                    unlawful
        purpose, and
       purpose,   and thus,
                       thus, they   share the
                              they share     the intent
                                                  intent to
                                                          to commit
                                                             commit any      acts undertaken
                                                                        any acts  undertaken in   in order
                                                                                                     order toto
        achieve that
       achieve   that purpose,
                      purpose, regardless
                                 regardless of   ofwhether
                                                    whether they
                                                               they actually   intended any
                                                                     actually intended            distinct act
                                                                                            any distinct    act
        undertaken in
       undertaken    in furtherance
                         furtherance of  of the
                                              the object
                                                   object ofof the
                                                                the conspiracy.
                                                                    conspiracy. ItIt isis the
                                                                                           the existence
                                                                                                existence of of
        shared criminal
       shared  criminal intent
                          intent that
                                  that"is
                                        "is the
                                             the sine
                                                  sine qua   non of
                                                       qua non     ofaa conspiracy."
                                                                         conspiracy."

        Commonwealth v.v. Wayne,
       Commonwealth                 553 Pa.
                           Wayne, 553    Pa. 614,
                                              614, 720
                                                    720 A.2d
                                                         A.2d 456,
                                                                456, 463-464
                                                                       463-464 (1998),    cert.
                                                                                  (1998), cert.
       denied, 528
       denied, 528 U.S.
                   U.S. 834,
                        834, 120
                              120 S.Ct.
                                  S.Ct. 94,
                                        94, 145
                                             145 L.Ed.2d
                                                 L.Ed.2d 80
                                                          80 (1999)
                                                              (1999) (citations
                                                                      (citations omitted).
                                                                                 omitted).

Lambert, 795
Lambert, 795 A.2d
             A.2d at
                  at 1016-1017.
                      1016-1017.

       A review
       A review of
                ofthe
                   the record
                       record in
                               in the
                                   the light  most favorable
                                        light most  favorable to
                                                               to the
                                                                   the Commonwealth
                                                                       Commonwealth supports   that
                                                                                     supports that

 there was
there  was an
           an agreement
              agreement between
                        between Appellant and Dane
                                Appellant and Dane Taylor  that he
                                                   Taylor that  he would
                                                                   would assist
                                                                         assist him
                                                                                him in
                                                                                     in the
                                                                                         the

robbery of
robbery ofKeiauna
           Keiauna Davis.
                   Davis. Phone
                          Phone records
                                records showed
                                        showed that
                                                that Appellant and Taylor
                                                     Appellant and Taylor began
                                                                          began

communicating shortly
communicating shortly after
                      after Whitley  informed Taylor
                            Whitley informed         about the
                                              Taylor about  the money Ms. Davis
                                                                money Ms. Davis brought  to
                                                                                brought to

work. Thereafter,
work. Thereafter, Appellant
                  Appellant drove
                            drove Taylor
                                  Taylor to
                                          to the
                                             the Dollar
                                                 Dollar General
                                                        General where
                                                                where Ms.
                                                                      Ms. Davis
                                                                          Davis was
                                                                                was ending her
                                                                                    ending her

shift. He
shift. He and
          and Taylor
              Taylor waited
                     waited for
                            for her
                                her to
                                    to exit
                                       exit the
                                            the store
                                                store before
                                                      before pulling out of
                                                             pulling out ofthe
                                                                            the parking lot and
                                                                                parking lot and

following her
following her onto
              onto Laketon
                   Laketon Avenue.
                           A venue. At
                                    At this
                                       this time
                                            time Appellant is aware
                                                 Appellant is aware that
                                                                    that Taylor,
                                                                         Taylor, who
                                                                                 who was
                                                                                     was now
                                                                                         now

wearing aa ski
wearing    ski mask,
               mask, was
                     was armed
                         armed with
                               with aa firearm.
                                       firearm. Appellant
                                                Appellant positioned the
                                                                     the car
                                                                         car in
                                                                             in advance
                                                                                advance of
                                                                                        of Ms.
                                                                                           Ms.

Davis, who
Davis, who was
           was walking
               walking on
                       on the
                          the sidewalk.
                              sidewalk. Appellant           to examine
                                        Appellant pretended to examine his
                                                                       his car
                                                                           car as
                                                                               as aa ruse so
                                                                                          so

            could jump out
that Taylor could      out of
                           of the
                              the car
                                  car as
                                      as Ms.
                                         Ms. Davis approached
                                                   approached Appellant's vehicle. Appellant

remained at
         at the vehicle within
                        within feet of
                                    of the entire
                                           entire incident
                                                  incident and
                                                           and watched as
                                                                       as Taylor physically

struggled with Ms. Davis over her purse. After hearing gunshots, Appellant never left he
struggled

perimeter of
          of the car and only re-entered the car once Taylor gained control of
                                                                            of the purse.

Appellant then removed the money from the purse and threw it out the open passenger door as

Taylor returned to the scene to retrieve his dropped phone. Appellant then drove away from the

      with Taylor and hours later drove Taylor to Whitley's house. Facebook records submitted
scene with
scene

                                                         25
at trial showed on-going communications with both Taylor and Whitely after the robbery and

Appellant's girlfriend provided police with nearly $700 from the $3,000 stolen from Ms. Davis.

       Thus, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict

winner, showed an association between Appellant and Taylor as well as Appellant's knowledge

that Taylor intended to rob the victim. Testimonial and video evidence confirmed Appellant's

presence at the scene of the crime and that he aided Taylor by driving him to commit the robbery

and providing his subsequent escape.

       Appellant argues that this case is similar to In the Interest of J.B., because this same

evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, is equally

consistent with his innocence. That is simply belied by the record and was rejected by the jury

who was presented with, and instructed on, the defense of duress as offered through Appellant's

testimony.

       Appellant offered an alternative explanation for the phone records and video surveillance

which unquestionably demonstrated a connection to Taylor and his presence during the

commission of the crime. Appellant offered that he became an unwilling participant after

providing Taylor a jitney ride. He testified that he acted out of fear that he or his family

members would be shot based on threats made by Taylor. However, the video evidence does not

show that Taylor ever directed the gun at Appellant. The entire incident transpired in less than

one minute. During this brief time, Appellant's movements are slow and deliberate and in

concert with Taylor and not consistent with someone under threat, or unaware of what was

happening, or that he was acting under the direction of Taylor. Moreover, Appellant continued

his association with Taylor after the robbery and murder, including driving him to Whitley's

house and messaging with him over a period of eighteen hours, referring to Taylor as "bro",

                                                 26
"homie",
"homie, and "cuhs". During these messages Appellant made disparaging comments about Ms.

Davis and discussed going out with Taylor that night. Additionally, Appellant's nine-hour

interview with police demonstrated that he was less than forthcoming regarding his knowledge

and involvement in the robbery and his association with Taylor and Whitley.

         Appellant's argument that his testimony, which served to prove that he acted under

duress, and was thus equally supportive of his innocence, is without merit. A jury could

conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant was aware that Taylor planned to rob Ms.

Davis of her money and that Appellant agreed to act as his driver to aid in the commission of that

crime.
cnme.

                                             ROBBERY

         In his Statement, Appellant contends that the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient

to support a finding that he aided Dane Taylor in the commission of the Robbery.

                                        ofrobbery
         As charged, a person is guilty of                       18 Pa.C.S. §$ 3701
                                           robbery as defined in 18            3701 if:

   (a) Offense defined
       (1) A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he:
              (ii) threatens another with or intentionally puts him in fear of immediate serious
              bodily injury;
       (2) An act shall be deemed "in the course of committing a theft" if it occurs in an attempt
       to commit theft or in flight after the attempt or commission.

18
18 Pa.C.S. §3701(a)(1)
           §3701(a)(l) and (2).

         As offered in more detail above, the video evidence unquestionably established that Dane

Taylor robbed Keiauna Davis of her purse and money. Additional evidence demonstrated that

Appellant agreed to take part in the robbery, and in fact aided Taylor by driving him to and from

the scene. As a co-conspirator, Appellant is responsible for the actions of his co-conspirator

                                                  27
taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. A person who is guilty of conspiracy involving an

accomplished robbery is necessarily guilty of the robbery itself.

                               MURDER OF THE SECOND DEGREE

       Murder of the second degree is a criminal homicide committed while a defendant was

engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony. 18
                                                                         18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(b).
                                                                                      2502(b ).

Perpetration of a felony is further defined as:

       [t]he act of the defendant in engaging in or being an accomplice in the commission
       of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing, or attempting to commit
       robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson,
       burglary or kidnapping.
18 Pa.C.S.A §$ 2502(d).
18
       A person is legally liable as an accomplice when:

       (1) With the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he: ...
           (ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; ...
   (d)
   ( d) Culpability of accomplice.—When
                       accomplice.-When causing a particular result is an element of an offense,
   an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that
   offense, if he acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is
            ifhe
   sufficient for the commission of the offense.
18
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 306(a), (b)(3), (c)(1)(ii)
                                (c)(l)(ii) and (d).

       Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of second—degree
                                                                             second-degree

murder because the Commonwealth failed to establish a conspiracy with Taylor or that he acted

as an accomplice. For the reasons stated above in the Court's analysis of the conspiracy charge

this claim is without merit.

       Regarding Appellant's claim that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he

was an accomplice to the felony murder, the court again looks to the holding in Lambert.

                                                  28
           The statute defining second degree murder does not require that a homicide be
           foreseeable; rather, it is only necessary that the accused engaged in conduct as a
           principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony. Whether evidence
           sufficiently indicates that a killing was in furtherance of a predicate felony can be
           a difficult question. The question of whether the killing was in furtherance of the
           conspiracy is a question of proof for the jury to resolve. It does not matter whether
           the appellant anticipated that the victim would be killed in furtherance of the
           conspiracy. Rather, the fact finder determines whether the appellant knew or
           should have known that the possibility of death accompanied a dangerous
           undertaking.

Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010,
                  1010, 1023
                        1023 (internal citations omitted).
           The Lambert court also discussed the resulting legal responsibility of an accomplice:

           The very nature of accomplice liability is that one who actively and purposefully
           engages in criminal activity is criminally responsible for the criminal actions of
           his/her co-conspirators which are committed in furtherance of the criminal
           endeavor. [M]ere presence at the scene is insufficient to support a conviction:
           evidence indicating participation in the crime is required.

Lambert, 795 A.2d at 1024
                     1024 (internal citations omitted).
           The Court finds the holding in Commonwealth v. Pone, 251
                                                                251 A.3d 1265
                                                                         1265 (Pa. Super. 2021)

                   persuasive.87 The facts and evidence in Pone are strikingly similar to the
(non-precedential) persuasive."

facts sub judice. Pone was convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, and conspiracy wherein

evidence at trial established that he traveled to the robbery scene aware that his two co-

conspirators were going to rob someone. Pone laid in wait for the victim to arrive, entered the

business where the robbery was to occur, and prevented a third party from interceding during the

robbery. It was during the robbery that the victim was shot and killed by a co-conspirator.

Surveillance footage captured Pone and the two other actors arrive in advance of the victim.

Additional footage of the robbery and shooting confirmed that Pone participated in the assault

the victim and physically blocked a third party from intervening. Pone is also seen following the

87                                             1, 2019 may be cited for its persuasive value. Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).
     A non-precedential case decided after May 1,                                                       126(b).

                                                           29
      third party
     third        outside and
            party outside and whereafter
                              whereafter he
                                         he leaves
                                             leaves in
                                                     in aa car
                                                           car operated by the
                                                               operated by       third co-conspirator.
                                                                            the third  co-conspirator. During
                                                                                                       During
••
     the police
     the police investigation,  all three
                 investigation, all  three actors
                                           actors provided
                                                  provided inculpatory              Pone challenged
                                                                        statements. Pone
                                                            inculpatory statements.      challenged the
                                                                                                     the

                 ofthe
     sufficiency of
     sufficiency    the evidence
                        evidence for
                                 for his
                                     his conviction
                                         conviction for second-degree murder
                                                    for second-degree murder under  two theories.
                                                                             under two   theories.

             First, that
             First,  that he
                          he was
                             was not
                                 not physically present at
                                     physically present     the time
                                                        at the   time the  victim was
                                                                       the victim was killed, and second
                                                                                      killed, and second that
                                                                                                          that

     he abandoned
     he abandoned the
                  the conspiracy. Pone's convictions
                      conspiracy. Pone's             were affirmed
                                         convictions were affirmed on appeal, with
                                                                   on appeal, with the
                                                                                   the Court
                                                                                       Court

     having concluded
     having concluded that
                       that he
                            he was
                               was liable
                                    liable as
                                           as an accomplice. The
                                              an accomplice.     Pennsylvania Superior
                                                             The Pennsylvania Superior Court
                                                                                       Court noted
                                                                                             noted

     that "absence
     that "absence or
                   or presence at the
                      presence at the scene"
                                      scene" is
                                             is aa factor,
                                                   factor, and not dispositive,
                                                           and not              regarding accomplice
                                                                   dispositive, regarding accomplice

                Pone, 251
     liability. Pone,
     liability.       251 A.3d
                          A.3d 1265,
                               1265, citing Commonwealth v.v. Gross,
                                     citing Commonwealth      Gross, 101
                                                                     101 A.3d 28,35 (Pa.
                                                                         A.3d 28,35  (Pa. 2014).
                                                                                          2014).

     Second, the
     Second, the facts
                 facts supported that Pone's
                       supported that Pone's conduct aided in
                                             conduct aided in the
                                                              the commission
                                                                  commission of the underlying
                                                                             ofthe  underlying

              and specific
     robbery, and specific to
                           to his claim,
                                  claim, found
                                         found that
                                               that he
                                                    he took
                                                       took no actions to
                                                            no actions to abandon the conspiracy.
                                                                          abandon the conspiracy.

             Here, Appellant
             Here, Appellant drove
                             drove Taylor to the
                                   Taylor to     scene, waited
                                             the scene, waited during the commission
                                                               during the commission of the robbery,
                                                                                     of the robbery,

     and enabled
     and enabled his flight
                     flight afterwards.
                            afterwards. As
                                        As discussed above, the
                                           discussed above, the Court
                                                                Court found this evidence
                                                                      found this evidence sufficient
                                                                                          sufficient

     to support
        support aa jury's conclusion
                          conclusion that
                                     that Appellant aided Taylor
                                          Appellant aided Taylor in
                                                                 in the
                                                                    the robbery of Ms.
                                                                        robbery of Ms. Davis.
                                                                                       Davis.

     Appellant drove Taylor to
                            to the
                               the victim's workplace and
                                   victim's workplace and waited
                                                          waited in the parking lot for her
                                                                 in the                     to leave.
                                                                                        her to leave.

     Appellant then drove past Ms. Davis as
     Appellant                           as she
                                            she walked home
                                                       home and                car in
                                                            and positioned his car in advance
                                                                                      advance of
                                                                                              of

                         of this crime, Appellant created aa ruse to facilitate Taylor's surprise
     her. In furtherance of                                                                       attack on
                                                                                         surprise attack on

                                  served as
     the victim. The video, which served as direct evidence of                           showed that
                                                            of the robbery, unmistakably showed

                                                                            shot at Ms. Davis,
                             struggle with Ms. Davis over her purse. Taylor shot
     Taylor began a physical struggle                                                   Davis, not

                                                                 subsequently fatal gunshot
                                                      second and subsequently
                                 struggle. It was the second
     once, but twice during this struggle.                                          gunshot that

     allowed Taylor to physically overcome her and complete the robbery by taking the purse.

                                                                       shooting, took the money
     Appellant waited outside the vehicle, watched the robbery and the shooting,

                                                            scene. Thus, Appellant was more than
     from Ms. Davis's purse, and drove Taylor away from the scene.

     merely present at the scene of the crime. Legal precedent has held that culpability for murder is

                                                        30
    not limited to the killer in cases of felony murder but is imputed to "all participants in the felony,
«
    including the getaway driver." Lambert A.2d at 1023.
                                                   1023. Here, the evidence is sufficient that

    Appellant participated and aided Taylor, and therefore, he is legally responsible as an accomplice

    for Taylor's crimes, which included the murder of Keiauna Davis.

                             TAMPERING WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

             In his last sufficiency claim, Appellant alleges that the Commonwealth's evidence failed

    to prove that he intended to impair the availability of any items for the investigation.

                                                            18 Pa.C.S. §$ 4910, in relevant part, as a
             Tampering with physical evidence is defined in 18

    person who believing that an official proceeding or investigation is pending or about to be

    instituted: "alters, destroys, conceals or removes any record, document or thing with intent to

                                                                            18 Pa.C.S. §$ 4910(1).
    impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation." 18

             Appellant's actions, which were captured on video, show him throw the victim's purse

    out the open passenger door and into a nearby tree. The sequence of the events leading up to,

    during and after Appellant's act supports the jury's verdict that he discarded the victim's purse

    with the intent to prevent its accessibility for any future investigation. No less significant were

    Appellant's own words at trial, wherein he explained that he threw the purse to get rid of it

                                                                            it.88
    because he was concerned it may have had his DNA and/or fingerprints on it.88

             Therefore, after viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to

    the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for tampering with evidence.

    88 J.T.
       J,T. at 409-410.

                                                      31
                                                      31
                                     WEIGHTOF
                                     WEIGHT OFTHE
                                               THEEVIDENCE
                                                   EVIDENCE
•

           AAchallenge
              challengeasastotothe
                                theweight
                                    weightofofthe
                                               theevidence,
                                                   evidence,"concedes
                                                             "concedesthat
                                                                       thatsufficient
                                                                            sufficientevidence
                                                                                       evidencewas
                                                                                                was

     adducedtotoconvict
    adduced      convictthe
                         thedefendant
                             defendantbut
                                       butthat
                                           thatthe
                                                theverdict
                                                    verdictmust
                                                            mustnevertheless
                                                                 neverthelessbe
                                                                              beoverturned
                                                                                 overturnedbecause
                                                                                            because

     theevidence
    the  evidencewas
                  wasuntrustworthy  andunreliable."
                      untrustworthyand  unreliable."Commonwealth
                                                     Commonwealthv.v.Gaskins,  692A.2d
                                                                      Gaskins,692  A.2d224,
                                                                                        224,228
                                                                                            228

     (Pa.Super.
    (Pa.         1997).
          Super.1997).

                     AAclaim
                         claimalleging
                                  allegingthetheverdict
                                                  verdictwas
                                                           wasagainst
                                                                 againstthe theweight
                                                                                weightof  ofthe
                                                                                              theevidence
                                                                                                   evidenceisis
             addressedtotothe
           addressed         thediscretion
                                   discretionof ofthe
                                                   thetrial
                                                        trialcourt.
                                                              court.Accordingly,
                                                                       Accordingly,an    anappellate     court
                                                                                            appellatecourt
             reviewsthe
           reviews     theexercise
                            exerciseof  ofthe
                                           thetrial
                                                trialcourt's
                                                      court'sdiscretion;
                                                               discretion;ititdoes
                                                                                 doesnot
                                                                                       notanswer
                                                                                            answerfor  foritself
                                                                                                            itself
             whetherthe
           whether     theverdict
                            verdictwaswasagainst
                                            againstthetheweight
                                                           weightof  ofthe    evidence.ItItisiswell
                                                                         theevidence.           wellsettled
                                                                                                       settledthat
                                                                                                                 that
             the[fact-finder]
           the   [fact-finder]isisfree
                                     freetotobelieve
                                               believeall,
                                                        all,part,  ornone
                                                             part,or    noneof ofthe
                                                                                   theevidence
                                                                                       evidenceand  andtoto
             determinethe
           determine      thecredibility
                               credibilityof  ofthe
                                                 thewitnesses,
                                                     witnesses,and andaanew newtrial
                                                                                  trialbased
                                                                                        basedon onaaweight
                                                                                                      weightof   of
             theevidence
           the   evidenceclaim
                             claimisisonly
                                         onlywarranted
                                                warrantedwhere
                                                             wherethe the[factfinder's]
                                                                           [factfinder's]verdict
                                                                                            verdictisissosocontrary
                                                                                                              contrary
           totothe
                theevidence
                    evidencethat thatititshocks
                                          shocksone's
                                                   one'ssense
                                                          senseof ofjustice.    Indetermining
                                                                      justice. In                    whetherthis
                                                                                    determiningwhether          this
             standardhas
           standard     hasbeen
                             beenmet,met,appellate     reviewisislimited
                                           appellatereview          limitedtotowhether
                                                                                  whetherthe thetrial
                                                                                                  trialjudge's
                                                                                                        judge's
             discretionwas
           discretion    wasproperly        exercised, and
                                properlyexercised,        andrelief
                                                               reliefwill
                                                                       will only
                                                                             onlybe begranted     wherethe
                                                                                       grantedwhere        thefacts
                                                                                                                facts
             andinferences
           and    inferencesof  ofrecord
                                    recorddisclose
                                             discloseaapalpable
                                                          palpableabuseabuseof ofdiscretion.
                                                                                  discretion.

    Commonwealth v.v. Landis,
    Commonwealth               89 A.3d
                      Landis, 89  A.3d 694,
                                        694,699  (Pa. Super.
                                            699 (Pa.           2014)(citation
                                                       Super. 2014)  (citationomitted).
                                                                               omitted).

            Appellatereview
           Appellate      review ofofaaweight
                                         weightclaim
                                                   claim isisaa review
                                                                 reviewof  ofthe
                                                                              the exercise
                                                                                   exerciseof      discretion, not
                                                                                                ofdiscretion,      notofof
            the underlying
           the    underlyingquestion
                                question ofofwhether
                                               whether the the verdict
                                                               verdict isis against
                                                                             against the the weight
                                                                                              weightof     the
                                                                                                       ofthe
            evidence. Brown,
           evidence.               648 A.2d
                          Brown, 648     A.2d atat 1189.
                                                    1189. Because
                                                            Because the the trial
                                                                             trial judge
                                                                                    judge hashas had
                                                                                                  had the
                                                                                                       the
            opportunity to
           opportunity      to hear
                               hear and
                                      and see
                                           see the
                                                the evidence
                                                      evidence presented,
                                                                  presented, an  an appellate      court will
                                                                                      appellate court     will give
                                                                                                                 give
            the gravest
           the    gravest consideration
                           consideration to  to the
                                                 the findings
                                                      findings andand reasons
                                                                       reasons advanced
                                                                                  advanced by        the trial
                                                                                                 by the   trial judge
                                                                                                                judge
            when reviewing
           when      reviewing aa trial
                                   trial court's
                                          court's determination
                                                   determination that that the
                                                                             the verdict
                                                                                  verdict is is against
                                                                                                against thethe weight
                                                                                                                weight
            ofthe
           of    the evidence.
                      evidence. Commonwealth
                                  Commonwealth v.v. Farquharson,
                                                           Farquharson, 467   467 Pa.Pa. 50,
                                                                                          50,354    A.2d 545
                                                                                              354 A.2d      545
            (Pa.1976). One
           (Pa.1976).      One ofofthe
                                    the least
                                         least assailable
                                               assailable reasons
                                                             reasons for for granting
                                                                              granting or  or denying
                                                                                              denying aa newnew trial
                                                                                                                   trial
            is the
           is   the lower
                     lower court's
                            court's conviction
                                     conviction thatthat the
                                                          the verdict
                                                               verdict was
                                                                         was oror was
                                                                                   was notnot against    the weight
                                                                                               against the    weight
            ofthe
           of    the evidence
                      evidence and
                                 and that
                                      that aa new
                                              new trial
                                                     trial should
                                                           should bebe granted
                                                                         granted in  in the
                                                                                        the interest
                                                                                             interest of
                                                                                                       ofjustice.

                    560 Pa.
            Widmer, 560
            Widmer,     Pa. at
                            at 321-22,
                               321-22, 744
                                       744 A.2d
                                           A.2d at
                                                at 753
                                                   753 (emphasis
                                                       (emphasis added).
                                                                 added).

            This does
            This does not
                       not mean
                           mean that
                                  that the the exercise
                                               exercise of
                                                         ofdiscretion
                                                            discretion byby the
                                                                             the trial
                                                                                  trial court
                                                                                        court in
                                                                                              in granting
                                                                                                 granting or
                                                                                                          or
            denying aa motion
            denying    motion for
                                for a'a' new
                                         new trial
                                               trial based
                                                     based on
                                                           on aa challenge
                                                                 challenge to to the
                                                                                 the weight
                                                                                      weight ofof the
                                                                                                  the
            evidence is
            evidence  is unfettered.
                         unfettered. In   In describing  the limits
                                             describing the   limits of
                                                                     of aa trial
                                                                           trial court's
                                                                                 court's discretion,
                                                                                          discretion, we
                                                                                                      we
            have explained:
            have explained:

            The term
            The term "discretion"
                       "discretion" imports the exercise
                                    imports the exercise of
                                                          of judgment, wisdom and skill so as to
            reach aa dispassionate
            reach    dispassionate conclusion
                                   conclusion within
                                               within the
                                                      the framework of
                                                                     of the law, and is not
                                                                 32
                                                                 32
            exercised for
           exercised    forthe
                             the purpose
                                 purpose of    ofgiving    effect to
                                                  giving effect    to the
                                                                        thewill
                                                                            will of
                                                                                 ofthe
                                                                                     thejudge.    Discretion must
                                                                                         judge. Discretion     must
•           be exercised
           be   exercised onon the
                                the foundation
                                     foundation of    ofreason,
                                                         reason, asas opposed
                                                                        opposed toto prejudice,
                                                                                      prejudice, personal
                                                                                                   personal
            motivations, caprice
           motivations,     caprice ororarbitrary       actions. Discretion
                                           arbitrary actions.     Discretion isis abused
                                                                                    abused where
                                                                                             where thethe course
                                                                                                           course
            pursued represents
           pursued    represents notnot merely
                                          merely an  an error
                                                         error of
                                                                ofjudgment,
                                                                   judgment, but but where
                                                                                      where thethe judgment
                                                                                                    judgment isis
            manifestly unreasonable
           manifestly     unreasonable or    orwhere
                                                 where thethe law
                                                               law isis not
                                                                        not applied   orwhere
                                                                             applied or   where the
                                                                                                  the record
                                                                                                       record
            shows that
           shows    that the
                          the action
                               action isis aa result
                                               result of
                                                       ofpartiality,
                                                          partiality, prejudice,     bias or
                                                                         prejudice, bias   or ill-will.

    Commonwealth v.v. Clay,
    Commonwealth            64 A.3d
                      Clay, 64 A.3d 1049,
                                     1049, 1055
                                            1055 (Pa.
                                                  (Pa. 2013).
                                                       2013).

           ItIt isis this
                      this Court's
                           Court's position  that this
                                   position that   this claim
                                                        claim isis waived
                                                                   waived for
                                                                           for vagueness.
                                                                               vagueness. Appellant's claim does
                                                                                          Appellant's claim does

    not specify
    not  specify which
                 which evidence
                       evidence over
                                over the
                                      the course
                                          course of
                                                 ofthe
                                                    the four-day
                                                         four-day trial
                                                                   trial which
                                                                         which included:
                                                                                included: eleven
                                                                                          eleven witnesses
                                                                                                 witnesses

    and sixty-one
    and  sixty-one exhibits
                   exhibits from
                             from the
                                   the Commonwealth,
                                       Commonwealth, and
                                                     and four
                                                          four witnesses
                                                               witnesses and
                                                                         and four
                                                                              four exhibits
                                                                                   exhibits from
                                                                                             from the
                                                                                                   the

    defense, deserved
    defense, deserved little
                       little or
                              or no
                                 no weight. Furthermore, even
                                    weight. Furthermore, even in
                                                               in its
                                                                   its most
                                                                       most generous
                                                                            generous interpretation,   this
                                                                                      interpretation, this

    claim as
    claim as framed
              framed is
                      is irrelevant
                          irrelevant to
                                      to the
                                          the charge oftampering
                                              charge of           with evidence,
                                                        tampering with evidence, which
                                                                                 which Appellant  includes
                                                                                       Appellant includes

     in his
    in  his request
            request for
                    for aa new
                           new trial.
                                trial. Moreover,
                                       Moreover, even
                                                 even if
                                                       ifthe
                                                          the Court
                                                              Court were
                                                                    were to
                                                                          to read
                                                                             read Appellant's
                                                                                  Appellant's post-sentence
                                                                                              post-sentence

    motion in
    motion  in tandem
                tandem with
                       with the
                             the Concise
                                 Concise Statement,
                                         Statement, the
                                                     the Court
                                                         Court is
                                                                is left
                                                                    left without
                                                                         without an
                                                                                 an understanding of
                                                                                    understanding of

    Appellant's weight
    Appellant's weight claim.
                       claim. This
                              This is
                                   is because
                                      because the
                                              the claim
                                                  claim as
                                                        as raised
                                                           raised in
                                                                  in the
                                                                      the post-sentence motion
                                                                          post-sentence motion

    conflates sufficiency
    conflates sufficiency of
                          of the
                             the evidence
                                 evidence and
                                          and weight. As noted
                                              weight. As noted above,
                                                               above, aa weight claim concedes
                                                                         weight claim concedes that
                                                                                               that

    the evidence
    the evidence was
                 was sufficient.
                     sufficient. However,
                                 However, in
                                          in the
                                             the Appellant's               motion he
                                                 Appellant's post-sentence motion he argued that
                                                                                     argued that

    the verdicts
    the verdicts were
                 were against the weight
                      against the        of the
                                  weight of the evidence
                                                evidence because
                                                         because the
                                                                 the Commonwealth
                                                                     Commonwealth offered
                                                                                  offered "scant"
                                                                                          "scant"

    evidence and/or
    evidence and/or there
                    there was
                          was aa "lack
                                 "lack of
                                       of evidence"
                                          evidence" of
                                                    of aa conspiracy. Attacking the
                                                          conspiracy. Attacking the quantity of
                                                                                             of the
                                                                                                the

    evidence is
    evidence is contrary
                contrary to aa concession
                               concession that the evidence was sufficient.
                                                                sufficient. Thus, the
                                                                                  the Court
                                                                                      Court is in no
                                                                                                  no

    better position to assess
                       assess Appellant's weight
                                          weight claim
                                                 claim even with the benefit of
                                                                             of the previous motion

    that was designed to preserve the claim. See
                                             See Commonwealth v. Rogers, 250
                                                                         250 A.3d 1209
                                                                                  1209 (Pa.
                                                                                       (Pa.

    2021) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that an appellant's weight claim was not waived for
          (Pennsylvania Supreme

              at the intermediary level, when, despite the exceedingly brief nature of the concise
    vagueness at

               the post-sentence motion articulated the evidentiary-weight claim at some length, such
    statement, the
    statement,

    that the
    that the trial
             trial level court was able to address the claim in its opinion.)

                                                              33
•
           To the
           To  the extent
                   extent that
                           that this
                                 this is
                                       is reviewable
                                          reviewable on
                                                     on the
                                                         the merits,
                                                             merits, the
                                                                      the record
                                                                          record does
                                                                                 does not
                                                                                      not support  that the
                                                                                          support that   the

    court abused
    court abused its
                  its discretion
                      discretion when
                                 when itit denied
                                           denied Appellant's         for aa new
                                                              request for
                                                  Appellant's request        new trial.
                                                                                  trial. The
                                                                                         The

    Commonwealth's evidence
    Commonwealth's evidence was
                            was both
                                both direct
                                     direct and
                                            and circumstantial
                                                circumstantial in
                                                                in demonstrating
                                                                   demonstrating Appellant's
                                                                                 Appellant's

    participation in
    participation  in the
                      the robbery  that led
                          robbery that   led to
                                              to the
                                                  the senseless
                                                      senseless death
                                                                death of
                                                                      ofMs.
                                                                         Ms. Davis.
                                                                             Davis. That Appellant was
                                                                                    That Appellant was not
                                                                                                       not

    the trigger
    the trigger man
                man nor
                    nor responsible for the
                        responsible for  the actual
                                             actual robbery ofMs.
                                                    robbery of Ms. Davis
                                                                   Davis is
                                                                          is irrelevant
                                                                              irrelevant to
                                                                                          to the  verdict of
                                                                                              the verdict of

    murder of
    murder ofthe
              the second
                  second degree as he
                         degree as he is
                                       is equally liable as
                                          equally liable as an
                                                            an accomplice and as
                                                               accomplice and as aa co-conspirator of
                                                                                    co-conspirator of

    the robbery.
    the robbery.

           The jury had
           The      had an
                        an opportunity to fairly
                           opportunity to        assess the
                                          fairly assess the credibility
                                                            credibility of
                                                                        ofall
                                                                           all the
                                                                               the witnesses
                                                                                   witnesses and
                                                                                             and

    evidence, including
    evidence, including Appellant's
                        Appellant's videotaped        interview wherein
                                               police interview
                                    videotaped police           wherein he
                                                                        he repeatedly made false
                                                                           repeatedly made false

    claims regarding his
    claims                         and participation. ItIt is
                     his knowledge and                     is important to reiterate
                                                              important to reiterate that the Appellant
                                                                                     that the Appellant

    did not
    did not dispute
            dispute his participation in
                                      in this
                                         this crime,
                                              crime, as
                                                     as the
                                                        the majority
                                                            majority of
                                                                     of itit was captured on
                                                                             was captured on video.
                                                                                             video. Thus,
                                                                                                    Thus,

             was presented with
    the jury was           with two
                                two different
                                    different versions
                                              versions for
                                                       for his
                                                           his actions,
                                                               actions, Appellant's and the
                                                                        Appellant's and the

    Commonwealth's. As
    Commonwealth's. As stated
                       stated above,
                              above, the
                                     the factfinder
                                         factfinder is
                                                    is free
                                                       free to
                                                            to believe,
                                                               believe, all,
                                                                        all, some,
                                                                             some, or
                                                                                   or none of the
                                                                                      none of the

                                                   testimony that he
                       simply rejected Appellant's testimony
    evidence. The jury simply                                        acted under duress
                                                                  he acted       duress while
                                                                                        while under

    threat from Dane Taylor, in
                             in light of                                   the Commonwealth.
                                      of the credible evidence produced by the Commonwealth. "In
                                                                                             "In

    order for aa defendant to prevail on                                   evidence, the evidence
                                                                    of the evidence,
                                      on aa challenge to the weight of                   evidence must

    be so
       so tenuous, vague and
                         and uncertain that the verdict shocks     conscience of
                                                        shocks the conscience of the court."
                                                                                     court."

                              213 A.3d 290, 305
    Commonwealth v. Mikitiuk, 213           305 (Pa. Super. 2019) citing Commonwealth v.
                                                (Pa. Super.

             129 A.3d 536,
    Talbert, 129               (Pa. Super. 2015). The record does not support
                      536, 546 (Pa.                                           such aa conclusion.
                                                                      support such

                                                                     of sentence
                                stated in this Opinion, the judgment of
            For all the reasons stated                                           should be
                                                                        sentence should

    AFFIRMED.

                                                        34