Court Opinion

ID: 9914244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 20:09:11.24377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:47.044240
License: Public Domain

J-S33006-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  TYRONE WILBERT CLARK                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 1412 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 5, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-04-CR-0001651-2021

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                      FILED: December 29, 2023

       Appellant, Tyrone Wilbert Clark, appeals from the judgment of sentence

of 25-50 years’ incarceration, imposed after he was convicted of, inter alia,

aggravated assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1). We affirm.

       We need not reproduce the factual and procedural history of this case,

as the trial court comprehensively summarized it in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)

opinion.    See Trial Court Opinion (“TCO”), 1/30/23, at 1-42.         On appeal,

Appellant raises the following questions for our review:

       I. Whether the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth
       to comment on … Appellant’s retention of counsel prior to trial in
       violation of his rights under the Pennsylvania and United States
       Constitutions?

       II. Whether the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth
       to impermissibly suggest that … Appellant, and by extension,
       Appellant’s counsel, had an obligation to assist law enforcement
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S33006-23

      in the investigation of the case in violation of his rights under the
      Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions?

      III. Whether the trial court erred in denying … Appellant’s motion
      in limine to introduce the prior crimen falsi convictions of the
      alleged victim under the premise that … Appellant did not provide
      written notice to the Commonwealth, where the Commonwealth
      acknowledged providing the criminal record of the alleged victim
      about a week prior to the trial and the Commonwealth suffered no
      prejudice from the lack of written notice and had a fair opportunity
      to contest the use of such evidence.

      IV. Whether the trial court erred in denying … Appellant’s motion
      in limine to introduce the prior crimen falsi convictions of the
      alleged victim and this error was because the probative value of
      allowing this evidence substantially outweighed its prejudicial
      effect.

Appellant’s Brief at 3-4 (some italics removed).

                               Issues 1 and 2

      Appellant addresses his first and second issues together, so we do the

same. He argues that the trial court erred in “permitting the Commonwealth

to comment on … Appellant’s retention of counsel prior to trial, and

impermissibly suggest that … Appellant, and by extension, Appellant’s

counsel, had an obligation to assist law enforcement in the investigation of

the case, in violation of his rights under the Pennsylvania and United States

Constitutions.” Id. at 30 (emphasis, unnecessary capitalization, and footnote

omitted). No relief is due.

      Initially, with respect to Appellant’s claim that the Commonwealth

improperly commented on Appellant’s retention of counsel prior to trial, we

deem this claim waived. In Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement, he did not

sufficiently identify when this allegedly improper comment occurred.          See

                                      -2-
J-S33006-23

Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 12/21/22, at ¶ m (“The [c]ourt erred in

permitting the Commonwealth to comment on [Appellant’s] retention of

counsel prior to trial in violation of his rights under the Pennsylvania and

United States Constitutions.”). As a result of Appellant’s vagueness, the trial

court stated that it would have to guess as to which comment by the

Commonwealth Appellant intended to challenge and concluded that it could

not meaningfully review this issue. See TCO at 64-66.

       It is well-established that the Rule 1925(b) statement “shall concisely

identify each error that the appellant intends to assert with sufficient detail to

identify the issue to be raised for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). Here,

we agree that Appellant did not provide sufficient detail for the judge to

identify the issue; thus, this issue is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii)

(“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with

the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”); Trial Court Order,

11/30/22 (directing Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement and warning

that “any issue not properly included in the concise statement timely filed and

served pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be deemed waived”).

       Nevertheless, even if this issue was not waived, and to the extent that

Appellant also claims that the Commonwealth suggested that Appellant had

an obligation to assist law enforcement, Appellant’s argument lacks merit.1

____________________________________________

1 We note that, for questions of constitutional law, our scope of review is
plenary, and our standard of review is de novo. See Commonwealth v.
Edwards, 272 A.3d 954, 963 (Pa. 2022).

                                           -3-
J-S33006-23

Appellant’s complaint centers on the questioning at trial of John Bialik, a police

officer from the Borough of Ambridge. After reviewing the detailed and well-

reasoned opinion issued by the Honorable Mitchell P. Shahen of the Court of

Common Pleas of Beaver County, we conclude that Judge Shahen’s opinion

accurately and thoroughly disposes of why the Commonwealth’s questioning

of Officer Bialik was appropriate.        TCO at 11-19, 66-70.2   Accordingly, we

adopt his opinion as our own with respect to this argument.

                                    Issues 3 and 4

       Appellant also combines his third and fourth issues into a single

argument; thus, we likewise consider them together. Appellant argues that

the trial court “erred in denying Appellant’s motion in limine to admit

impeachment evidence of a criminal conviction which involved dishonesty or

false statement of the alleged victim.”          Appellant’s Brief at 24 (emphasis

modified, unnecessary capitalization and footnote omitted).           Specifically,

Appellant sought to introduce evidence that the victim had two convictions for

theft by unlawful taking — one from 2003, and another from 2006. See id.

at 15.   At the time of trial, it was undisputed by the parties that the two
____________________________________________

2 Appellant seems to argue that any questioning by the Commonwealth that

refers to Appellant’s counsel is improper. See Appellant’s Brief at 33 (arguing
that “the questioning by the prosecutor referring to … Appellant’s counsel or
any counsel of Appellant was improper”). However, we agree with the
Commonwealth’s observation that the questions dealing with Officer Bialik’s
accessibility to defense attorneys who wish to offer him information about a
case or seek clarification (including Appellant’s counsel) was in direct response
to Appellant’s counsel’s suggestion in his cross-examination that it was
improper for Officer Bialik to not interview Appellant, who had invoked his
right to remain silent. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 19-20.

                                           -4-
J-S33006-23

convictions, and the respective penalties imposed, ended more than ten years

ago. N.T., 7/6/22, at 18.

      Our Supreme Court has previously explained:
      When reviewing the denial of a motion in limine, this Court applies
      an evidentiary abuse of discretion standard of review…. It is well-
      established that the admissibility of evidence is within the
      discretion of the trial court, and such rulings will not form the basis
      for appellate relief absent an abuse of discretion. Thus, the
      Superior Court may reverse an evidentiary ruling only upon a
      showing that the trial court abused that discretion.                  A
      determination that a trial court abused its discretion in making an
      evidentiary ruling may not be made merely because an appellate
      court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a
      result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias,
      or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous.
      Further, discretion is abused when the law is either overridden or
      misapplied.

Commonwealth v. Hoover, 107 A.3d 723, 729 (Pa. 2014) (cleaned up).

      Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 609 provides, in relevant part:

      (a) In General. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of
      any witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a
      crime, whether by verdict or by plea of guilty or nolo contendere,
      must be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement.

      (b) Limit on Using the Evidence After 10 Years. This
      subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed since
      the witness’s conviction or release from confinement for it,
      whichever is later. Evidence of the conviction is admissible only
      if:

      (1) its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial
      effect; and

      (2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written
      notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity
      to contest its use.

Pa.R.E. 609(a), (b).

                                       -5-
J-S33006-23

      Further, this Court has directed that, in determining whether such

evidence should be admitted, the following factors should be considered:
      1) the degree to which the commission of the prior offense reflects
      upon the veracity of the defendant-witness; 2) the likelihood, in
      view of the nature and extent of the prior record, that it would
      have a greater tendency to smear the character of the defendant
      and suggest a propensity to commit the crime for which he stands
      charged, rather than provide a legitimate reason for discrediting
      him as an untruthful person; 3) the age and circumstances of the
      defendant; 4) the strength of the prosecution’s case and the
      prosecution’s need to resort to this evidence as compared with the
      availability to the defense of other witnesses through which its
      version of the events surrounding the incident can be presented;
      and 5) the existence of alternative means of attacking the
      defendant’s credibility.

Commonwealth v. Palo, 24 A.3d 1050, 1056 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations

omitted).

      Here, in discerning that the victim’s convictions should not be admitted,

the trial court explained:
      All right. Case No. 1946 of 2005, based on the documents that
      have been presented to the [c]ourt, contains a guilty plea that
      occurred on July 19, 2006, to Count 1 which was theft by unlawful
      taking as an M-2 with the factual allegations that can be
      ascertained from the exhibit being that a toolbox containing
      several tools belong to Steven Dean [was] unlawfully taken by the
      alleged victim in this case, William Brown.

      The facts at Case No. 3157[,] where the alleged victim was
      charged with and convicted of theft by unlawful taking and
      received a two-year probation sentence on 11/25/2003 are not
      evident on the exhibits.

      Under Rule 609, for the purposes of attacking the credibility of a
      witness, evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime
      must be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement. The
      [c]ourt finds that these two convictions do involve dishonesty
      and/or false statements, dishonesty in particular.

                                     -6-
J-S33006-23

     However, under that same rule, if more than ten years have
     passed since the witness’s conviction, and … that is the case, or
     released from confinement, whichever is later, evidence of the
     conviction is admissible only if the probative value substantially
     outweighs its prejudicial effect and the proponent in this case,
     [Appellant], gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of
     the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to
     contest its use.

     By virtue of the plea, the evidence in Case No. 1964 of 2005, I
     can say that … on the date of that plea, the alleged victim was 37
     years old. That information is gleaned from the [g]uilty [p]lea
     [c]olloquy….

     In this case, [Appellant], based upon our discussions yesterday,
     has available alternative means for attacking the witness’s
     credibility and that, those alternative means consist of, among
     other things, different versions of the story, at least as were
     recounted to me by counsel last night.

     In this case, this [c]ourt is also aware, based upon the discussions,
     that the Commonwealth contends that it has video, doorbell video,
     something like that[,] as well as a video of … the officer’s body
     cam that would show allegedly [Appellant] in the area where the
     incident occurred.

     There is no evidence indicating … that the alleged victim in this
     case from the time of 2006 to the current time has not or could
     not have been rehabilitated during that time, and there is no
     indication … of a history of other matters from the long-ago crimes
     that [Appellant] is trying to seek to use….

     I find that[,] under the evidence that’s available … in this case,
     that … if these were to be used for any reason, they would have a
     greater tendency to smear the character of the witness … and
     suggest propensities that are not related to some of the issues or
     … at issue in this case. And under the circumstances of this case,
     and given the age of those crimes, this evidence would not provide
     a legitimate reason [for] discrediting this witness as an untruthful
     person under these circumstances.

     Based upon the following, based upon those matters, I’m going to
     deny the request…, and I also find that there was no written notice
     that was provided to the Commonwealth of this intention. Based
     on all those factors, I’m going to deny the oral motion in limine of
     [Appellant] to admit the criminal convictions of the alleged victim

                                     -7-
J-S33006-23

       in Case Nos. 315 of 2002 and 1964 of 2005, Beaver County
       numbers.

N.T., 7/6/22, at 18-21.

       Appellant argues that “the factors more heavily weigh in favor of

admissibility and make it clear that the probative value of admitting the

evidence substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect of the crimen falsi

convictions.” Appellant’s Brief at 27. He says that his need to introduce the

victim’s old crimen falsi convictions is high, as the jury had to decide between

the credibility of the victim, who denied having a knife or other weapon on his

person, and the testimony of Appellant and others who alleged that the victim

did have a weapon on his person. Id. at 28.3 Specifically, Appellant testified

at trial that he cut the victim with a razor blade in self-defense because the

victim “had put his hand in his back pocket. That’s where [the victim] kept

that old raggedy knife at.”         N.T., 7/7/22, at 209.   See also id. at 233

(Appellant’s stating that the victim “made a move for the door” and “put [his

hand] in his pants like that (indicating), no telling what he had”).

       In addition, Appellant also argues that:
       [F]actor one favors admissibility because, if the jury were to learn
       of the prior convictions of [the victim], they might be more
       inclined to believe he was not telling the truth when he claimed
       he had no weapon on his person at the time of the incident; a
____________________________________________

3 The others who saw the victim with a weapon were not present when the

incident occurred. See N.T., 7/7/22, at 155, 158 (Jayvon Turner’s stating
that he did not personally see anything that happened on the porch, but saw
the victim with a knife earlier in the day); N.T., 7/7/22, at 174-75, 177-78
(Frederick Turner’s testifying that he was upstairs sleeping when the incident
occurred, but that he saw the victim with “something in the back” that
Frederick Turner believed was a weapon).

                                           -8-
J-S33006-23

       crucial component of Appellant’s defense. Moreover, factor two
       favors admissibility because this is not a case where the alleged
       victim is accused of a theft[-]related crime and propensity to
       commit theft is at-issue; rather, the dated convictions bear on the
       witness’[s] credibility and do not tend to smear his character.3
       Factor three relates to the age and circumstances of the witness.
       [The victim] was [53] at the time of trial,[4] and the 2006
       conviction would have been committed in his adulthood. While
       the 2006 conviction was approximately sixteen years old at the
       time of the trial, [this] Court [has] permitted a conviction of the
       same age for the same reasons it is relevant here.
          3  Factor four appears to be more related to the
          Commonwealth’s use of this evidence, since it pertains to
          the strength of the prosecution’s case and thus, is not
          applicable in this analysis.

Appellant’s Brief at 28-29 (internal citations and a footnote omitted).

       We agree with Appellant that the first two factors tend to weigh in favor

of admitting the victim’s crimen falsi convictions. The victim’s convictions for

theft by unlawful taking reflect on his honesty, and do not have a greater

tendency to smear his character and suggest a propensity to act violently,

rather than provide a legitimate reason for discrediting him as an untruthful

person. The third factor is a closer question, as the victim was in his thirties

at the time he committed the crimen falsi offenses, but both convictions were

over fifteen years old by the time of trial.

       Importantly, though, the fourth and fifth factors weigh heavily against

admission. See Commonwealth v. Felder, 2022 WL 3210181, at *6 (Pa.

Super. filed Aug. 9, 2022) (stating that “[t]he fourth factor turns on the

____________________________________________

4 Appellant mistakenly says that the victim was 37 years old at the time of

trial. See N.T., 7/7/22, at 60 (the victim’s stating at trial that he is 53 years
old).

                                           -9-
J-S33006-23

importance of the witness’s credibility and strongly favors admission of the

prior crimen falsi conviction where the witness’s testimony is central to the

case”) (citations omitted)5; see also Palo, 24 A.3d at 1056 (describing the

fifth factor as whether alternative means of attacking the witness’s credibility

exist). Significantly, as the trial court noted, there was a video of the incident

taken from a neighbor’s security camera. See Commonwealth’s Exhibit 8. As

the Commonwealth observes, because the criminal conduct that formed the

basis of the jury’s verdict was captured on video, it was less likely that the

trial would come down to a credibility contest between the victim and

Appellant. Commonwealth’s Brief at 10. The Commonwealth aptly explains:

       [T]he crime in the present case was captured on video. Thus, the
       competing accounts offered by the victim and Appellant from the
       witness stand as to whether the victim reached for a knife or not
       could easily be judged by resorting to the video footage. The jury
       watched Commonwealth’s Exhibit 8 numerous times during the
       trial, and the footage clearly does not show the victim reaching
       for anything with his right hand as Appellant claimed in his direct
       testimony.

Id. at 15-16.6 Further, given the direct footage of the incident, had the victim

been untruthful about reaching for a knife or making some other kind of
____________________________________________

5 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (setting forth that an unpublished non-precedential
memorandum decision of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be
cited for its persuasive value).

6 Although the video was taken from a distance, our review of it confirms that

the victim did not reach in his pocket, or move to the front door, before
Appellant attacked him. See also TCO at 52 (“Evidence involving camera
footage of the altercation was also admitted; that surveillance footage showed
… Appellant and the victim standing on the porch in a manner consistent with
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 10 -
J-S33006-23

movement, the video would show otherwise and serve to undermine the

victim’s credibility. Thus, we are unconvinced that the trial court abused its

discretion in disallowing the admission of the victim’s crimen falsi convictions.7

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

the testimony provided by [the victim]. This footage also depicted … Appellant
leaping towards the victim and the victim fleeing the scene.”).
      Further, to the extent Appellant argues that there was a credibility
contest over whether the victim was carrying a knife, we consider that
argument to be unpersuasive. Even if the victim was carrying a knife, that
fact does not prove that Appellant was justified in attacking him, if Appellant
was not facing a life-threatening situation, had a duty to retreat and could
safely do so, and/or provoked the use of force. See Commonwealth v.
Charles, 2023 WL 7015598, at *4 (Pa. Super. filed Oct. 25, 2023) (“The
Commonwealth can disprove a claim of self-defense or defense of others by
establishing that: 1[.] the accused did not reasonably believe that he was in
danger of death or serious bodily injury; or 2[.] the accused provoked or
continued the use of force; or 3[.] the accused had a duty to retreat, and the
retreat was possible with complete safety. The Commonwealth must establish
only one of these three elements beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (cleaned up).
Appellant’s argument ignores these other considerations.

7 Because we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that the probative value of the victim’s convictions did not
substantially outweigh their prejudicial effect, we need not address whether
the notice given to the Commonwealth was sufficient.

                                          - 11 -
J-S33006-23

12/29/2023

              - 12 -
                                                                                �   iMANA
                                                                  Circulated 12/26/
                                                                  Cin:\Jlated 1
                                                                                  DPINION"

                                                                                koarv-
                                                                                pack /

            IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BEAVER
                                              BEA VER COUNTY,
                              PENNSYLVANIA
                            CRIMINAL DIVISION

 COMMONWEALTH
 COMMONWEAL TH OF
 PENNSYLVANIA
                                                     CP-04-CR-01651-2021
                   vs.
                   VS.

                                                     1412 WDA
                                                          WDA 2022
                                                              2022
TYRONE CLARK

                 P..
Shahen, Mitchell P                                         JANUARY 30,
                                                           JANUARY 30, 2023
                                                                       2023

  OPINION OF
          OE LOWER COURT PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P,
                                     PA.R.A.P. RULE 1925(al
                                                    1925()

         Tyrone
         Tyrone Clark
                Clark ("Appellant"
                      ("Appellant" or "Clark") appeals
                                               appeals from
                                                       from the
                                                            the August 5, 2022,
                                                                August 5, 2022,

judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County
                                                                    County

following his convictions of Aggravated Assault,' Simple Assault,'    Recklessly
                                                         Assault, and Recklessly

Endangering Another Person.'
                    Person.

                              PROCEDURAL
                              PROCEDURAL HISTORY
                                         HISTORY

         The charges against the Appellant stem from an incident occurring
                                                                 occurring at 924

                                                                              -
Beaver Avenue, Ambridge, Pennsylvania, in the early evening
                                                    evening hours of Sept~mber
                                                                     SepiAmber

                                                                      tr
                                                                      &
                                                                      £
                                                                        6.
                                                                      0rr
                                                                      n%
                                                                      cn r
                                                                         7.
                                                                              c_..
                                                                              f-

                                                                              w
                                                                              a
                                                                              o
                                                                                     -
                                                                                     5-
                                                                                     e
                                                                                     .a
                                                                                         ti

1 18 Pa.C.S. §
'18PC.S.        2702 (a)(1)
              $ 2702 (a(D)                                             a
                                                                              i      s
                                                                                     ge
218  Pa.C.S. §$2701(a)0
  18PA.CS.      2701(a)(1)                                                    ,...   et
                                                                                      r.
                                                                                      e
                                                                         _
3 18 Pa.C.S. $2705
'18P6CS.      §2705                                                           t      t
                                                                              �
                                      Page 1 of 83
                                           1 of83
 11,
 1, 202 1. The incident involved an altercation between the Appellant
     2021.                                                  Appellant and the

victim, William Christopher Brown
                            Brown ("Chris
                                  (Chris Brown" or
                                                or "victim")."
                                                   "victim").'

         By Criminal Information
                     Infonnation dated November S,
                                                5, 2021, the Appellant
                                                             Appellant was

charged
charged as
        as follows: ((1)
                      1) count of Criminal Attempt Criminal Homicide
                                           Attempt-Criminal Homicide (First
                                                                     (First

Degree Felony);
       Felony)'; ((1)
                   1) count Aggravated Assault
                                       Assault (First
                                               (First Degree
                                                      Degree Felony)';
                                                             Felony); ((1)
                                                                        1) count

Simple Assault
       Assault (Second
               (Second Degree Misdemeanor)';
                              Misdemeanor)'; ((1)
                                               1) count Recklessly Endangering
                                                        Recklessly Endangering

        Person (Second Degree Misdemeanor)';
Another Person                Misdemeanor); ((1)
                                              1) count Harassment--Subject
                                                       Harassment—Subject

Other to Physical
Other to Physical Contact
                  Contact (Third
                          (Third Degree
                                 Degree Misdemeanor)'.
                                        Misdemeanor°,

         Appearances were made by Assistant District Attorney
                                                     Attorney Bart Wischnowski

("Mr. Wischnowski") for the Commonwealth, and Attorney
                                              Attorney Max A. Schmierer

("Mr. Schmierer") for
("Mr. Schmierer") for the
                      the Defendant.
                          Defendant. Jury
                                     Jury selection
                                          selection began
                                                    began on
                                                          on July 5, 2022,
                                                             July 5, 2022, and
                                                                           and the
                                                                               the

trial was conducted from July 6, 2022 to
                                      t0 July 8, 2022. On July
                                                          July 11, 2022, the Jury
                                                                             Jury

returned
returned aaverdict finding the Appellant guilty
                           the Appellant guilty of
                                                of Count 2: Aggravated
                                                            Aggravated Assault,
                                                                       Assault,

Count
Count 3: Simple Assault,
                Assault, and
                         and Count
                             Count 4:
                                   4: Harassment;
                                      Harassment; the jury
                                                      jury was deadlocked as to

Count 1:
Count    Criminal Attempt—Criminal
      I: Criminal Attempt-Criminal Homicide.
                                   Homicide.

        On
        On August
           August 5, 2022, the
                           the Appellant
                               Appellant was sentenced to
                                         was sentenced to undergo imprisonment
                                                          undergo imprisonment

in aaState Penal
           Penal or Correctional Institution
                                 Institution or Facility
                                                Facility at Count 22for
                                                                    for not less than

°William   Christopher Brown
  William Christopher  Brown isis also
                                  also known
                                       known as Chris Brown
                                             as Chris       socially and
                                                      Brown socially     throughout his
                                                                     and throughout     community.
                                                                                    his community
s 18 Pa.C.S. $901(0),
'18PAC.S.    § 901(a); 18 Pa.C.S.
                          PA.C.S. §$ 2501(a)
e18 Pa.C.S. §$ 2702(a)(1)
'18PAC.S.      27026)0)
  18 Pa.C.S. $2701(a)(1)
'I8PAC.S.    § 2701(a)(1)
s18 Pa.C.S. $2705
'1SPA.CS.    §2705
9 18 Pa.C.S. §
'1$PAC.S.      270g(a)(1)
             42709()(1)

                                                 Page 2
                                                      2 of
                                                        0f 83
twenty-five (25)
            (25) years, nor more than fifty
                                      fifty (50)
                                            (50) years.
                                                 years. The court imposed
                                                                  imposed no

further sentence at Count 3
                          3 and Count 4.

          The Appellant fled
                        filed aatimely post-sentence motion on August
                                                               August 10,
                                                                      10, 2022. On

November 4,
         4, 2022,
            2022, the court entered
                            entered an       denying Appellant's
                                    an Order denying Appellant's Motion for
                                                                        for

Post-Sentence Relief.

          On November 30, 2022, the Appellant filed aa Notice of Appeal
                                                                 Appeal to the

Superior Court of Pennsylvania. On
                                On that      day, this
                                   that same day, this court entered an
                                                                     an Order

requiring the Appellant to file aaConcise Statement of Matters Complained
                                                               Complained of on

Appeal, pursuant
        pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
                    Pa.R.A.P. §$1925(b).
                                1925(b). The
                                         The Appellant
                                             Appellant timely
                                                       timely filed
                                                              filed a
                                                                    a Concise

Statement of Matters Complained on Appeal and aaConcise Statement of Errors

Complained on Appeal on December 21, 2022.

                              PRELIMINARY MOTIONS

     h
     I.   VoiR
          VOIR DIE
               DIRE

          Jury selection
          Jury           took place
               selection took place on
                                    on July
                                       July S,
                                            5, 2022;
                                               2022; interviews
                                                     interviews for
                                                                for Prospective Juror
                                                                    Prospective Juror

No. JPSA-8 took place on that same day. Mr. Schmierer asked for clarification on
No, JP5A.8

an unclear answer provided in Juror No.
                                    No, JPSA-8's questionnaire, in which it
                                        JP5A-8's questionnaire,          it

                                                             A summary of the
appeared the Juror had changed their answer from Yes to No." A

transcript on this matter is below:

          MR.
          MR. SCHMIERER: And I'm    I'm looking
                                        looking at your
                                                   your questionnaire here.
                                                                      here.
          There, it looks like you may have changed an answer. I'm just trying

pl
 Id. at
10      53.
     at53.

                                        Page 3 of 83
                                             3 of83
to clarify. The question was,
                           was, "would you have any   any problem
                                                          problem following
                                                                    following
the Court's instruction that the defendant in a   a criminal case does not
have
have to take
         take the
              the stand or
                        or present
                            present evidence and it  it cannot be
                                                                be held
against the
against  the defendant
             defendant if
                        if he or she
                           he or she elects
                                      elects to
                                             to remain   silent or
                                                remain silent   or present
                                                                   present no
                                                                            no
evidence?" You indicate on youryour form,
                                      form, it appears
                                               appears to be no,
                                                               no, but also,
                                                                        also,
the box may have been check yes.  yes.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. JL5A-8: I              I did change
                                                   change that. I  I thought
                                                                     thought
about
about that
       that when
            when I I did that, too. My
                                    My own personal
                                              personal belief
                                                        belief is,
                                                                is, sometimes
I
I think like if you would be a, if you were the defendant and you      you were
not
not guilty, you would want
                         want people
                                people in
                                       in a
                                          a jury to
                                                  to hear
                                                     hear your
                                                          your side of the
case so
case  so that
         that they  can understand
              they can               why you're
                        understand why    you're not
                                                   not guilty  or where
                                                       guilty or   where
you're coming from,
                 from, and
                        and you'd
                             you'd want
                                    want to stand
                                              stand up
                                                     up for
                                                        for yourself,
                                                            yourself, because
                                                                        because
I
I would want to stand up  up for myself
                                 myself if something
                                           something was said againstagainst me
that
that was  untrue.
     was untrue.

MR.
MR. SCHMIERER: Right.   Right. And
                                And that's
                                     that's certainly
                                            certainly a a reasonable   position
                                                          reasonable position
to take. We just
              just want  to know,  and  of course,   if that's your personal
                                                               your  personal
belief, that's your personal belief. We justjust want    to know,  if the Court
were to instruct you
                   you on that, as that Court's already,
                                                  already, you
                                                             you know,
                                                                 know, stated,
would you
        you be
             be able
                able to
                      to not
                         not hold
                             hold anything against
                                             against a a defendant
                                                          defendant should
                                                                     should he
                                                                             he
or she decide not
or              not to testify?
                       testify?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. JL5A-8: I
                              I would try, yes.
                                           yes.
MR. SCHMIERER: Okay. And I        completely understand. By
                                I completely                saying "I
                                                         By saying "l
would  try," do you have
would try,"         have some
                         some reservations about whether you'd
                                                         you'd be
                                                                be
able to do that?
           that'?
PROSPECTIVE
PROSPECTIVE JURORJUROR NO.      JL5A-8: I
                            NO. JL5A-8:  I mean
                                           mean I,
                                                I, no.  I'd still,
                                                    no. I'd still, like
                                                                   like it's
                                                                        it's
still,
still, my own person,
       my own         if it
              person, if it was me, I
                            was me,   would want
                                    I would        to defend
                                             want to  defend myself.
                                                               myself.
MR. SCHMIERER: I
               I understand. Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
MR.
MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Good
                 Good morning,
                      morning, Ma'am.
                               Ma'am.
PROSPECTIVE
PROSPECTIVE JUROR
            JUROR NO. JL5A-8: Hi.
                              Hi.
MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
    WISCHNOWSKI: Just a
                      a few
                        few follow
                            follow ups.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. JL5A-8: Okay.
                              Okay.
MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
MR.  WISCHNOWSKI: So      So if Judge Shahen
                                      Shaben instructed
                                               instructed you and the
other potential jurors you can't hold it against the defendant if he
chooses not testify
             testify could you
                           you follow that instruction?
                                 Page
                                 Page 440f83
                                        of 83
      PROSPECTIVE
      PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. JL5A-8:
                  JUROR NO. JLSA-8: Yes.
                                    Yes.
      MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Thank you.
                             you.
      (WHEREUPON, the prospective
                      prospective juror left the courtroom)
                                                 courtroom)

After
After the
      the trial court heard
          trial court       arguments regarding
                      heard arguments regarding the
                                                the Motion
                                                    Motion to Strike. The
                                                           to Strike. The
juror was returned to the courtroom and the following
                                            following occurred:
      ...
      THE COURT: Okay.
      THE              Okay. So, there's
                                 there's been
                                           been some
                                                some questions
                                                      questions that werewere
      raised, and IIjust have a
                              a question or two to ask you.
                                                         you. This involves
      something you've
      something   you've already  discussed, and
                          already discussed,   and as
                                                   as I
                                                      I was
                                                        was telling
                                                              telling the
                                                                       the parties,
                                                                            parties, II
      was listening. I'm going to ask you basically the question that Mr.
      Wischnowski asked you,
      Wischnowski           you, and II know
                                        know hehe asked
                                                  asked you
                                                         you a a lot.
                                                                 lot. I
                                                                      I told
                                                                        told you
                                                                              you in
                                                                                   in
      the beginning that I'm going to give
                                         give instructions on the law and you  you
      are to follow them, but also, I
                                    I told you
                                            you that you
                                                     you have to answer
      questions with
      questions  with candor
                      candor and
                              and honesty.
                                  honesty. The
                                             The candor
                                                  candor is
                                                          is important
                                                             important here.
                                                                           here.
      PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. JLSA-8:
                            JL5A-8: Okay.
                                    Okay.
      THE COURT: I'm going going to instruct you, as I
                                                     I told you
                                                            you earlier, that Mr.
      Clark,
      Clark, as  all Defendants,
              as all Defendants, are presumed innocent.
                                 are presumed   innocent. I'm
                                                           I'm also  going to
                                                               also going   to
      instruct you that the Defendant has an absolute constitutional right
                                                                         right not
      to take the witness stand, and I'm going
                                          going to tell you
                                                        you that cannot be held
      against him to any extent. II don't use that extra qualifier,
                                                         qualifier, but that is to
      say it simply
             simply cannot be.
      PROSPECTIVE
      PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. JLSA-8: Okay.
                        NO. JL5A-8: Okay.
      THE COURT: That is aafundamental principle,   principle, and if you
                                                                        you can't follow
      that, that's fine. If you
                              you think that there's aachance that you  you won't
      follow  it, just
      follow it,  just let
                        let us
                            us know.   So, the
                               know. So,    the question
                                                question is,
                                                           is, if
                                                               iflIinstruct
                                                                   instruct you   on that
                                                                             you on  that
      principle,
      principle, that
                   that he
                         he has
                            has that
                                 that absolute
                                      absolute right
                                                 right not
                                                       not to
                                                            to testify
                                                               testify and
                                                                       and it
                                                                            it can't
                                                                               can't be
      held against
      held  against him,
                      him, will
                             will you
                                  you follow
                                       follow that
                                               that instruction?
                                                     instruction?
      PROSPECTIVE
      PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. JLSA-8: Yes.
                        NO. JL5A-8: Yes.

      (WHEREUPON, the
                  the prospective juror left
                                        left the courtroom).
      THE COURT: So, gentlemen,
                            gentlemen, I   might add that that answer is
                                         I might
      consistent, and although I  I didn't observe the demeanor during the
      initial question,
              question, I
                        I did hear it and it sounded that same, with that same

                                         Page 5
                                              5 of 83
        resonance, and so Mr. Schmierer, I'm going
                                             going to respectfully
                                                      respectfully deny your
                                                                   deny your
        motion
        motion to strike this
               to strike this juror.
                              juror. 'II
 II.
 II. PRE-TRIAL M
     PRE-TRLAL   OTIONS
               MOTIONS

        Prior
        Prior to
              to opening statements, the parties
                                         parties met
                                                 met with
                                                     with the Court on record.
                                                                       record. The
                                                                               The

Court
Court addressed
      addressed the
                the defenses' motion
                              motion in
                                     in limine
                                        imine to
                                               to include
                                                  include evidence of
                                                                   of the victim's
                                                                          victim's

prior
prior convictions. The defense provided dockets
                                        dockets and criminal information for two

cases
cases involving
      involving Chris Brown.'
                      Brown.' A
                              A summary of
                                        of the Court's findings
                                                       findings on that motion

are
are below:

        Based
        Based on
               on the
                   the documents that
                                   that have
                                        have been
                                             been presented
                                                   presented toto the
                                                                  the Court,
                                                                      Court, Case
                                                                              Case
        No.  1.964 0f
        No. 1964    of 2005
                       2005 contains aaguilty plea
                                              plea that
                                                   that occurred
                                                          occurred on
                                                                   on July
                                                                       July 19, 2006,
                                                                                2006,
        to
        to Count
           Count 1,I, which
                      which was theft by
                                       by unlawful taking
                                                    taking as Misdemeanor
                                                                Misdemeanor in in the
        Second Degree
                 Degree with the factual
                                  factual allegations that
                                                        that can
                                                             can be ascertained from
                                                                                 from
        the
        the exhibit being that a
                               a toolbox
                                 toolbox containing several tools     belonging to
                                                                tools belonging
        Steven Dean was unlawfully taken by   by the alleged
                                                      alleged victim in this case,
        William Brown.
        The facts at Case No. 3157, where the alleged victim in this case was
        charged with and convicted of theft
        charged                        theft by
                                             by unlawful taking and received
                                                                    received a
                                                                             a
        two-year
        two-year probation
                  probation sentence on November 25, 2003, are not evident on
        the
        the exhibits.
       Under
       Under Rule 609,
                    609, for
                         for the
                             the purposes
                                  purposes of
                                            of attacking
                                               attacking the
                                                         the credibility of aa
       witness, evidence that aawitness has been convicted of a   a crime must be
                                                                               be
       admitted if it involved dishonesty
                               dishonesty and/or false statement. The Court
       finds that these two convictions do involve dishonesty and/or false
       statements, dishonesty
                    dishonesty in
                                in particular.
                                   particular.
       However, under the same rule, if more than ten yearsyears have passed since
       the witness's
           witness's conviction, and that is
                                           is the case,
                                                  case, or
                                                        or released
                                                           released from
       confinement, whichever is later, evidence of the conviction is
       admissible only if
                        if the probative
                               probative value
                                         value substantially outweighs its its
       prejudicial effect. Additionally,
       prejudicial         Additionally, the proponent
                                              proponent in
                                                         in this case,
                                                                 case, the

 Id, at 58-63.
 Id at58.63
 Defense Pretrial Exhibits A
Defense
t2                         A and B.
                                 B

                                        Page 6
                                             6of 83
                                               0f83
        Defendant,
        Defendant, must give
                           give an adverse party
                                             party reasonable
                                                   reasonable written
                                                               written notice
                                                                       notice of the
                                                                                  the
        intent to use it so that the party
                                     party has a
                                               a fair opportunity
                                                      opportunity to contest its use.
        By
        By virtue  of the
            virtue of  the plea,
                           plea, the  evidence in
                                 the evidence     in Case
                                                     Case No.
                                                            No, 1964
                                                                  1964 0fof 2005,
                                                                            2005, IIcan
                                                                                    can say
                                                                                         say
        that on the date of that plea, the alleged
                                              alleged victim was thirty-seven
                                                                       thirty-seven years
                                                                                     years
        old. That
             That information is  is gleaned from the the Guilty
                                                           Guilty  Plea
                                                                    Plea  Colloquy
                                                                          Colloquy  that
                                                                                    that  is
                                                                                          is
        part of
        part of this
                this hearing  evidence now.
                     hearing evidence     now. InIn this  case, the
                                                     this case,  the Defendant,
                                                                      Defendant, based
                                                                                   based
        upon our
        upon  our discussions
                   discussions yesterday,
                                 yesterday, has    available alternative
                                              has available    alternative means
                                                                             means for
                                                                                     for
        attacking the
        attacking       witness's credibility
                   the witness's    credibility and
                                                and those    alternative means
                                                      those alternative            consist
                                                                            means consist
        of different versions of the story, among
                                               among other things—at
                                                                things-at least as were
        recounted
        recounted to   me by
                    to me  by counsel
                               counsel last
                                         last night.
                                              night.
        In
        In this case, the
                      the Court is
                                 is also aware, based
                                                 based upon
                                                       upon the
                                                             the discussions, that
        the Commonwealth contends that it has a [surveillance]
                                                      [surveillance] video,
                                                                     video, as well
        as video of the officer's body
                                   body cam, that would allegedly
                                                           allegedly show the
        Defendant in
        Defendant   in the area where
                       the area where the   incident occurred.
                                        the incident occurred.
        There  is no
        There is     evidence indicating
                  no evidence   indicating that
                                             that the
                                                  the alleged
                                                       alleged victim
                                                                 victim in this case,
                                                                        in this  case, from
                                                                                       from
        the time of
        the time     2006 to
                  of 2006  to the
                              the current
                                   current time,
                                           time, has
                                                   has not   or could
                                                        not or  could not  have been
                                                                       not have   been
        rehabilitated
        rehabilitated during
                       during that
                               that time,
                                    time, and
                                          and there
                                                there is  no indication
                                                       is no              of a
                                                              indication of  a history  of
                                                                               history of
        other
        other matters
               matters from
                        from the
                             the long-ago    crimes that
                                  long-ago crimes     that the
                                                            the Defendant
                                                                 Defendant isis seeking
                                                                                seeking to
                                                                                         to
        use in this
        use in this case.
                    case.
        IIfind
          find that
               that under
                    under the   evidence that's
                           the evidence           available in
                                          that's available    in this   case, that
                                                                  this case,   that if these
                                                                                        these
        were to be used for any reason, they they  would    have   agreater
                                                                   a greater tendency
                                                                               tendency to
        smear the
        smear       character of
                the character  of the
                                  the witness
                                       witness and
                                                and suggest
                                                     suggest propensities
                                                               propensities that that are
                                                                                       are not
                                                                                             not
        related to the issues or at issue in this case. And under the
        circumstances
        circumstances of of this case, and
                            this case, and given
                                             given the
                                                    the age   of those
                                                         age of  those crimes,
                                                                          crimes, this
                                                                                    this
        evidence would
                   would not
                          not provide
                               provide aalegitimate
                                           legitimate reason
                                                        reason toto discredit
                                                                     discredit this
                                                                                 this witness
                                                                                       witness
        as an untruthful person under these circumstances. Ialso find that there
        as  an untruthful person   under  these  circumstances.       I also find  that    there
        was no
        was      written notice
              no written notice that
                                 that was
                                      was provided
                                            provided toto the
                                                           the Commonwealth
                                                               Commonwealth of        of this
                                                                                          this
        intention.
        intention.
        Based on all
        Based     all those
                      those factors,
                            factors, I'm going
                                         going to
                                               to deny
                                                  deny the
                                                        the oral
                                                            oral motion
                                                                 motion in limine
        of the
        of the Defendant
               Defendant to admit the criminal convictions of thethe alleged
                                                                     alleged victim
        in Case
        in Case Numbers
                Numbers 315     of 2002,
                           315 of  2002, and
                                         and 1964  of 2005,
                                             1964 of  2005, Beaver
                                                             Beaver County
                                                                     County
        numbers.
        numbers, • 3

 Transcript of Record, July 6, 2022, at
Tenseript
13                                   a1 18-22.

                                                 Page 7 of 83
                                                      7of83
      The next issue addressed in the pre-trial discussions involved the admission

of aarecorded
     recorded phone call
                    call made
                         made by
                              by the Appellant
                                     Appellant while he
                                                     he was
                                                        was incarcerated
                                                            incarcerated at
                                                                         at the
                                                                            the

Beaver County Jail,
              Jail. The relevant portions
                                 portions of the transcripts
                                                 transcripts are summarized below:

            THE COURT: Is there aadispute
            THE                   dispute as to what part
                                                     part is
                                                          is to be
                                                                be
            admitted?
            MR. SCHMIERER: One section of the jail
                                              jail call.
            MR. WISCHNOWSKI: We both listened to it last night, Your
            Honor, and from minute 18:04 to minute 18:20, the Defendant
            states that, he states the name of an individual and says
                                                                   says that
            he'd like that person
                            person to
                                    to put
                                       put together for the boys
                                                            boys something
                                                                 something to
            drop the charges. Like, the only way he can drop the charges is
            if he admits he had a a knife, unquote. It's seconds, and we would
            be offering
                offering it to show that the Defendant intended to try
                                                                     try to bribe
            the victim into not coming into court or bribing him into saying
                                                                          saying
            that he had aa knife so this was self-defense..
                                              self-defense.
            THE COURT: All
                       AII right.
                           right. Can you
                                      you read the quote
                                                   quote again
                                                         again to me?
            MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
                 WISCHNOWSKI He's talking  talking to a
                                                      a female and he says...
                                                                       says...
            "Talk to Will to put together for the boys something
                                                        something to drop the
            charges." Like, the only way he can drop
                                                  drop the charges
                                                           charges is if he
            admits he had aa knife.
            THE
            THE COURT: Mr. Schmierer, do    do you agree
                                                   agree that
                                                         that that
                                                              that is
                                                                   is the
                                                                      the
            quote
            quote that we're talking about?
            MR. SCHMIERER: Well, Your Honor, what I'll say first is
            that, you know, it's difficult for either myself
                                                       myself or Mr.
            Wischnowski to transcribe the call because it was difficult to
            hear in some respects. I I think that it would be most appropriate
            if the Court listens to this audio, hears the tonality of the
            speaker, and listens to the words that were stated to determine
            whether or not this is, in fact, what it says.
            THE COURT: I'llI'II listen to it, but if that's what it says, I
                                                                          I will
            make aaruling
                   ruling that it will come in.
            MR. SCHMIERER: Okay. Okay. And, Judge,
                                            Judge, II would just like to
            place on the record my reason for asking that it be excluded.
                           uncharged conduct that the Commonwealth
            This would be uncharged
                                      Page 8
                                           8 of 83
                would be
                       be alleging, and it would bebe essentially going to the
                character evidence that Mr. Clark is in some way attempting to
                bribe a
                      a witness. The way that 1 I interpreted it is that Mr. Clark
                was stating that he was understanding that this gentleman
                                                                    gentleman Will
                was putting something together for the boy. I   I believe he was
                referring to the alleged victim in this case, to drop
                                                                  drop the charges.
                It would be
                          be my interpretation and my argument that he   he 'was
                                                                             was not
                instructing anyone to bribe any witness or make any sort of
                request to bribe aawitness.
                THE COURT: Very well. Now, my question to you, is that aa
                matter of argument if the evidence is admitted? Is that
                something that you could argue or is that something that
                precludes the admission of this kind of evidence where
                somebody does something that expresses a      a consciousness of
                guilt?
                guilt?
                MR. SCHMIERER: Well, I       I mean, that's certainly up to
                                                                         to the
                Court to decide, and it would bebe argued if the Court permits
                                                                        permits its
                admission into evidence. But the defense is arguing at this-
                                                                          this point
                that it should not be admitted because of the danger of unfair
                prejudice, here in the fact that it's again uncharged conduct.
                                                                       conduct, It's
                unclear from the call the identity of the individual with whom
                Mr. Clark is speaking. It's also unclear from the call whether or
                not Mr. Clark is, in fact, instructing somebody
                                                        somebody to undertake this
                action or if he's merely stating that it's his understanding that
                such an action is being taken.
                                         taken."14

                THE COURT: Mr. Wischnowski, will you be admitting
                something into evidence which would be the record of this
                phone call?
                MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Yes. It's going to be Commonwealth's
                Exhibit 9.
                        9,

                MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Your Honor, the contested portion
                starts at 18:04. It's very quick. It's from 18:04 to
                                                                  t0 18:20.

 Id. at22-26
'Ad.
14   at 22-26

                                         Page 9
                                              9of 83
                                                of83
THE COURT: If you wouldn't mind, play play aalittle bit before,
Mr. Wischnowski,
     Wischnowski, so that II can warm up
                                      up to the different affects
that I'll be listening
             listening to.
                       to
MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
    WISCHNOWSKE I'll
                 TI start it at 17:50.

MR. WISCHNOWSKI: It's at 18:01 right now, so in 3
                                                3 seconds
it'll be Mr. Clark speaking
                   speaking
(WHEREUPON, the
            the audio was
                      was played).
                          played)

THE COURT: Okay. What the Court hears is "Talk to,"
literally word-for-word as I  I hear it, "Talk to Will because
Will's supposed to to give the boy   something to drop
                                boy something       drop the charges."
                                                               charges."
To me that's the part that I I need to rule on. That's the part
                                                              part that,
                                                                   that,
in effect, Mr.
in         Mr. Schmierer, what
                            what I I have
                                     have to
                                           to determine
                                              determine isis whether
                                                             whether
that could be interpreted as consciousness of guilt,
                                                   guilt, whether I I
can make
     make the
            the connection between
                            between Mr.Mr. Clark
                                            Clark over
                                                   over there
                                                        there and
                                                                and
what is supposed to be given to the boy, to, quote, "to drop  drop the
charges."
charges."
Who is the person? Who is the person that's involved in giving   giving
the boy something to drop the charges?
                                  charges? I If I determine   that it can
be interpreted to be Mr. Clark, well, then it's going
                                                    going to
consciousness of guilt. If II say, well, it doesn't sound that way way
and
and it can't be
             be interpreted  way,
                interpreted way,   then
                                   then we   can't  attribute
                                                    attribute that  to
Mr.
Mr. Clark.
    Clark.
If
 If this could be
               be interpreted
                  interpreted in
                               in such
                                  such aa way
                                          way that
                                               that Mr.
                                                     Mr. Clark is seen
as trying to put something out there to have the boy   boy "not show
up," and I I use that in aaquote because that's what we're talking
                                                                talking
about, then it's admissible. And I   I think that it's for the jury
                                                               jury to
decide if it can be interpreted
                     interpreted that way,
                                       way, because I  I believe it
                                                                  it
surely can, and in my audio observation, it's something
                                                   something that can
be
be interpreted that way,
                      way, especially when
                                        when you consider
                                                    consider that thethe
continuation of the phrase is about dropping the charges, and
it's clear what the discussion was, and that's what that issue
concerned.
I                recognize Mr. Clark's objection.
I understand and recognize              objection. However,
I'm going
    going to overrule that objection.
                           objection. Your objection
                                           objection and Mr.

                         Page 10 of83
                                 of 83
                    Clark's will be noted for the record so it's preserved.
                                                                 preserved. That's
                    what that means. And we'll let the jury hear that part
                                                                       part of it.
                    So, Mr. Wischnowski, the ruling is that the Commonwealth can
                    play the audio straight through, assuming there are no other
                    objections and it's properly.authenticated.'
                                                 authenticated."
                                                 TRIAL
                                                 TRIAL

         Trial commenced on July 6, 2022. The Commonwealth called multiple
                                                                  multiple

witnesses during their case in chief.
                               chief For purposes of this opinion, testimony of

Officer John Bialik, Jacque Brown, Beaver County Warden William Schouppe,
                                                                Schouppe, Dr.

Sabrina Christie, and William Brown have been summarized.

         On July 6, 2022, the Commonwealth called John Bialik
                                                       Bialik ("Bialik"), aapolice
                                                                            police

officer from the Borough of Ambridge, as their first witness.
                                                     witness."16 Bialik was

patrolling
patrolling Ambridge on September 11,
                                 11, 2021.
                                     2021. At
                                           At 7:35pm      evening, Bialik
                                              7:35pm that evening, Bialik was
                                                                          was

dispatched to the
              the area of 10 1 and Beaver Road
                       of 10              Road for aareport of aastabbing.
                                                                 stabbing. Bialik
                                                                           Bialik

testified that
          that as they
                  they approached 952 Beaver
                                      Beaver Road,
                                             Road, he
                                                   he encountered the victim
                                                                      victim in
                                                                             in

the screened-in porch of the residence. Bialik testified that Chris Brown's

demeanor was scared, "like he was going to die"!'
                                           die " and that he was holding a
                                                           17            a white

t-shirt that had turned red from being clenched to an injury on his neck, which ran

from his jawline, across his neck to the other side of his jawline. 18There
                                                                       There were

   Id. at 106-113
'Id.
15

M
16 1d. at68.
       at 68.
 A
17 Id. at73
       at 73.
 IA.
18 Id.aatt pg.
           pg. 73
               73

                                           Page 11
                                                11 of 83
                                                   6f83
additional wounds to Brown's armpit areas." Bialik stated that his main concern

when he saw Brown was to get him emergency
                                 emergency medical attention or he might die. 20
                                                                   might die."

            Officer Bialik received an account of the incident from the victim that he

went to the home of Ambridge resident Fred Turner when the defendant who was

on the porch
       porch of that residence slashed the victim, Chris Brown, "out
                                                                "out of

nowhere." 21 Brown was subsequently transported to a
nowhere."?'                                        ahospital
                                                     hospital by medical

helicopter.
helicopter. 22

            Bialik walked down the street to Turner's house to secure the crime scene

and search for Tyrone Clark."
                      Clark? Once at the residence, Bialik observed aatrail of

blood starting on the porch of the residence, leading onto the sidewalk and street.
                                                                            street. 24

Crime scene photographs, marked
                         marked as Exhibit
                                   Exhibit 2a through
                                              through 2i," showed blood
                                                      2i, showed

splatter behind
splatter behind a
                a white
                  white car parked near
                        car parked near 924
                                        924 Beaver
                                            Beaver Road 26 blood
                                                   Road,"
                                                        '        on the
                                                           blood on     street 27
                                                                    the street,

and blood directly on the staircase of the residence. 2$
                                           residence.3"

            At the
               the Turner home, Bialik came into contact with Freddie Turner and

Jayvon Turner who directed him to the upstairs apartment where he found Tyrone

pId.
19 l. at 74.
I.
20Id. at 74.
         74.
1
21Id.
1.
11Id. at 100.
         100
"
p Id. at77.
      at 77.
I
24Id. at
      at92
         92.
 Id.at
'p
2s   at 88. Admission of Exhibit
                         Exhibit 2 and 3were
                                 2 and  were stipulated/agreed
                                             stipulated/agreed to be
                                                                  be admitted
                                                                     admitted with
                                                                              with the
                                                                                   the consent of both
                                                                                                  both parties prior
                                                                                                       parties prior
to trial.
to trial.
Id.At97
1
26  at 97.
 Id.at
 J
27   at 99
        99.
29   Id.
     1 a at 100.
            100

                                                 Page
                                                 Page 12 of 83
 Clark in one of
              of the bedrooms. 21 At this
                     bedrooms. "     this time, Bialik observed               splatter
                                                       observed visible blood splatter

 on Clark's shoes. Clark was wearing
                             wearing clothes that matched the description given to
                                                              description given

police by Chris Brown; Clark was placed into custody
                                             custody immediately."
                                                     immediately."

          Bialik went
          Bialik      to the
                 went to the residence of Jacque
                             residence of Jacque Brown,
                                                 Brown, aaneighbor on Beaver
                                                          neighbor on        Road,
                                                                      Beaver Road,

who Bialik knew to have security cameras. Bialik spoke with Jacque
                                                            Jacque Brown, who
                                                                   Brown, who

provided him with
provided him      security camera
             with security camera footage.
                                  footage."31 Bialik was able
                                              Bialik was able to
                                                              to obtain
                                                                 obtain an
                                                                        an email
                                                                           email

                  containing the footage
from Jacque Brown containing     footage by             got back to the police
                                         by the time he got             police

station and
station and before
            before he
                   he filed
                      filed the Criminal Complaint.
                            the Criminal Complaint. 32

          On cross-examination, Bialik was asked to describe his career in law

enforcement, how police reports are written, what procedures
                                                  procedures are followed by
                                                                          by the

Ambridge Police Department in the course of conducting
                                            conducting interviews, and when

information gets turned
information gets        over to
                 turned over to the
                                the District
                                    District Attorney's
                                             Attorney's office.
                                                        office.'   Bialik stated
                                                                33 Bialik stated that
                                                                                 that he
                                                                                      he

was the affiant in this case, and as such he took charge
                                                  charge of the investigation
                                                                investigation.31 The
                                                                              .

following segments of the transcripts are relevant to the issues on appeal, and are

included verbatim below:
         verbatim below;

          [MR.  SCHMIERER ("
          [MR. SCHMIERER          Q")]: Okay.
                                (Q")]:  Okay. And
                                               And would        agree, it's
                                                    would you agree,   it's also
                                                                            also
          important as
          important as the
                       the affiant and investigating officer to interview
          witnesses?
          witnesses?
          [BIALIK ("A")]:
          [BIALIK (A")]: Yes.

"
1• Id. at 77.
30 Id.
"'Id.
31 Id. at 87.
   4.at87.
   Id. at
32I.   at 134-135.
          134-135
p4
33 1d. at 115-119.
       at115.119
14 1d. at 120, 121.
       at120,  121

                                         Page 13 of 83
                                                 of83
0: Okay. And the goal
Q:                goal of an interview would be to try    get to the
                                                   try to get
truth of what happened in a
                          a case. Is that fair?
A: Yes.
Q:  Okay. And
Q: Okay.        so, you
           And so,  you know,
                         know, obviously
                                obviously the
                                           the point
                                               point of
                                                     of the
                                                        the investigation
                                                            investigation
is to find
is to find out
           out what  actually happened
               what actually  happened in
                                        in the case. That's
                                           the case.         fair?
                                                     That's fair?
A: Yes.

Q: And so part of your investigation,
Q:And                                             gathering the physical
                        investigation, of course, gathering     physical
evidence as well as interviewing
                    interviewing witnesses.
                                  witnesses. That's
                                             That's fair?
                                                     fair?
A: Um-hum.
   Um-hum.
Q:
Q: Okay. And you justjust testified
                          testified that
                                    that you've
                                         you've done interviews
                                                     interviews in
                                                                in the
                                                                   the
past in that interview
             interview room
                        room at the police—
                                      police-
A: Yes.
Q: --the
Q:  --the police department; correct? In
                                      In the past
                                             past have you
                                                       you had the
opportunity to interview somebody who was being being accused of a
                                                                 a
crime?
crime?
A: Yes.
   Yes.
       alleged perpetrator?
Q: The alleged perpetrator?
A:
A: Yes.
   Yes.
Q: Okay.
   Okay. And
          And isis it
                   it fair
                      fair to
                           to say that you
                                        you would
                                              would interview this
                                                                this person
                                                                     person
with
with the
     the goal
         goal of trying
                  trying to, well,
                               well, one, trying
                                           trying  to
                                                   to find
                                                      find out what
                                                               what  their
                                                                     their
version
version of
        of the events would
                         would be?
                                be? IsIs that
                                         that fair?
                                              fair?
A: Yes.
A;
Q: Okay. And it would also be potentially
                                potentially to, if there was
incriminating evidence, to get
                           get it from them. Is that fair?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And,
Q:        And, you
               you know,
                    know, certainly there's stages of how
                                    there's stages     how you
                                                             you would
do this. You have to read them their Miranda rights.
                                               rights. Is that true?
A: Yes.
Q: And ifif they
            they want
                 want to speak with
                                with you,
                                      you, then
                                           then at that point they
                                                   that point they would
be
be able to
        to speak with
                  with you. Is
                            Is that
                               that true?
                                    true?
A:
A: Yes.
   Yes.

                                 Page 14 0f
                                         of 83
             Okay. And
          Q: Okay. And using
                       using your training as
                             your training as aapolice officer, you
                                                police officer, you would
                                                                    would
          interview them and gather this evidence in the course of your
                                                                   your
          investigation?
          investigation?
          A:
          A: Uh-huh.
             Uh-huh.
          Q: That's fair? Okay. And this can also serve in some circumstances,
                                                                       circumstances,
          if you interviewed aapotential suspect, if you were to determine after
          that
          that interview
               interview that
                           that they
                                they weren't
                                      weren't aapotential suspect, it
                                                potential suspect, it could potentially
                                                                            potentially
          clear that
                 that person.
                      person. Is
                               Is that
                                  that fair?
                                       fair?
          A: Yeah.
          Q: Okay. So, and obviously the goal of the
                                                   the investigation
                                                       investigation is to
                                                                        to uncover
                                                                           uncover
          the
          the truth of what's going on.
                       what's going on. That's
                                        That's accurate?
                                               accurate?
          A: Uh-huh.
          A: Uh-huh.
          Q: Okay. Now, again, what's in your
                                          your report you testified is the full
                                               report you
          account of what you did in your investigation
                                          investigation in this case. Is that true?
          A: Yeah.
          Q: Okay. Now,
          Q: Okay.  Now, is
                         is it fair to state
                               fair to state that
                                             that in this case
                                                  in this case you
                                                               you did  not conduct
                                                                    did not conduct a
                                                                                    a
          witness interview of the Defendant Mr. Clark? Is    Is that true?
          A: We did not formally interview him, no. He declined aastatement.
          Q: Okay. Is that in your
                              your report?
                                   report?
         A:
         A: It
            It is
               is not.
                  not."°
                       35

On redirect, the following questions were asked:
                 following questions

         MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Now, you were
                                   were asked a
                                              a number of questions
                                                          questions
         about the completeness of your investigation
                                        investigation by
                                                      by Mr. Schmierer;
                                                             Schmierer;
         correct?
         correct'?
         BIALIK: Correct.
         MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Is your duties as aapolice    police officer, is it fair to
         say that
         say that you  communicate with
                  you communicate          the attorneys
                                      with the  attorneys for the Commonwealth
                                                          for the Commonwealth
         and the attorneys
                  attorneys for
                            for the
                                the defense  quite frequently;
                                    defense quite  frequently; correct?
         BIALIK: Correct.
         BIALIK: Correct.

ssd.
   Id.at122-125
       at 122-125

                                         Page
                                         Page 15
                                              15 of 83
                                                 of 83
MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Is it customary for the defense to reach out to
the police sometimes to ask you questions
                                questions about aacase that you
                                                            you know
of?
MR.   SCHMIERER: I'm
MR. SCHMIERER:   I'm going
                     going to
                           to object,
                              object, Your
                                      Your Honor. Can we
                                           Honor. Can    have aa
                                                      we have
side bar?
THE COURT: Alright.
           Alright.
(WHEREUPON, the
(WHEREUPON, the following
                following proceedings
                          proceedings were had at
                                      were had at sidebar:)
                                                  sidebar:)
MR. SCHMIERER: I
MR.                   I would ask for
                                   for an
                                       an offer
                                          offer of
                                                of proof.
                                                   proof. I'm
                                                          l 'm not
                                                               not sure
                                                                   sure
where this going with the defense communicating
                                    communicating with the affiant, and
I
I think
  think it's
        it's beyond
             beyond the
                    the scope
                        scope of
                              of cross.
MR.
MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
      WISCHNOWSKI: Your  Your Honor,
                               Honor, hehe asked
                                            asked a
                                                  a lot of questions
                                                    lot of           about
                                                           questions about
                         investigation. I
the completeness of the investigation.    just want Officer Bialik to
                                        I just
testify whether or not Mr. Schmierer reached out to him to clarify
                                                               clarify
some of these points and whether hehe would
                                       would have
                                               have made himself
                                                           himself
available, if asked.
 MR. SCHMIERER: I      I don't know that it's appropriate
                                               appropriate then for the
 Commonwealth to  to suggest that the
                                   the defense              obligation to
                                        defense has some obligation     to
 communicate with
                with the
                     the arresting
                          arresting officer about any
                                                   any matters.
                                                        matters. IIthink what
the  Commonwealth, what
 the Commonwealth,     what Mr.
                              Mr. Wischnowski
                                   Wischnowski is is trying
                                                     trying to suggest to
                                                            to suggest      the
                                                                        to the
jury is
      is that somehow, asas a
                            a defense attorney,
                                       attorney, I
                                                 I have
                                                   have to reach
                                                            reach out
                                                                   out to the
                                                                           the
arresting officer and
                  and try to set up
                                  up some sort of interview—
                                                    interview-
THE COURT: The objection's overruled. It's not that he's saying   saying it's
an obligation. I
an              I don't
                  don't see that as the question. I
                                    the question. I see
                                                    see it as you've
                                                              you've now
                                                                      now
asked
asked aa lot
         lot of questions, the
             of questions, the majority
                               majority of
                                         of the
                                            the questioning
                                                questioning ofof the
                                                                 the
investigation and how he conducts it and his accessibility
                                                 accessibility you,
                                                                to you, not
an
an obligation.
   obligation. Your
                Your objection's
                      objection's overruled.
                                   overruled.
MR.
MR. SCHMIERER:
       SCHMIERER: If   If!Icould
                           could just renew
                                       renew my,
                                               my, what
                                                    what I  I tried to
                                                                     to do
                                                                        do is just
                                                                              just
phrase my questions as being pertinent to the initial statement of the
investigation. With respect to Mr. Clark, I   I believe that after Mr. Clark
has
has been
     been given
           given counsel, it would
                             would bebe inappropriate
                                        inappropriate to to comment on his
giving any sort of statement once he had received counsel because he
has
has aa Sixth Amendment
             Amendment right to  to counsel, and he he doesn't have to      give aa
                                                                         to give
statement. He did not have counsel at the scene when the questions
were directly whether or not he had been interviewed by        by police at the
scene. And
        And after that once he received
                                 received counsel, to comment on
whether or not
             not counsel has to
                              to reach to
                                        to the
                                           the police
                                                police to
                                                       to try
                                                           try to   get counsel's
                                                                 to get

                                  Page 16 0f
                                          of 83
 client's interview or anything like that I
                                          I believe would be inadmissible
 encroaching on the
 encroaching          right—
                  the right-
 THE COURT: The objection
                objection is overruled.
 MR.
 MR. SCHMIERER: Thank you,
                      you, Your
                           Your Honor.
                                Honor.
(WHEREUPON, the
(WHEREUPON,        the sidebar
                       sidebar proceedings were concluded,
                               proceedings were concluded, and
                                                           and
thereafter
thereafter the
           the following
               following proceedings
                          proceedings were
                                      were had
                                           had in open Court:)
                                               in open Court:)
THE COURT: Mr. Wischnowski.
MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Thanks, Your Honor. Officer Bialik,     Bialik, II was
asking you                               just in
       you about your communications, just        general, with
                                              in general,  with defense
                                                                 defense
attorneys with
          with the
               the cases that you conduct, the
                                           the investigations
                                                investigations that
                                                                that you
                                                                     you
lead. Do you know pretty much every
                                 every criminal defense in this county?
                                                                   county?
BIALIK
BIALIK ["A"]:
         ("A"J: I
                I know aalot of them I
                                     I would say.
                                             say. Yeah,
                                                  Yeah, I
                                                        I know aalot
of them.
of them.
MR.
MR. WISCHNOWSKI
     WISCHNOWSKI["         Q"]: Do
                         HO"]:  Do you
                                   you communicate
                                       communicate with them almost
                                                   with them almost
every day
every day or at least
          or at least every
                      every week?
                            week?
A:
A: Honestly,
   Honestly, no.
             no. IIhardly ever. Minus
                   hardly ever. Minus aafew,
                                        few, I
                                             I hardly ever speak
                                               hardly ever speak to
                                                                 to
them.
them.
Q: If
Q:  If aadefense lawyer reached
         defense lawyer         out to
                        reached out to you to ask
                                       you to ask you
                                                  you some
                                                      some questions
                                                            questions
about your investigation, would you
                                 you make yourself
                                            yourself available up
                                                               up until
the time of trial?
A:
A: If
   If someone called, yes.
      someone called, yes.
Q: Did anybody on Mr. Clark's behalf reach out to you
Q:                                                you to ask you
                                                             you
some of
some of those clarifying questions?
        those clarifying questions?
MR. SCHMIERER: I'm going to renew my objection,
                                     objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
THE COURT: Overruled.
           Overruled.
BY
BY MR.
   MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
       WISCHNOWSKI
O: The question is, did Mr. Schmierer or any
Q:                                         any counsel or Mr. Clark
ever reach out to you to ask you to clarify
                                    clarify some of those things
                                                          things you
                                                                 you
were asked about?
A:
A: No.
   No.
Q:
Q: Now,
   Now, you got to
                to watch
                   watch the
                         the video
                             video that Mr.
                                        Mr. Schmierer referenced
                                                      referenced of
                                                                 of
the surveillance
    surveillance camera footage;
                        footage; correct?
A: Yes.
   Yes.

                              Page 17 of 83
                                   17 0f83
   That was
Q: That was provided to you
            provided to you by Jacque Brown?
                            by Jacque Brown?
A: Yes.
Q: And
Q: And you watched it
       you watched    before you
                   it before you filed
                                 filed the
                                       the charges;
                                           charges; correct?
                                                    correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did that impact
   Did that impact the
                   the way that you
                       way that you filed
                                    filed the
                                          the charges and the
                                              charges and the
decisions that you
               you made
                   made when
                        when you
                             you prepared
                                 prepared your
                                          your Criminal
Complaint?
Complaint?
A: Yes.
Q: How
   How did it influence
              influence you? Well, let
                                   let me
                                       me ask it to you
                                                    you this way.
                                                             way. How
                                                                  How
many people
many people were
            were in
                 in that
                    that footage?
                         footage?
A: Two.
A: Two.
Q: And were you able to identify      easily?
                        identify them easily?
A: Yes.
Q: Who
Q: Who were
       were they?
            they?
A:
A: It
   It was William Christopher
      was William Christopher Brown
                              Brown and
                                    and the
                                        the Defendant.
                                            Defendant.
Q:
Q: Why
   Why weren't
         weren't you
                 you concerned
                     concerned that Mr.
                                     Mr. Brown
                                         Brown might
                                               might have
                                                     have raised
                                                          raised a
                                                                 a
knife
knife before the Defendant
                 Defendant raised
                           raised his
                                  his knife?
                                      knife?
A: His, it
A: His, it appeared
           appeared he
                    he had
                       had his
                            his arms
                                arms crossed.
                                     crossed. I don't want
                                              I don't want to,  we'll say,
                                                            to, we'll say,
                                     you
you couldn't really see his arm, but you  could  see he was  in a
                                                                a non-
threatening
threatening manner—
             manner-
MR.
MR. SCHMIERER:
      SCHMIERER: Your  Your Honor,
                               Honor, I'm
                                        I'm going
                                            going to
                                                   to object  at this
                                                      object at  this point.
                                                                      point. II
think
think that
       that we're  discussing the
            we're discussing        video that
                                the video  that we've, that
                                                        that hasn't   been
                                                             hasn't been
admitted into
admitted        evidence at
           into evidence   at this
                              this point, and obviously
                                   point, and obviously the
                                                          the video
                                                               video isis the
                                                                          the
best evidence
best evidence ofof what
                   what is  being discussed.
                         is being   discussed.
THE COURT:
THE COURT: Overruled.
           Overruled.
MR.
MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Thank you.
    WISCHNOWSKI: Thank you.
BY MR.
BY MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
       WISCHNOWSKI:
Q: So you were explaining
                explaining that Mr. Brown was standing
                                                standing in aa
nonthreatening
nonthreatening way.
               way. How
                     How was
                           was the
                               the beginning of the
                                   beginning of the video,
                                                    video, how
                                                           how was
                                                               was
Mr.
Mr. Clark
    Clark portrayed
          portrayed in
                    in that
                       that video?
                            video?
A: Passive. If IIhad to describe him, he was lounging.
                                             lounging.
Q: Was
   Was he
       he seated?
          seated?

                                 Page 18 of 83
                                         6f83
            A: Yes.
            Q: And is there aapoint where he's not in his seat any
                                                               any longer?
                                                                   longer?
            A: Yeah. He gets up, and it appears from the video that he is also
            nonthreatening until all of a
                                        a sudden you could see him moving, but it
            wasn't, like, aggressive, like hands up like he was going to fight.
                                                                         fight. He
            was just moving, and then you see a a sudden thrust[sic].
                                                          thrust[sic].
            Q: Based on your evaluation of that video which we'll see soon, was
            Mr. Brown ready for the actions that the Defendant took?

            MR. SCHMIERER: Objection.
            MR. SCHMIERER: Objection. Calls
                                      Calls for
                                            for speculation.
                                                speculation.
            THE COURT: Sustained.
            BY MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
                   W1SCHNOWSKJ:
            Q: After you watched the video and evaluated both parties' behavior,
            did you think there was any basis to believe that the Defendant acted
            in self-defense such that you couldn't file charges?
            MR. SCHMIERER: Objection. This calls for legal conclusion.
            THE
            THE COURT: Sustained. "
                COURT: Sustained. 36

            The Commonwealth's next witness was Jacque Brown, a
                                                              a neighbor of Fred

Turner, who provided surveillance footage related to the incident to investigating
                                                                     investigating

officers.
officers.'37 Jacque Brown testified that she reviewed her security footage after

Officer Bialik came to her residence and asked her to check her cameras."

            Approximately one minute of the video was played for the jury; Jacque

Brown was able to verify the contents of the video and confirmed that the camera

that captured this footage was motion activated.   The footage depicted Chris
                                      activated.39The

 Id. at 137.
I.
11      137- 144
pl at 144
'7 Id. at
        I44
IId.
11d. at 148.
pId.at
39   at 150.1$2;
        150-152; see also, Commonwealth Exhibit 8
                                                8.

                                               Page
                                               Page 19
                                                    19 of 83
                                                       of83
 Brown standing by aapillar on Fred Turner's porch
                                             porch with the Appellant
                                                            Appellant seated

 behind him."
 behind him.

            The Commonwealth's
                Commonwealth's next witness
                                    witness was         Schouppe ("Schouppe"),
                                            was William Schouppe ("Schouppe"),

 Warden of the Beaver County Jail,"
                             Jail,41 who verified that the Appellant
                                                           Appellant was an inmate

 at the
    the Beaver
        Beaver County
               County Jail
                      Jail in September of
                                        of 2021
                                           2021.42 Inmates
                                                   Inmates at
                                                           at the facility
                                                                  facility are
                                                                           are

 allowed to place and receive phone calls, these phone
                                                 phone calls are recorded and

 subjected to monitoring 24/7;  both parties on the call hear an audio recording
                         24/743both                                    recording that

informs
informs them
        them the
             the call
                 call is subject to
                      is subject to monitoring and recording
                                    monitoring and recording..41

           Schouppe testified that the Appellant placed aaphone call on September
                                                                        September 26,

2021, and that Schouppe had an opportunity to review and authenticate the

recording prior to giving his testimony.
                              testimony."15 The jail
                                                jail phone
                                                     phone call was admitted under

Commonwealth's Exhibit 9
                       9 and played for the jury
                                            jury with no objection
                                                         objection from the

defense. 46
defense."

           Dr. Sabrina Christie, a
                                 a staff surgeon at UPMC Presbyterian,
                                                         Presbyterian, was called as a
                                                                                     a

witness for the Commonwealth. 47Dr
                                Dr. Christie covers the trauma surgery
                                                               surgery service

and attends to patients who are injured         surgical emergencies.
                                injured or have surgical emergencies."48

Ad     at 151.
40 Id. at151

 Id. at
"4.
41   at 154.
        154.
42 1d.
I
"Id.   at 156.
43 Id. at 156.
44   1d.
     d
4s Id. at 157.
   Id. at 1$7
   Portions played
portions
46           played during
                    during trial and submitted to
                                               to evidence were limited to ((I
                                                                             1) from minute 4:39-4.59;(2)
                                                                                            4:39-4:59; (2) 8.34-8.:54;
                                                                                                           8:34-8:54;
(3) 14:07-14:55;
     14.07-14:55, (4)
                  (4) 18:04-18:20.
                      18.04-18.20
"1
41 Id.at165
       at 165.
4s id.
d
                                                   Page 20 0f
                                                           of 83
        During her testimony, the Commonwealth asked Dr. Christie to "educate the

jury aalittle bit about the different types
                                      types of bleeds that you
                                                           you might
                                                               might see and how you
                                                                                 you

 might rank or characterize the types of bleeds that
                                                that [she
                                                     [she would]
                                                          would] see in the trauma

 unit?"   at which point a
 unit?"49at              a sidebar was requested
                                       requested by
                                                 by the defense, which is transcribed

          below:
 verbatim below;

       MR. SCHMIERER: Judge, it's my                 understanding that Commonwealth
                                               my understanding
       does not intend to qualify this witness as an expert     expert in this case,
                                                                                  case, and I   I
       thought
       thought it it was
                     was fair
                         fair for
                               for the
                                    the Commonwealth
                                         Commonwealth to      to have
                                                                  have the
                                                                         the doctor
                                                                              doctor testify
                                                                                       testify a a
       little bit about the trauma unit and her experience
                                                        experience there. My    My concern is
       that she's now getting
                          getting into medical specific
                                                     specific testimony
                                                                testimony that would
       require
       require her
                 her being   made an
                      being made      an expert.
                                          expert. If
                                                   If she  starts giving
                                                      she starts   giving medical
                                                                             medical
       testimony
       testimony about
                     about different
                           different types
                                        types of
                                               of bleeds    and what
                                                   bleeds and     what she     categorizes as
                                                                          she categorizes      as
       different types
       different   types of
                          of injuries,
                             injuries, now,
                                          now, it's
                                                it's my
                                                     my understanding
                                                         understanding the    the
       Commonwealth will ask her about her observations about the alleged               alleged
       victim, what she did, which IIthink is fair fact testimony, testimony,    but  to  ask
       her medical scientific opinion questions about the types         types of injuries
                                                                                   injuries and
       how
       how she categorizes
                   categorizes them
                                 them I  I think
                                           think goes
                                                  goes beyond
                                                        beyond a    a fact
                                                                      fact witness
                                                                            witness and
                                                                                      and itit
       moves it into the realm of an expert  expert testimony.
                                                     testimony.      And   the
       Commonwealth in its     its statement
                                   statement did not not intend
                                                          intend to to offer this
                                                                              this witness
                                                                                   witness as
       an expert, and so I  I just
                              just want to make sure that we keep       keep it as aafact
       witness.
       THE COURT: Mr.
       THE COURT: Mr. Wischnowski_
                      Wischnowski
            WISCHNOWSKI: Your
       MR. WISCHNOWSKJ:         Your honor,  she just
                                      honor, she       described the
                                                 just described       different
                                                                  the different
       levels
       levels of
              of trauma,
                 trauma, 1
                         1 through
                           through 3, and
                                      and I
                                          I want
                                            want her
                                                 her to
                                                      to be able to
                                                         be able    explain
                                                                 to explain
       William Brown was admitted at the highest
                                             highest tier as aaLevel 1.
                                                                     I. I1think
       she deserves to
                     to give some content, and I I haven't           any
                                                   haven't asked her any
       opinion testimony. I I haven't
                              haven't asked her
                                            her to       any opinion-based
                                                to draw any   opinion-based
       conclusions.
       conclusions.
       MR. SCHMIERER: If
       MR. SCHMIERER: If I
                         I may
                           may respond, Judge.
                               respond, Judge.
           COURT: Yes.
       THE COURT: Yes .

 Pg. 170-17l
Pg.
49   170-171

                                            Page 21 0f83
                                            Page 21 of 83
          MR. SCHMIERER: I         I think that she can say   say that Mr. Brown was aa
          Level 1,I, because that's a  a fact. II think to ask her the specifics
                                                                          specifics about
          why, delve into her opinion
                                 opinion about why    why she thinks that this person
                                                                                 person was
          admitted as aaLevel     1, it,
                           Level I,  it, IIthink
                                            think is,
                                                   is, it's
                                                       it's kind
                                                             kind of
                                                                  of nuanced,
                                                                     nuanced, but
                                                                               but II would
                                                                                      would
          ask the Court to restrict the testimony
                                             testimony to justjust what her observations
          were
          were and thethe fact
                          fact that he was
                                         was admitted
                                               admitted to  to Level
                                                               Level 1.
                                                                      L. That's a
                                                                                a fact.
                                                                                  fact. Why
                                                                                        Why
          was
          was he admitted to Level
                                 Level 1?  1? Well, because          injury met
                                                      because his injury    met certain
          criteria that would—
                        would--
          THE COURT:
          THE    COURT: All  All right.  The objection
                                  right. The   objection is
                                                          is overruled.
                                                             overruled. I
                                                                        I see
                                                                          see in  this
                                                                               in this
          testimony where we
          testimony            we are now.
                                        now. IfIf we
                                                  we go
                                                      go to
                                                         to aapoint
                                                              point where       expert
                                                                    where an expert
          opinion is being
                       being asked, you can renew your         objection, but where we
                                                         your objection,
          are now
          are  now is  seen as
                    is seen  as foundational.
                                 foundational. Given
                                                   Given her  experience so
                                                          her experience   so far,
                                                                              far, there's
                                                                                    there's
          circumstances she has to know to serve in this capacity.capacity. So, I I think
          that
          that she
                she can say
                         say and serve
                                    serve in
                                           in this capacity. They
                                              this capacity.  They aren't expert
                                                                            expert
          opinions. But if you
          opinions.           you think the line is crossed, we're not there yet,  yet, you
                                                                                        you
          will have obviously an opportunity
                                       opportunity to renew your     objection and
                                                                your objection
          continue our discussion.
                          discussion."  50

          Dr. Christie generally
          Dr. Christie generally described
                                 described different
                                           different types of bleeds
                                                     types of        that occur
                                                              bleeds that occur in
                                                                                in aa

patient
patient with a
             a laceration
               laceration injury.
                          injury, She also described
                                           described how
                                                     how trauma is
                                                                is leveled
                                                                   leveled in
                                                                           in order

to care for
to care     patients admitted
        for patients admitted at
                              at UPMC,
                                 UPMC, explaining, "a Level
                                       explaining, "a Level 1
                                                            I trauma is if you
                                                              trauma is    you have
                                                                               have

a
a penetrating
  penetrating injury, meaning aacut
              injury, meaning       or aagunshot
                                cut or   gunshot wound
                                                 wound to
                                                       to your arms closer
                                                          your arms closer to
                                                                           to your
                                                                              your

                           legs closer to your
body than the elbows, your legs                body than the knees,
                                          your body                 anywhere on
                                                             knees, anywhere

your torso at all, or on your head and neck, and the reason is that those injuries
                                                                          injuries are,

by definition, life
               life threatening."
                    threatening.">' The Commonwealth then
                                      $1             then turned to the following
                                                                    the following

questions:
questions:

          MR. WISCHNOWSKI: And let's turn it more specifically to
          lacerations across the neck.
          A.: Okay.
          A:

so Id.
1      at 173.
    4at173.
  Id. at174.
 14.
51    at 174.

                                            Page 22 of
                                                    0f 83
Q: How many      thoseihave you treated
         many of those-have     treated in
                                        in your
                                           your years
                                                years working
                                                      working around
the hospital?
A: Hundreds.
   Hundreds.
Q: Now, and have you studied anatomy extensively throughout
                                                 throughout your
different
different levels
          levels of education?
                    education?
A:
A:IIhave.
    have.
Q: Explain
Q: Explain the
           the significance
               significance what the
                                 the platysma
                                     platysma muscle
                                              muscle is.
                                                     is.
A: So, the platysma
           platysma muscle is a   a fine muscle that overlies the front of
the neck.
the neck. If,
          If, you can see, I
              you can       I can show you.
                                         you. It's
                                              It's that
                                                   that muscle when II flex
                                                                       flex
(demonstrating). It's
                  It's very
                       very thin.
                             thin.
If
lfaapenetrating injury, aa knife or a
                                    a gunshot wound goes
                                                      goes through
                                                           through that
platysma muscle, it enters the zone of the neck where all of the major
                                                                  major
structures lie. And so, if you have aalaceration that doesn't make it
                                                                    it
through that muscle, classically you can wash that laceration out at the
bedside. It doesn't need to be taken to the operating
                                            operating room because you you
have really no shot of having aaserious injury.
Deeper than that,
            that, you
                  you go to
                         to the
                            the operating
                                operating room
                                           room because you
                                                        you could cut
any number of things that are life threatening.
Q:
Q: In terms
      terms of the depth of
                         of the cut, how
                                     how many
                                         many centimeters past
                                                          past the
                                                               the
platysma is concerning as aa trauma surgeon?
A: Anything—
   Anything-
MR.
MR. SCHMIERER:
     SCHMIERER: Your Honor,Honor, I'm
                                  I'm going
                                      going to object at
                                                       at this
                                                          this point. I
                                                                      I
think we're, again,
             again, we're
                    we're going beyond that
                                        that scope
                                             scope of fact
                                                      fact to
                                                            to opinion
                                                               opinion
witness.
THE COURT: Mr. Wischnowski.
MR.
MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Your Honor, I          I didn't
                                          didn't ask her
                                                     her to give an
opinion.
opinion. II asked her factually as aatrauma surgeon how deep does a  a cut
have to be     be concerning.
        be to be  concerning. Again, this is within the context of the
different levels of trauma that she's already discussed.
THE COURT: Well,
THE             Well, based
                      based on what
                               what we
                                     we discussed and
                                                   and the progress
                                                           progress of
                                                                    of
your questions, I
your questions, I am
                  am going to sustain the objection and ask you to
move on.
BY MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
       WISCHNOWSKI

                               Page 23 of 83
                                       0f83
Q: You said that
   You said that there's
                 there's major
                         major parts
                               parts of the neck
                                     of the neck that
                                                 that if
                                                      if you
                                                         you pierce
                                                             pierce the
                                                                    the
platysma are very concerning.
                  concerning. What are those body
                                             body parts
                                                  parts or vessels?
A:
A: So there's
        there's the major
                      major artery and veinvein that gogo to
                                                          to the
                                                             the brain and come
back from the brain. So that's your   your carotid and youryour internal jugular.
                                                                           jugular.
And then
And   then there's
            there's aathick   nerve that
                        thick nerve    that runs
                                            runs with
                                                  with that
                                                        that bundle
                                                             bundle that
                                                                      that if's
                                                                            it's very
                                                                                 very
important
important notnot to cut as
                 to cut   as well  called the
                             well called   the vagus
                                               vagus nerve.
                                                        nerve. And
                                                               And then
                                                                     then the    other
                                                                            the other
structures that
structures        we really
             that we   really worry    about being
                              worry about     being immediately      life
                                                      immediately life
threatening
threatening are any injury
                         injury to
                                to the
                                    the trachea, the    airway, or
                                                   the airway,         your
                                                                 or to your
esophagus. That won't
                    won't immediately kill   kill you,      esophageal injury,
                                                  you, an esophageal      injury, but
                                                                                   but
it will kill you
             you in
                  in aanumber
                        number of of hours.
                                      hours.
Q:
Q: Now,
    Now, let's turn
                tum to
                    to September 11,   2021. Were
                                  I I, 2021. Were you
                                                  you working
                                                      working in
                                                              in the
                                                                 the
trauma unit
trauma       at Presby
       unit at  Presby that
                       that evening?
                            evening?
A: Yes.
   Yes. I
        I was
          was the
              the staff surgeon on call.
Q: And did you treat aapatient named William Brown that evening?
Q:And                                                   evening?
A:
A: I
   I did.
     did.
Q: And based on the things you did that night      your patient
                                        night with your patient
William Brown,
William        did you
        Brown, did you prepare
                        prepare a
                                a report?
                                  report?
A:
A: IIdictated
     dictated an
              an operative
                 operative dictation,
                           dictation, yes.
                                      yes.

Q:
Q: I'm
   I'm handing
       handing you
                you a document. Can
                    a document.     you take
                                Can you take aalook
                                               look at
                                                    at that?
                                                       that? Do you
                                                                you
recognize that two-page
recognize that two-page document'?
                        document?
A:
A: I
   I do.
     do.
Q: What
Q: What is
        is it?
           it?
A;
A; It's my operative
   It's my  operative dictation,
                      dictation, so
                                 so my description of
                                    my description of what
                                                      what I
                                                           I did in the
                                                             did in the
operating
operating room.
           room.
Q: And is there aadate near the top
Q:And                           top of it,
                                       it, aasurgery
                                             surgery date?
A:
A: Yes.
   Yes.
Q: What
   What is
        is that date?
           that date?
A: It is 9/11/2021.
Q: And above
Q:And  above that,
             that, does
                   does it say the
                        it say the patient
                                   patient name?
                                           name?
A: It
A:    does.
   It does.
Q: What's
   What's the name of the
                      the patient?
                          patient?

                                   Page 24 0f
                                           of 83
A: William
   William Brown.
           Brown.
 ...
MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Your Honor, I'd move for admission of
Commonwealth's Exhibit 11.
                       II
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR.
MR. SCHMIERER:
    SCHMIERER: Can
               Can we approach?
                   we approach?
THE COURT:
    COURT: Sure.
                          proceedings were had
(WHEREUPON, the following proceedings          at sidebar:)
                                           had at
MR. SCHMIERER: I
MR.                    I don't have any   objection to
                                    any objection    to this being
                                                             being admitted
and made
and  made part of the
                   the official record. I
                                        I just want
                                               want to clarify
                                                        clarify for the
                                                                    the
record, and II think Mr. Wischnowski agrees,
                                          agrees, this should not go
                                                                   go back
to
to the
   the jury.
       jury.
THE
THE COURT: Right.
           Right.
MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Yeah. I'm not asking
                               asking for that.
MR.
MR. SCHMIERER:
       SCHMIERER: As  As long as that's clear,
                                        clear, I
                                               I don't have
                                                       have an objection
                                                            an objection
to it being admitted and made part of the official record.

BY MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
       WISCHNOWSKI
   Now, walk
Q: Now,      us through
        walk us through when
                          when you
                                you first
                                     first became
                                           became aware
                                                   aware ofof Mr.
                                                              Mr.
Brown's admission to
Brown's admission  to the
                      the trauma, or to
                          trauma, or  to the
                                         the hospital that night.
                                             hospital that night.
A: We
A: We all
       all carry pagers that all these Level
                                        Level Il and Level
                                                      Level 22traumas are
sent out across so that
sent                that we can respond   appropriately. The patient
                                 respond appropriately.        patient
obviously
obviously met   criteria for
           met criteria  for aaLevel
                               Level 1
                                     I trauma,
                                       trauma, and
                                                 and so
                                                     so a
                                                        a Level
                                                          Level 1I page
                                                                   page was
                                                                        was
sent out, and we came to the trauma bay.bay,
The patient was brought in with a  a large
                                     large dressing over his neck which
is often the case when somebody
                         somebody has substantial bleeding.
                                                      bleeding. People
                                                                  People tend
to cover it up with aadressing trying to stop the bleeding,
                                                   bleeding, but youyou can
hide aalot of blood under the dressing. So, one of the very things
                                                                 things that
we do is to make sure that we see the injury,
                                         injury, so I
                                                    I took the dressing
                                                                 dressing
down very
       very quickly,
            quickly, and
                      and it
                          it was
                             was immediately
                                 immediately clear
                                               clear that
                                                       that this
                                                            this was
                                                                 was aa life-
                                                                        life-
threatening
threatening bleed.

                                Page 25 of
                                        0f 83
         Q:  I'm going
         Q:I'm    going to
                         to show you
                                  you Commonwealth's Exhibit
                                                         Exhibit 4.°
                                                                 4.  I
                                                                     I understand    52

         that, that's already
                      already in evidence, but I
                                               I understand you
                                                             you didn't take that
         photo,
         photo, but does that look similar to the sight
                                                   sight you
                                                         you say
                                                             say when you
                                                                        you looked
         at Mr.
         at Mr. Brown?
                 Brown?
         A: It
         A:    does.
            It does.
         Q:
         Q: Okay. And what's,
            Okay. And   what's, as an
                                   an experienced
                                       experienced surgeon, as an
                                                   surgeon, as an experienced
                                                                  experienced
                 practitioner, what is your biggest
         medical practitioner,              biggest concern when you
                                                                   you look at
         something like that in a
         something              a patient?
                                  patient?
         MR.                going to
         MR. SCHMIERER: I'm going to object,
                                     object, Your Honor.
                                                  Honor. I think—
                                                         I think-
         THE COURT: Rephrase
         THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
                             the question.
         BY
         BY MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
            MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
         Q:
         Q: What's  your priority
            What's your   priority when  you look
                                   when you        at a
                                              look at   patient who
                                                      a patient who has
                                                                    has aa
         laceration
         laceration across his
                           his neck
                               neck and
                                     and his
                                         his throat like
                                                    like that?
                                                         that?
         A: Preventing
         A:            him from
            Preventing him from dying.
                                dying.
         Q: So what is
                     is the
                        the first
                            first thing that
                                        that you did
                                                 did when
                                                     when you
                                                          you saw
                                                              saw him       you
                                                                  him after you
         looked
         looked at the wound?
                at the wound?
         A:
         A: He was
                was actively bleeding inin aalife-threatening  way, and so II
                                             life-threatening way,
         manually
         manually compressed
                    compressed the
                                 the bleeding,
                                     bleeding, which
                                                 which in
                                                        in him  was the
                                                           him was  the entire
                                                                        entire rim
                                                                               rim of
                                                                                   of
         tissue on the lower
                        lower portion
                              portion of this
                                         this laceration. So
                                                           So I
                                                              I wrapped
                                                                wrapped with
                                                                          with my
         hands  like this
         hands like  this (demonstrating).
                          (demonstrating).

         Q: Okay.
         Q: Okay. So
                  So where
                     where did
                           did you take him?
                               you take him?
        A:
        A: To
           To the operating room
              the operating room immediately.
                                 immediately.

        Q:
        Q: So, you
               you get
                   get up to the operating
                                 operating room.
                                           room. Tell us
                                                      us what
                                                         what you
                                                              you did
                                                                  did next.
                                                                      next.
        A:
        A: Well,
           Well, the
                  the patient had to
                      patient had to have
                                     have a
                                          a breathing
                                            breathing tube
                                                      tube placed, so I
                                                           placed, so I held  the
                                                                         held the
        incision while the
        incision while  the anesthesiologist
                            anesthesiologist placed the breathing
                                             placed the breathing tube
                                                                  tube there.
                                                                        there.
        And   then in
        And then      order to
                   in order to move
                               move him
                                     him over
                                         over and
                                               and clean
                                                   clean the  area as
                                                         the area  as we
                                                                      we normally
                                                                          normally
        do for
        do      surgery, I
           for surgery,  I couldn't move my
                           couldn't move my hands,
                                              hands, and
                                                     and I  believe my
                                                          I believe  my resident
                                                                         resident
        was in
        was  in another
                another room
                         room with
                               with another
                                    another trauma,
                                            trauma, and  so I
                                                     and so  I actually
                                                               actually had  to
                                                                        had to
        have the anesthesiologist,
                  anesthesiologist, I
                                    I showed him where to hold, and I   I very
                                                                          very

"Commonwealth
 commonwealth Exhibit 4 4 was aaphotograph of the neck
                                                    neck wound sustained by the victim, Transcript of Record, July
6, 2022, at 72, Commonwealth v.
                             tip. Clark, 1651 of 202
                                                 2021.

                                                 Page
                                                 Page 26
                                                      26 of 83
                                                         0f 83
                                                            Circulated 1200331M.15 PM

quickly got some sutures and IIover-sewed the exsanguinating
bleeding so I
            I could just prep him for operation.
Q: How common is that to go right to stitching at that point in the
operating procedure?
MR. SCHMIERER: I'm going to object, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
Q: Now, did you take note of how big the laceration across the neck
was?
was?
A: Imeasured it in the operating room.
A:I
Q: How big was the laceration?
          14 centimeters long by 7
A: It was I4                     7 centimeters wide by 55centimeters
deep.
Q:
Q: Is the 55centimeters in depth enough to pierce the platysma
muscle?
MR. SCHMIERER: I'm going to object, Your Honor. Again, this is,
calls for expert testimony.
THE
THE COURT:
    COURT: Overruled.
           Overruled.
BY MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
       WISCHNO WSKI
Q: You can answer the question.
THE COURT: In this particular case we're talking about?
MR. WISCHNOWSKI: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
Q: In this particular case, was the 5
                                    5 centimeters in depth that you
observed enough to pierce the platysma muscle?
A: His platysma muscle was completely separated.

Q: Now, to sum it all up, was Mr. Brown in danger of death before
                                                           before he
came into your care that night?
MR. SCHMIERER: Objection,
                     Objection, Your Honor.

                              Page 27
                              Page    of 83
                                   27 0f 83
           THE COURT: Overruled.
           BY MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
           Q:
           Q: Was
              Was he—
                  he
          A: Yes. Absolutely.
           Mr. Wischnowski: No further questions, Your Honor. 53
          The following
              following day, the
                             the Commonwealth called the alleged victim,
                                                     the alleged victim, William
                                                                         William

Christopher Brown
            Brown ("Chris
                  ("Chris Brown"), to testify."
                                      testify. Chris Brown testified that he has

lived on Beaver Road for 21
                         2l years,
                            years," and had interacted with Tyrone Clark before
                                                 55

the incident occurred.
             occurred."S6 Chris Brown stated that he knew Clark well enough to

recognize him in person, and accurately identified him in the courtroom during
                                                                        during his

testimony. 57
testimony.°

          On September 11, 2021, at around 7:30 p.m., Chris Brown left his house and

headed for Fred Turner's house to see Jayvon Turner, explaining that he had no

weapons on him. 58 When he arrived at Fred Turner's porch, Tyrone Clark was
           hin.5%

sitting on the Tumer's
               Turner's porch. Brown asked Clark if he could go get Jayvon Turner

for him, Clark told Brown to knock on the door.
                                          door."Chris
                                                Chris Brown began knocking on

the door, but received no response.
                          response. 60 At this point, Chris Brown rested against the

porch post, with his hands folded underneath his arms.
                                                 anms."61 Chris Brown testified that

"Id. at 175-187.
1 at175-187.
Sa Transcript of Record, July 7,
renscript                     7, 2022, at 61, Commonwealth ofPennsylvania •is 7j rone Clark,
                                                                              Tyrone  Clark-,1651 of 2022
                                                                                                     2022.
55 Id.
1d
56 Id. at 62.
14. at 62
57 Id.
"Id
58 Id. at70
Id.    at 70.
59 Id. at 66.
1lat 66.
« Id.
601

61 Id, at
'd,       67, 69; see
       at67,69;       also, Commonwealth
                  see also, Commonwealth Exhibit 2(d).
                                         Exhibit 2(d)

                                                  Page 28 of
                                                          0f 83
at this
   this point he
              he said to
                      to Clark, "You can't get up
                                     can't get up and
                                                  and get
                                                      get him
                                                          him out for me?
                                                                      me? You
                                                                          You can't

treat me like one of those dumb ass white boys that you be talking to?" 62 At this
                                                           talking tor8

point, Clark got up from his chair, and Brown believed that he was going
                                                                   going to get
                                                                            get

Jayvon Turner for him. On direct examination, Brown stated:

         A: I'm thinking that
         A:I'm            that we
                               we had aabreak
                                        break though,
                                               though, like
                                                         like he's going to
                                                              he's going to get
                                                                            get upup
         and go get this young
                         young boy for me. And then that's when,
                                                               when, at first II
         thought he was punching me. All right.
                                            right. So I'm laughing.
                                                            laughing. And then I   I
         seen the blood squirting, and that's when I I put
                                                       put my
                                                            my arm up,
                                                                    up, and I   got
                                                                             I got
         cut here too.
         [MR. WISCHNOWSKI]
         [MR.  WISCHNOWSKI] Q: From  From the
                                          the moment
                                              moment that
                                                      that you
                                                           you realized he
         was punching you, did you change your position from that leaning
         stance with your
                     your hands folded?
         A: No, it's just like two or three quick smacks, but there, there was an
         object in his hand.
         Q: Why did you
                    you laugh?
                        laugh?
         A: Because the first initial blow was like, like really?
                                                          really? And then, then
         when II seen the blood squirting[sic]
                                 squirting[sic] that's when II realized he had
         something and he was cutting me me with   something.
                                             with something.
         Q:
         Q: Did
            Did you
                you try to fight
                           fight back or have aachance or-
                                                       or—
         A:
         A: No.
            No.
         Q: --have a
         Q:--have  a chance to fight
                               fight back?
         A: No. I
                I just, like, defended myself. Put my
                                                   my arm up.
                                                          up.
         Q: And again,
                again, is anything
                          anything in your
                                      your hand that you
                                                     you lifted?
         A:
         A: No.
            No.
        Q:
        Q: Okay. Now what happened
                              happened to you after you were struck several
        times
        times on the
                 the left
                     left side?
        A: I
           I jumped off the porch, fell over the wall face first, and then blood
        was really
             really coming out, so I
                                   I took my
                                          my shirt off and tied it around my
        neck. And Fred, the resident of the house, come and told me, he said,
        "Chris,
        Chris, you better go home, because itit look kind of bad."

ez Transcript
   ranscript of Record, July 7, 2022, at 66, 11651
                                              651 of 2022.

                                                  Page 29 of
                                                          0f 83
          Q: Where, so you end up in the street; correct?
          A: Correct.
          Q:
          Q: After
              After you realized what
                                  what had happened,
                                           happened, you're
                                                     you're bleeding
                                                            bleeding and
                                                                     and you're
                                                                         you're
          in the street, what did Tyrone do? What did Mr. Clark do?
          A: Just aalittle taunting.
          Q: What did he say to you from the porch as you were down in the
          street?
          A: I, Iasked, "Why you cut me? What you cut me for," and the words
          A:I,I
          come out of his mouth.
                          mouth,
          Q: What were they?
          A: "I
             "I should have killed you."
                                   you. "63
          After Brown's testimony, the Commonwealth and the Defense moved for a
                                                                              a

motion for aajudgment of acquittal as to all counts:

         MR. SCHMIERER: Your   Your Honor,
                                     Honor, I
                                            I would make
                                                     make a a motion for
         judgment of acquittal as to all counts, specifically with respect to the
         criminal attempt criminal homicide I I would argue
                                                        argue that the
         Commonwealth has not produced sufficient evidence, well, that they  they
         have not produced sufficient evidence as to all counts, but specifically
                                                                       specifically
         with respect to the criminal attempt homicide that to kill the victim,
         which is required.

         THE
         THE COURT: So there's no question that specific intent to kill    kill can be
         inferred from the circumstances surrounding the incident and the
         contact, and in addition to the instruction that Mr. Wischnowski points points
         out to the Court. It's aa matter of law that the specific intent
                                                                   intent to kill may
         be
         be inferred from the fact that the accused used a   a deadly weapon
                                                                      weapon to
         inflict an injury to aavital part
                                      part of the victim's body.
                                                           body.
         The Court finds in this case, at least at this time, that the alleged
         instrument of the crime, aa blade, could bebe considered aadeadly weapon
         and that the area of the body where the injury was inflicted could be
         determined to be
                        be or decided by the jury
                                              jury to be aavital part.

es Id. at 70-72
Id.       74-72

                                         Page 30 0f
                                                 of 83
          So, based upon
          So, based          the circumstances
                      upon the   circumstances of  of this  case and
                                                      this case  and the
                                                                      the application
                                                                           application ofof
          Pennsylvania
          Pennsylvania law,
                          law, not
                                not only
                                     only for  Count 1,
                                           for Count       criminal attempt
                                                        I, criminal  attempt at    criminal
                                                                                at criminal
          homicide, first
          homicide,   first degree
                            degree homicide,
                                    homicide, the    other counts,
                                                 the other   counts, Count
                                                                      Count 2, 2, Count
                                                                                  Count 3,
                                                                                         3,
          Count 4,
                 4, and Count 5, thatthat would
                                          would bebe aggravated
                                                      aggravated assault,
                                                                    assault, simple
                                                                              simple
          assault, reckless
          assault, reckless endangering,
                              endangering, andand harassment,     respectively, the
                                                   harassment, respectively,       the
          Commonwealth has
          Commonwealth        has presented   sufficient evidence,
                                  presented sufficient     evidence, atat least
                                                                          least prima
                                                                                 prima facie
                                                                                        facie
          evidence, that
          evidence,  that the  jury should
                           the jury          consider these
                                     should consider     these charges.
                                                               charges,   64

          Shortly after
          Shortly after William
                        William Christopher
                                Christopher Brown's testimony, Juror
                                            Brown's testimony, Juror 14

advised
advised the Court's Tipstaff
        the Court's Tipstaff that she may
                             that she may have
                                          have known
                                               known the
                                                     the victim
                                                         victim thirty
                                                                thirty years
                                                                       years

ago when
ago when he
         he was
            was in
                in high
                   high school. A summary
                        school. A summary of
                                          of the discussion relating
                                             the discussion relating to
                                                                     to

this
this matter
     matter is below:
            is below:

          THE    COURT: Okay,
          THE COURT:        Okay, so
                                   so the
                                      the next
                                          next thing
                                                thing I
                                                      I need
                                                        need toto address,
                                                                  address, Ms.   Marla,
                                                                            Ms. Marla,
          the
          the tipstaff,
              tipstaff, told
                        told me
                             me that
                                 that Juror  14 advised
                                      Juror I4  advised her
                                                         her that
                                                              that she
                                                                    she may
                                                                        may know
                                                                             know the
                                                                                    the
          victim
          victim in
                  in the
                     the case  going back
                          case going        30 years
                                      back 30  years or  so. I
                                                      or so. I believe,
                                                                believe, right,
                                                                         right, Miss
                                                                                Miss
          Marla?
          Marla?
          THE TIPSTAFF:
          THE TIPST AFF: Yes.
         THE COURT: She reported
         THE                  reported to
                                        to her that she
                                                    she did not
                                                              not know
                                                                  know him    by
                                                                          him by
         name,
         name, except
                except by
                        by Chris,
                           Chris, and
                                  and that's
                                      that's why   she may
                                              why she   may notnot have  reported it.
                                                                   have reported  it.
         And  the way
         And the  way she
                       she thinks she knows
                           thinks she  knows him
                                               him is  she thinks
                                                    is she  thinks aa friend of hers
                                                                      friend of hers
         may have
         may  have dated
                    dated him
                          him when
                               when they
                                     they were
                                           were in
                                                 in the
                                                    the ninth
                                                         ninth grade...
                                                                grade... What
                                                                          What did
                                                                               did he
                                                                                    he
         say [his
         say [his age]
                  age] was?
                       was? 52
                             52 or 53?
         MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
         MR. WISCHNOWSKI: I
                          I think he said
                            think he said 53.
                                          53.
         THE  COURT: So
         THE COURT:     So that's  what was
                            that's what was reported.  And I
                                             reported. And    believe, Miss
                                                            I believe,   Miss
         Marla,
         Marla, did
                did she
                    she report
                        report to you that
                               to you      she's not
                                      that she's     even sure
                                                 not even sure if  it's the
                                                                if it's the same
                                                                            same
         guy?
         guy?
         THE   TIPSTAFF: Yeah,
         THE TIPSTAFF:      Yeah, she's
                                  she's not
                                        not positive.
                                            positive. She just wanted
                                                      She just        everybody
                                                               wanted everybody
         to be
         to    aware in
            be aware    case.
                     in case.
         THE COURT:
         THE COURT: Mr.
                    Mr. Schmierer,
                        Schmierer, do
                                   do you
                                      you have any comments?
                                          have any comments?
          ...

ea Id. at
Id.    at 119-122.
          119-122.
                                            Page 31 of 83
MR.   SCHMIERER: Your
 MR. SCHMIERER:           Your Honor,
                                 Honor, it's
                                          it's the  defense's position
                                               the defense's              that if
                                                                position that  if
there is
there  is any
          any possibility
              possibility that    the juror
                            that the          could personally
                                      juror could                 know the
                                                      personally know     the victim
                                                                              victim
IIthink that that's extremely
                      extremely prejudicial,
                                   prejudicial, especially
                                                  especially   even  if the juror
                                                                            juror
does not
does  not know
           know ifif it's
                     it's the
                          the victim
                               victim she
                                       she knows,
                                             knows, butbut she
                                                           she may
                                                                may have
                                                                     have anan
inherent
 inherent bias  present as
           bias present   as aaresult  of the
                                result of  the fact  that she
                                                fact that      thinks this
                                                           she thinks  this may
                                                                            may bebe
the same person, and if it is, in fact, the same person  person then I I believe it
would
would be be improper
            improper for         to—
                        for her to
THE COURT: I     I can tell you it's such a
                                          a black letter response
                                                          response such as
all or nothing response
                response is not acceptable.
                                 acceptable. If
                                              If there
                                                 there is going
                                                          going toto be
                                                                      be
anything there will be aaquestioning or a  a discussion, and, just
                                                                 just like in
voir dire, if she says, even if I
                                I did know him I   I could still be fair and
impartial, there may be no reason to excuse this person.
                                                       person. So, I I can
assure the parties here that there's not going
                                          going to be such a   a clear-cut per
                                                                           per
se,
se, type
    type of
         of ruling  on this.
            ruling on  this.
Now,
Now, ifif you
          you want,
              want, we
                    we will  have the
                        will have  the tipstaff
                                       tipstaff bring
                                                bring her   out here
                                                       her out  here and
                                                                     and
conduct
conduct a   colloquy, and
          a colloquy,     even if
                      and even  if she does think
                                   she does  think it's  the same
                                                    it's the same person,
                                                                   person, II
will have to decide after I
                          I hear from her what to do. Is it the position
                                                                   position
of the Defendant that you would like to  to colloquy
                                            colloquy this particular
                                                            particular juror?
                                                                       juror?
MR. SCHMIERER: Yes,
MR. SCHMIERER:      Judge.
               Yes, Judge.
THE COURT:
THE COURT: What
           What is
                is the Commonwealth's position?
                   the Commonwealth's position?
MR. WISCHNOWSKI: That's fine if they      they want to do that. IImean mymy
position is that the rule, like you
                                you said, isn't so black and white. It's
whether she has aaclose relationship with this person
                                                   person and that can
mean aa lot
        lot of things. It
                       It can also not
                                   not be
                                       be aalot
                                             lot of things.
                                                    things. So if
                                                               if we need
                                                                     need to
                                                                          to
hear
hear from her.
            her.
THE COURT: All   AII right. So what we're going               going to
                                          going to do is, I'm going
ask the tipstaff to get Juror No. 14 and bring
                                         bring her back out into the
courtroom.

(WHEREUPON, the juror entered the courtroom).

THE
THE COURT:
     COURT: SoSo the
                 the record
                      record should
                             should reflect  that Juror
                                     reflect that Juror No.
                                                        No. 14
                                                            14 is
                                                               is in
                                                                  in the
                                                                     the
courtroom. The other jurors aren't. Can you please
                                              please look at your badge
                                                                   badge
and give me
and give me your
            your badge
                 badge number   just for
                         number just  for the
                                          the record?
                                              record?
JUROR NO. 14: 235827.

                                  Page 32 of
                                          0f 83
THE COURT: Okay. So it was brought to my attention by the tipstaff
that you had told her some things during the lunch period. Could you
tell us what it is that you reported to her?
JUROR NO. I4: 14: IIbelieve that Chris Brown may have dated a   a girl that
I
I went to high school with, like, eighth to ninth grade that I
                                                             I cheered
with... She was a
with...She      a cheerleader that II cheered with.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR NO.
      NO, 14: Actually, like, as it was coming to me during this,
like, I
      I had to really
               really think about it hard to put the pieces
                                                     pieces together
                                                            together on,
like.
THE COURT: AndAnd so are
                     are you sure that
                                  that the fella
                                           fella that
                                                 that you
                                                      you saw testify
                                                              testify
as William Brown, was the same fella that may have dated
                                                      dated—
JUROR NO. 14:4: Not 100 percent.
THE COURT: Not 100 percent.
JUROR NO. 14: I  I think maybe if I
                                  I saw aayoung picture, which you
probably don't have.
THE COURT: So what you're saying is you can't say for certain that
was him?
JUROR NO. 14: Not 100
                  I 00 percent, no.
THE COURT: And how long ago was that?
JUROR NO. 14: I4: I
                  I graduated in 1990. So that
                                          that was 32 years ago I
                                                                I
graduated, and that would have been, like, between eighth and ninth
grade or ninth and tenth. I'm not sure which one.
THE COURT: So closer to 35  35 years?
JUROR NO. 14: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you had any other contact with him between then
and now?
JUROR NO. 14: No.
THE COURT: Other than that, were you friends with him?
JUROR NO. 14:
          14: No, not really.
THE COURT: Okay. So, if  if it turns out to be him, is there anything
about that knowledge of him that you do have, even if  if it turns
                                                             tums out to

                                       of 83
                               Page 33 0f
be him, would it prevent you from continuing in this case to be fair
    impartial for both sides?
and impanial
JUROR NO. 14: No.
THE COURT: Would it impact
                       impact your evaluation of the facts or
circumstances in any way?
JUROR NO. 14: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Would you be able to continue to follow all
those instructions that I've given, and all of those rules and laws that
I've given you up to this point?
JUROR NO. 14:  I4: Yes.
THE COURT: It wouldn't change anything there?
JUROR NO. 14: (Indicates to the negative).
THE COURT: Okay. And have you had any discussions with any of
the other jurors about that potential knowledge
                                      knowledge of that individual?
JUROR NO. 14: No.
THE
THE COURT: All
           AII right.
               right. And
                      And you are the
                                  the remaining
                                      remaining alternate; right?
                                                           right?
JUROR NO. 14:
          I4: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to give Mr. Schmierer and Mr.
Wischnowski an opportunity if they
                              they have any
                                        any follow-up
                                            follow-up questions.
                                                      questions.
MR. SCHMIERER: Good afternoon, ma'am.
JUROR NO. 14:
          I4: Hi.
              Hi
MR. SCHMIERER: Where did you go to high school?
JUROR NO. 14: Beaver Falls.
MR. SCHMIERER: And you said that you believe that Mr. Brown
                                                      Brown
dated a
      a friend of yours?
JUROR NO. 14:
          I4: Yes, I
                   I believe so.
MR. SCHMIERER: Where did the friend go to high school.
JUROR NO. 14: She went to Beaver Falls, but then she moved away
after that
      that year to New Brighton.
MR. SCHMIERER: When this friend would have dated potentially
Mr. Brown, would that have been when she had moved away?

                              Page 34
                              Page    of 83
                                   34 0f 83
JUROR NO. 14: No. When she went to our school. Like, putting  putting it
together in my
together     my mind on how, II think it might
                                         might have been, like, after our
games
games maybe,
        maybe, he
                he might
                   might have
                         have come
                              come down
                                     down toto see
                                               see her
                                                   her at
                                                       at aabasketball,
                                                            basketball,
after a
      a basketball game.
MR. SCHMIERER: How often would you
                               you say
                                   say you
                                       you would have
encountered
encountered him?
            him?
JUROR NO. 14: I1couldn't even. It's that fuzzy and that little...I
                                                         little ... I
couldn't even tell you how long they might
                                      might have dated. It's just
                                                             just that it
occurred to me that I, IIcould have known this person
                                               person at some point
                                                                 point in
my
my life,
    life, but
          but it
              it was
                 was just in passing.
                     just in passing.
MR.  SCHMIERER: Okay.
MR. SCHMIERER:              And he
                      Okay. And   he wouldn't
                                     wouldn't have gone to
                                              have gone to your
                                                           your high
                                                                high
school to the best of your recollection?
       NO. 14: No. I'm not even sure where he came from or how,
JUROR NO,
maybe
maybe Aliquippa.
      Aliquippa. IIdon't
                   don't know where he
                         know where he could
                                       could have come from.
                                             have come from..
MR. SCHMIERER: Okay. That's all the questions
                                    questions I
                                              I have. Thank you,
                                                            you,
ma'am.
THE
THE COURT: Anything,
           Anything, Mr.
                     Mr. Wischnowski?
                         Wischnowski?
MR.
MR. WISCHNOWSKI: No, Your
    WISCHNOWSKI: No, Your Honor.
                          Honor.

(WHEREUPON, the
(WHEREUPON,     juror left
            the juror left the
                           the courtroom.)
                               courtroom.)

MR. SCHMIERER: Your Honor, for the record obviously,   obviously, you
                                                                    you know,
the Court will rule on this issue, it's the Defendant's position that the
juror
juror potentially
      potentially knowing
                  knowing thethe victim
                                  victim in  the case
                                          in the case would
                                                       would bebe the
                                                                  the most
                                                                      most
prejudicial relationship, and I I understand it was aavery
                                                         very long
                                                               long time ago
                                                                          ago
and IIunderstand
and               that the
      understand that  the testimony
                            testimony isis such
                                            such that they didn't
                                                 that they  didn't have
                                                                    have a
                                                                         a
close relationship,
      relationship, but
                    but it could potentially bias this    juror.
                                                     this juror.
And being
     being that we have, she is an alternate, we have, it would not
cause aamistrial
cause   mistrial in
                 in this case, we
                    this case, we would ask that
                                  would ask that this
                                                 this juror be excused.
                                                      juror be excused.

THE COURT: So, I'll
THE                   I'll take
                           take your
                                your position,
                                      position, Mr.
                                                 Mr. Schmierer,
                                                      Schmierer, toto be aa
motion to strike this juror, and the first part
                                              part of the analysis
                                                          analysis does say
that there are per
               per se reasons that it should be granted,
                                                    granted, including, if
there is aaclose familiar relationship.
                            relationship. And I  I don't find such aa
relationship
relationship  exists. I
                      I don't  find that this juror  is sure that this is any
                                 Page 35 0f83
                                         of 83
            kind of relationship, and II understand it is with the victim in the case,
                                                                                  case,
            but under the circumstances that she's just
                                                     just disclosed, and II also find
            that there
            that there was
                       was no
                            no intentional
                               intentional hiding
                                           hiding of this
                                                      this information
                                                           information by
                                                                        by this
                                                                           this
            individual—I
            individual-I just want to state that for the record, too, because I  I had
            observed her
            observed   her demeanor.
                           demeanor. The motion
                                           motion is
                                                   is denied,
                                                       denied, and your objection
                                                               and your  objection is
                                                                                    is
            duly noted.
                  noted."
                        65

            The Defense called Fredrick Turner to testify.
                                                  testify."66 Fredrick Turner stated

that he has known the Appellant for about sixty
                                          sixty years.  Tyrone Clark had
                                                years.67Tyrone

been staying with him for aafew days
                                days leading
                                     leading up
                                             up to September
                                                   September 11, 2021. 61
                                                             I1, 2021.

Turner
Turner stated that he
                   he told
                      told Clark    hang out on the
                           Clark to hang        the porch
                                                    porch on the
                                                             the day
                                                                 day of the
                                                                        the

incident because "a
incident because "a little
                    little trouble
                           trouble was coming up
                                              up there
                                                 there at that time" and
                                                                     and

Turner wanted
Tumer  wanted to
              to prevent
                 prevent people
                         people from
                                from coming
                                     coming into
                                            into the
                                                 the house.
                                                     house."69

            Turner testified that he was familiar with William Chris Brown as his

neighbor and had
neighbor and had known him for
                 known him for about
                               about ten
                                     ten years
                                         years."  Turner was
                                               70 Turner
                                               .             upstairs in
                                                         was upstairs in

his
his bedroom
    bedroom when the incident
                     incident on his front
                                     front porch
                                           porch occurred." Upon
                                                            Upon being
                                                                 being

woken up
      up due to the disturbance, Turner went to the porch
                                                    porch and saw Chris

Brown standing on the front porch
                            porch between the top
                                              top and bottom steps.
                                                             steps. 72

Turner testified that Chris Brown was
                                  was bleeding but Turner could not

6s Id. at
'1        138-147.
       at138.147
66 Id. at 170.
1.        170.
67 Id.
J
IId. at173.
61   at 173.
1
1d.
69

Al
 Id. at174.
70   at 174.
71   Id.
     [ at   175.
         at175.
nId.
72

                                           Page    of 83
                                           Page 36 0f
immediately
immediately determine what caused Brown's injuries
                                          injuries until he began
                                                            began

speaking with
         with Brown.
              Brown."73

            At this point, Turner called the police.
                    point, Tumer             police."74 He stated that he saw Brown

"had something in the back, "75 he testified that he believed it was something
                      back,"">                                       something

that could be used as aaweapon but could not definitively
                                             definitively say
                                                          say if it was aa

knife.' When
        When asked why
                   why this
                       this information was not
                                            not given to
                                                      to law
                                                         law enforcement,
                                                             enforcement,

Turner stated
Turner stated that
              that he
                   he was not asked
                      was not asked to
                                    to provide
                                       provide a statement but
                                               a statement     that he
                                                           but that he would
                                                                       would

have given
     given one if asked."
                  asked."

            The Appellant,
                Appellant, Tyrone Clark, was
                                         was called
                                             called as the
                                                       the defense's last
                                                                     last witness.

As to the day of the incident, the Appellant
                                   Appellant testified that he had been staying
                                                                        staying

at Fredrick Turner's house, and that he knew of Chris Brown during
                                                            during this

                  hang out with him or know him well."
time, but did not hang                                    Appellant said
                                                welt" The Appellant

that he was sitting on the Turner's porch on September 11,
                                                       1. 11 .During
                                                              During his

testimony, Clark stated, "Freddie told me if anybody come through the

house, don't
       don't let
             let them
                 them in.
                      in. He
                          He was
                             was trying
                                 trying to
                                        to keep
                                           keep all the
                                                    the traffic
                                                        traffic down, because

the task force had blew the door off his house twice.X
                                               twice.""79

" Id.
73 Id.
I
Id. at
14     176.
    at176.
1
75 Id. at177,178.
       at 177, 178.
pId.
76  d at 178.
77  at
   1d. at 196.
          196.
?8   Id. at202,
         at 202, 203.
                 203
79 Id. at203
I.     at 203.

                                         Page 37 of 83
                                                 0f83
          The Appellant
              Appellant was aware that Brown had
                                             had "ripped off' Jayvon
                                                 "ripped off" Jayvon Turner

    day before,
the day before, but
                but insisted
                    insisted that Brown
                                  Brown was
                                        was not
                                            not coming
                                                coming down to
                                                            to Turner's

house to
house to smoke weed "because
         smoke weed "because [Brown is] aacrackhea.
                             [Brown is]   crackhead." Te
                                                      80 The Appellant
                                                             Appellant

testified
testified that
          that he
               he observed Brown walking
                                 walking down the street
                                                  street with a
                                                              a beer
                                                                beer in
                                                                     in his

hand,$ 1stating
hand,"  stating that once Brown got
                                got to the porch, the Appellant
                                                      Appellant informed him

that
that he could not go into
                     into the Turner's house.
                                       house. The Appellant
                                                  Appellant testified
                                                            testified that
                                                                      that he
                                                                           he

believed
believed Brown
         Brown was
               was high
                   high on crack
                           crack at this
                                    this time
                                         time and
                                              and that he smelled like he
                                                                       he

had
had been drinking." On cross
         drinking. On  cross examination, the
                                          the Appellant
                                              Appellant stated that
                                                               that he
                                                                    he was
                                                                       was

familiar
familiar with the signs of impairment
              the signs    impairment by individual's
                                         individual's high
                                                      high on crack cocaine
                                                                    cocaine

because he was a
               a coordinator at a
                                a drug program in the past,"
                                                      past.>

          The
          The Appellant testified that
                                  that Brown
                                       Brown was
                                             was insistent on going in
                                                                    in the
                                                                       the

house, despite
house,         being repeatedly
       despite being            told that
                     repeatedly told that Fredrick Turner was
                                          Fredrick Turner was not allowing
                                                              not allowing

visitors."
visitors." According
           According to the
                        the Appellant's
                            Appellant's testimony, Brown
                                                   Brown never
                                                         never knocked on
                                                                       on

the door because
the door         the Appellant
         because the Appellant would
                               would not
                                     not let
                                         let him.    Brown then
                                             him. 85 Brown then told the
                                                                told the

Appellant
Appellant that he was going              anyway, at which point
                      going in the house anyway,          point the

Appellant
Appellant got up from
                 from his seat. 16 The Appellant stated
                      his seat."                 stated that when he got off
                                                                  he got off

+1
8° Id.at
       at205
          205.
ai Id.
11 Id
   1d. at218
&2IA   at 218.
0 Id.
13     at 219.
   1at219
as Id.at
I      at 208.
          208
85 Id
4
sa Id. At209
I      at 209.

                                       Page 38 of 83
 the porch
 the       chair, he
     porch chair, he observed
                     observed Brown
                              Brown reaching
                                    reaching behind
                                             behind him.
                                                    him."$7 The
                                                            The Appellant
                                                                Appellant

 testified that
 testified      he had
           that he     seen Brown
                   had seen Brown with an "old
                                  with an "old raggedy knife" in
                                               raggedy knife" in the
                                                                 the past, and
                                                                     past, and

 that he
 that he believed
         believed Brown
                  Brown was
                        was reaching
                            reaching for that knife
                                     for that knife in order to
                                                    in order to cut
                                                                cut him." The
                                                                    him." The

 Appellant testified that he became fearful and thought
                                                thought that Brown was going
                                                                       going

 to pull on aaknife on him, which is when he cut Brown with aarazor.
                                                              razor."89

             When the Commonwealth
             When the Commonwealth replayed
                                   replayed surveillance
                                            surveillance footage during cross-
                                                         footage during cross-

examination, the
examination,     Appellant could
             the Appellant could not
                                 not identify when Brown
                                     identify when Brown headed towards
                                                         headed towards

                                                   grab a
Turner's door, or when Brown reached behind him to grab   weapon, and
                                                        a weapon,

    footage failed to
the footage        to establish that
                                that Brown
                                     Brown had been holding
                                                    holding aabeer on the

porch. 90
porch."

            When questioned about
            When questioned about the jail call
                                  the jail call that
                                                that was previously admitted,
                                                     was previously admitted, the
                                                                              the

Appellant stated
Appellant stated that
                 that Will Turner had
                      Will Tumer  had told
                                      told him
                                           him Brown
                                               Brown stated
                                                     stated he
                                                            he would drop
                                                               would drop

the charges in
the charges in exchange
               exchange for Will Turner
                        for Will Turner paying
                                        paying him
                                               him money.
                                                   money."   The Appellant
                                                          91 The Appellant

explained that the
explained that the Will
                   Will referred
                        referred to
                                 to in
                                    in the
                                       the phone call was
                                           phone call     not William
                                                      was not William Chris
                                                                      Chris

Brown,
Brown, but in reference
       but in           to Will
              reference to      Turner. 92
                           Will Turner.

 p
87 Id.
asAH
   Id.
"Id.
"     at 211.
  Ad At211
p
90Id. at 207.
      at207
 [
91Id. at 225.
      at22$.
92   Id. at 227.
     • at227.

                                         Page 39 of
                                                 0f 83
         On July 8, 2022, prior to Jury Instructions being
                                                     being provided to the jury,
                                                                           jury,

the court asked if either party was requesting
                                    requesting special
                                               special interrogatories
                                                       interrogatories to be
                                                                          be

 included in the verdict slip.
                         slip."        93

         THE COURT: And the verdict slips, has anybody anticipated
         requiring
         requiring any specific
                       specific interrogatories
                                interrogatories on the verdict slip?
                                                               slip? Mr.
                                      requests comes from the
         Wischnowski, usually that requests
         Commonwealth
         Commonwealth because      its tied
                          because its  tied into something.
                                            into something.
         MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
               WISCHNOWSK.J: For, let me think. For, for the first two
         counts, well,
                 well, actually, for
                                 for Count 1I and
                                              and 2,
                                                  2, can we have aaspecial
                                                                   special
         interrogatory for deadly weapon
                                   weapon used, whether aadeadly weapon
                                                                   weapon
         was
         was used.
              used. It
                    It affects whether
                               whether or not
                                          not we
                                              we use the basic matrix
                                                               matrix or
         the enhanced matrix at sentencing.
         THE COURT: Mr. Schmierer?
         MR. SCHMIERER: I                appropriate.
                        I believe that's appropriate.
         THE COURT: Okay.
                    Okay."94

         Question at 2:38p.m.
                     2:38p.m.
         THE
         THE COURT: We    We are back on on the
                                             the record,
                                                 record, and
                                                          and we're
                                                               we're in
                                                                      in
         chambers. Today it's July 8t'',
                                      8", and in the case of
         Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
                               Pennsylvania versus Tyrone
                                                       Tyrone Clark,
                                                                Clark, the jury
                                                                            jury
         is
         is out deliberating and
            out deliberating  and has
                                  has been
                                       been soso since
                                                 since the
                                                       the lunch   hour ... Iwas
                                                            lunch hour...I   was
         just provided with a a note from the jurors
                                                jurors  in this envelope..
                                                                envelope.   It's
         been clocked. The note reason, "According
                                             "According    to the statue of
         Commonwealth law, law, what
                                 what is                   of adeadly
                                       is the definition ofa    deadly
         weapon?" And it's not signed, so I'll turn the original over to
         the official court reporter, and I'll hear from the parties first, but
         let me say this: here is the statutory
                                      statutory definition of aadeadly
         weapon. The statutory definition is set forth in Title 18, Section
         2301, and the general provisions of that particular
                                                      particular chapter.
         MR. WICSHNOWSKI: My     My position
                                      position would just
                                                     just be to instruct
         them on the generic definition.

93 Transcript of Record, July 8, 2022, at 4, Commonivealth v.
pnscript of Record, July 8, 2022, at 4, Commonwealth • Tyrone Clark,
                                                              Clark-, 1651 of 2021.
                                                                              2021
94 Id.
pd

                                                  Page 40 of
                                                          0f 83
THE COURT: Just for the record, deadly      weapon is defined in
                                     deadly weapon
that section, and a
                  a copy of which I've provided to both counsel,
as follows: Any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any
device designed as aaweapon and capable of producing death or
serious bodily injury or any other device or instrumentality
                                               instrumentality
which in the manner in which it is used or intended to be used
is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.
So the question becomes, when you have a    a statutory definition
of a
   a word that's used in the instruction, the first question is
there
there anything
      anything that
                that prohibits
                     prohibits me
                               me from
                                  from using
                                        using that?
                                               that? Mr.
                                                     Mr.
Schmierer, what do you think?
M.R..
MR. SCHMIERER: Judge, without researching the issue, I           I
couldn't
couldn  'I tell you if there's anything prohibiting
                                         prohibiting it. I
                                                         I believe if
the instruction, as set forth in the standard criminal jury
instructions, does not include aadefinition, which if the Court
will recall, other instructions that were read today did include
definitions of certain terms, specifically the self-defense
instruction did have aadefinition therein, and it would be my
position that the Court would just instruct the jury that the
instructions are that which the Court has already provided. If
they would like the Court to read those instructions that were
already given
          given aasecond time, then I I wouldn't have an issue with
that, but to look into the statute and pick out certain definition
and then supplement standard jury instructions, I    I would not, II
would object to that.
MR. WISHNOWKSI: I        I haven't researched this very
                                                    very specific
                                                          specific
issue, but given that is the general definition contained in the
definitions of the statute and it is a
                                     a defined term, I
                                                     I think it
would be helpful to define that term for the jury since they have
to deliberate about it. So II don't see any issue with
supplementing
supplementing it, and I'm
                        Im not aware of any case law that would
prohibit
prohibit supplementing
         supplementing an instruction in this fashion.
THE COURT: I     I don't believe that providing this information
would be misleading. That's the first thing that I   I would like to
say, and with the indulgence of the parties, I
say,                                            I called you as soon
as I
   I received this, and II didn't have a
                                       a chance to look this up
myself
myself. II have quick access to Westlaw so I'm going to ask just
for your
    your patience
          patience for a
                       a moment while I   I lookup aa few things.

                               Page 41 of83
                                       of 83
          All right. I
                     I was aware of the notion, and it's been referred to to as
         aawell-settled principle that the standard jury instructions are
          not themselves binding, do not alter the discretion in me
         crafting jury instructions, and so given that that is the status of
         the law and given the clear authority that a  a trial judge may
          frame jury instructions and language that deviates from
         standard instructions, so long as the instruction adequately and
         accurately defines essential terms, so long as I   I abide by that
         polestar, IIfeel
                      feel that giving the definition in Section 2301
                                                                  2301 is
         something that
         something    that could
                           could very
                                  very easily
                                       easily have
                                               have been
                                                    been included
                                                          included in
                                                                    in the
                                                                       the
         original instruction and at this point
                                           point it very well maybe if I I have
         this instruction come up. It doesn't misstate the law or what a    a
         deadly weapon is. It doesn't confuse the jury by telling them
         that this is what it is. They have a a specific question, and this is
         one of those times where it can definitely be answered with
         exact words. The question can be with, when I      I say exact words,
         I
         I mean words straight from what they reference as
         Commonwealth law.
         So my intentions are to read the definition and tell them that
         this definition was not previously provided
                                               provided to them; however,
         this is the definition that arises out of Pennsylvania law, which
         is in something we call Title 18 18 in Section 2301.
                                                         2301. I
                                                               I don't like to
         give too
               too may technical terms, but I  I think the reference to
         Pennsylvania law is necessary there.
         Mr. Schmierer, if it was misleading or if I
                                                   I thought
                                                     thought it wasn't
         exactly what they were looking for, I I would consider your
         position, but your objection is noted, and we'll give this short
         definition.
         definition."°
                     95

                                              ISSUES
                                              ISSUES

         Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal are as

follows
follows (recited
        (recited verbatim):

9' Id.at 97-101
   4d at 97-101.

                                         Page 42 of
                                                 0f 83
a) The Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to prove       prove the
    Defendant's guilty beyond aareasonable doubt as to each element of the
    crime at Count 2, Aggravated Assault as aafelony of the first degree.
                                                                  degree.

b) The Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to prove   prove the
    Defendant's guilt beyond aa reasonable doubt as to each clement
                                                               element of the
    crime at Count 3, Simple Assault as aamisdemeanor of the second degree.
                                                                    degree.

c) The Commonwealth did not present sufficient evidence to proveprove the
    Defendant's guilt beyond aa reasonable doubt as to each element of the
    crime at Count 4, Recklessly Endangering Another Person as a         a
    misdemeanor
    misdemeanor of the
                    the second degree.

d) The verdict of guilty of the crime at Count 2, Aggravated
                                                    Aggravated Assault as a
                                                                          a felony
                                                                            felony
    in the first degree, is against the weight
                                        weight of the evidence.

e) The verdict of guilty of the crime at Count 3, SimpleSimple Assault as a  a
    misdemeanor of the second degree, was against the weight
                                                      weight of the evidence.

f)
f) The verdict of guilty of the crime at Count 4, Recklessly
                                                  Recklessly Endangering
                                                             Endangering
    Another Person as aa misdemeanor of the second degree, is against the
    weight
    weight of the evidence.

g) Te
   The Court erred in denying Defendant's motion to        to strike juror
                                                                     juror number
    JL5A-8, because she had a     a personal belief that if aa Defendant were not
    guilty that the Defendant would testify and she equivocated on her ability
    to set
       set her personal belief aside and follow the Court's instruction.

h) The Court erred in denying the Defendant's motion in limine to introduce the
    prior crimen falsi convictions of the alleged victim under the premise that
    the Defendant did not provide written notice to the Commonwealth, where
    the Commonwealth acknowledged providing the criminal record of the
    alleged victim about a a week prior to the trial and the Commonwealth
    suffered no prejudice
                 prejudice from the lack of written notice and had aa fair
    opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.

i) The Court erred in denying
                      denying the Defendant's motion in limine to introduce the
                 falsi convictions of the alleged victim and this error was
    prior crimen falsi
    because the probative
                  probative value of allowing
                                       allowing this evidence substantially
    outweighed its prejudicial
                   prejudicial effect.
                                 Page 43 0f
                                 Page 43 of 83
                                            83
j) The Court erred in denying the Defendant's motion in limine to preclude
                                                                     preclude the
    Commonwealth's introduction of aaportion of a  a jail phone call made by
                                                                           by the
    Defendant where the Defendant allegedly made aa statement about an
    unknown third party convincing the alleged victim to drop the charges
    where its probative value is outweighed by aadanger of unfair prejudice
                                                                        prejudice
    confusing
    confusing the issues, and misleading
                              misleading the jury.
                                             jury.

k) The Court erred in denying the Defendant's motion in limine to preclude
                                                                      preclude the
    Commonwealth's introduction of a   a portion of a
                                                    a jail phone call made by
                                                                            by the
    Defendant
    Defendant where
                where the
                       the Defendant
                            Defendant allegedly
                                         allegedly made
                                                   made aa statement about
                                                                         about an
                                                                                an
    unknown third party convincing the alleged victim to drop the charges
    because it is an improper use of other crimes, wrongs, or acts evidence
    offered against the accused by the Commonwealth was insufficient to
    overcome the balance
                  balance test
                          test in
                               in Pa.R.E.
                                  Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).
                                           404(b)(2).

1)
l) The Court erred in not providing the jury with aa limiting
                                                           limiting instruction
    regarding
    regarding the
                the introduction
                    introduction of
                                  of the
                                      the jail recording where
                                                         where the
                                                                 the Defendant
                                                                     Defendant
    allegedly
    allegedly made
              made aastatement about an unknown
                                            unknown third party  convincing the
                                                          party convincing  the
    alleged
    alleged victim to drop the charges.
                               charges.

m) The Court erred in
m)The                in permitting
                        permitting the
                                   the Commonwealth to commentcomment on thethe
    Defendant's retention of counsel prior
                                      prior to
                                            to trial in violation of his rights
                                                                         rights
    under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.

n) The
   The Court erred in permitting
                          pennitting the                     questioning which
                                      the Commonwealth's questioning      which
    suggested
    suggested to the jury that the Defendant has an obligation to assist the
    Commonwealth in meeting its burden of proof, thus shifting the burden to
    the Defendant, in violation of his rights
                                       rights under the Pennsylvania and United
    States Constitutions.

o) The Court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to impermissibly suggest
    that Defendant and by extension, Defendant's counsel, had an obligation to
    assist law enforcement in the investigation of the case in violation of his
    rights under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.

p)
p) The Court erred in overruling the Defendant's objection under the best
    evidence rule where Officer Bialik was asked to provide his opinion that
    the alleged
        alleged victim
                victim was standing in a
                                       a passive
                                         passive or non-threatening way
                                                                    way in
                                                                        in a
                                                                           a
    video, where the officer did not personally observe the incident.
                                                            incident
                                 Page 44 0f
                                 Page 44 of 83
                                            83
     q) The Court erred in permitting the fact witness, Sabrina Christie, who was not
         qualified as an expert witness, to testify that a     a laceration that is 5
                                                                                    5
         centimeters in depth is deep enough to pierce
                                                 pierce the "platysma muscle."

     r) The Court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to strike the juror,
                                                                          juror, for
         cause,
         cause, who  both notified
                who both   notified the
                                    the Court
                                         Court and
                                               and testified that she
                                                   testified that she believed   she
                                                                      believed she
         possibly knew the
         possibly knew the victim in the
                                     the past.
                                         past.

     s) The Court
     s) The Court erred
                  erred in
                        in supplementing
                           supplementing the
                                         the jury
                                             jury instruction with the
                                                  instruction with     statutory
                                                                   the statutory
           definition set forth in Title 18, Section 2301, for a deadly weapon,
                                                               a deadly weapon, where
           the definition was not contained in the standard criminal jury
                                                                     jury instruction."
           97
           97

                                                    ANALYSIS
     THE COMMONWEALTH ESTABLISHED BEYOND AA REASONABLE
     DOUBT THAT APPELLANT COMMITTED THE CRIMES CHARGED
                        AGAINST HIM
                           SUFFICIENCY AND
                           SUFFICIENCY AND W EIGHT OF
                                           WEIGHT  OF THE
                                                      THE EVIDENCE
                                                          EVIDENCE

The Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth did not sufficiently
                                                    sufficiently establish that he

was guilty
    guilty of the crime at Count 2, Count 3
                                          3 and Count 4. In essence, he challenges
                                                                        challenges

the sufficiency of the evidence showing that he was guilty of the crimes for which

he was convicted; however, the Appellant fails to identify with specificity which

elements the Commonwealth failed to establish with sufficiency at trial and the

Appellant
Appellant has thereby
              thereby waived all sufficiency of evidence claims. In
 Concise Statement of
%concise
96                 of Matters Complained on Appeal,              ofFennsylvania
                                            Appeal, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v.
                                                                                 v, Tyrone Clark, 11651
                                                                                                   651 of
2022.
2022
97 "
rageWe rerind
        remind counsel of the importance         expert, focused appellate advocacy,
                                 importance of expent,                         advocacy. Wile
                                                                                          While criminal defendants often
believe that the best way
                       way to pursue         appeals is by raising
                              pursue their appeals          raising the greatest number of issues, actually, the opposite is
true: selecting
true: selecting the few most important
                               important issues succinctly
                                                  succinctly stated presents the greatest likelihood of success    ... [Tlhe
                                                                                                           success..[TJhe
                                                                proportion to their merit and that aalarge number of claims
number of claims raised in an appeal is usually in inverse proportion
raises the presumption
           presumption that all       invalid. As
                              all are invalid.  As Judge
                                                   Judge Aldisert
                                                          Aldisert puts
                                                                   puts it,
                                                                         it, `Appellate
                                                                              Appellate advocacy
                                                                                        advocacy isis measured by
effectiveness, not  loquaciousness."' See Commonwealth v.
                not loquaciousness."                           • Ellis, 626 A.2d
                                                                               A.24 1137, 1140-41
                                                                                           1140-41 (Pa.
                                                                                                    (Pa. 1993), citing R.RR
Aldisert, "The Appellate
AIdisert,        Appellate Bar:
                           Bar- Professional    Competence &
                                  Professional Competence      & Professional
                                                                 Professional Responsibility
                                                                                  Responsibility— A A View
                                                                                                      View From    the
                                                                                                             From the
Jaundiced Eye
Jaundiced   Eye of One Appellate
                        Appellate Judge,"
                                    Judge," I  IICAP.U.L.REV.
                                                 CAP.U.L.REV. 445, 445,458
                                                                         458 ((1982)
                                                                                 1982).

                                                     Page 45 of
                                                             of83
                                                                83
Commonwealth v,
             v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106
                                        1106 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020),
                                             (Pa. Super.     2020), the

Superior Court
Superior Court concluded
               concluded that
                         that aasufficiency
                                sufficiency of
                                            of evidence claim was
                                               evidence claim was waived
                                                                  waived on
                                                                         on

appeal where the Appellant in the Concise Statement of Errors pursuant
                                                              pursuant to

Pa.R.C.P. 1925(b), stated his intention to question on appeal
                                                       appeal "[w]hether
                                                              "[whether the[re]
                                                                         the[re]

was
was insufficient
    insufficient evidence to
                          to sustain a
                                     a verdict
                                       verdict of
                                               of guilty
                                                  guilty of each charge
                                                                 charge in
                                                                        in each

case." Specifically, the Superior Court concluded
                                        concluded "that Appellant's
                                                        Appellant's challenge
                                                                    challenge to

the sufficiency
    sufficiency of the evidence is
                                is waived because
                                          because his
                                                  his Rule
                                                      Rule 1925(b)
                                                           1925(b) statement did

not
not adequately identify
               identify the errors that he intended    challenge on
                                           intended to challenge    appeal." Id.
                                                                 on appeal." Id.

       The Bonnet Court found that the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii)
                                                                 1925(b)(4)(ii)

mandate that
mandate that aaRule
               Rule 1925(b) statement must
                    1925(b) statement must "concisely identify each
                                           "concisely identify each ruling or
                                                                    ruling or

error that the appellant
               appellant intends
                         intends to challenge with
                                 to challenge with sufficient detail to identify
                                                                        identify all
                                                                                 all

pertinent issues for the judge." Id. (citing
                                     (citing from Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii)).
                                                            1925(b)(4)(i1)). Parties

to an appeal were put on notice that careful consideration should be given
                                                                     given to the

preparation of a
               a 1925(b) concise statement because it is "a
                                                         "acrucial component of

the appellate
    appellate process"
              process" because this is the mechanism in place
                                                        place which
                                                              which "allows the

trial court to identify and focus on those issues the parties
                                                      parties plan
                                                              plan to raise on appeal."
                                                                               appeal."

Id.
Id.

                                     Page 46 of 83
         Even though the sufficiency claims have been waived, this court will address

the claims asserted by the Appellant that every element of the crimes convicted will

   addressed.
be addressed.

         The standard and scope of review of challenges to the sufficiency of the

evidence is well-settled:

         [W]e evaluate the
         [Wle              the record
                                record in
                                        in the
                                            the light
                                                  light most
                                                         most favorable
                                                                 favorable to the
         Commonwealth as verdict winner, giving it the benefit of all
         reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence will
         be deemed sufficient
                     sufficient to support
                                   support the
                                           the verdict
                                                verdict when
                                                         when itit establishes
                                                                   establishes each
                                                                                each
         material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by      by
         the accused, beyond a    a reasonable doubt. Any doubt about the
         Appellant's guilt is to bebe resolved by the fact-finder unless the
         evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as matter of law, no
         probability
         probability of
                     of fact
                        fact can
                              can be
                                  be drawn from
                                             from the
                                                    the combined
                                                        combined circumstances.
                                                                     circumstances.
         Additionally, the Commonwealth may sustain its burden solely     solely by
                                                                                  by
         means of circumstantial evidence.
                                  evidence."
                                           98

         In
         In applying the
                     the above
                         above test, the
                                     the entire
                                         entire record
                                                record must
                                                       must be
                                                            be evaluated and all
                                                                             all

evidence actually received must be considered. It is left to the fact-finder to judge
                                                                                judge a
                                                                                      a

witnesses' credibility, resolve conflicts in testimony
                                             testimony and weight the evidence. 99

[T]he trier
      trier of
            of fact
               fact while
                    while passing
                          passing upon
                                  upon the
                                       the credibility of
                                                       of witnesses
                                                          witnesses and the
                                                                        the weight
                                                                            weight of

the evidence produced, is free
                          free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. 10°On

98 Commonwealth v.
commonwealth    v. Lake, 281 A.3d 341, 2022 PA Super 142, at *2
                                                             2 (Pa.
                                                                (Pa. Super.
                                                                     Super filed Aug.     2022) (citations
                                                                                 Aug. 15, 2022) (citations and
quotations
quotations omitted).
           omitted)
   Commonwealth v.
+commonwealth
99              v. Payne,
                    Payne, 868
                            868 A.2d
                                A.2d 1257
                                      1257 (2005).
                                           (2005)
    Commonwealth v.
voe _orwealth
11                v. Orr, 38 A.3
                     Orr,38  A.3d 868,872-73(Pa.
                                   868, 872-73 (Pa. Super.
                                                    Super. 2011)
                                                           2011).

                                                 Page 47 0f83
                                                         of 83
review, the court must determine
                       detennine if "any rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a
                                       a reasonable doubt,Io
                                                    doubt. "        101

         The Appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
                                                               supporting his

conviction of aggravated assault. Likewise, the Appellant also raises a sufficiency
                                                                      a sufficiency

of the evidence claim to the crimes of Reckless Endangering
                                                Endangering Another Person and

Simple Assault.             As stated in Commonwealth v. Cianci, "
                                                                 "aa conviction for

aggravated assault requires a
                            a person, under circumstances manifesting extreme

indifference to the value of human life, to
                                         to ( 1) attempt to cause serious bodily injury
                                                                                 injury

to another, or (2)
               (2) cause such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. By

contrast, to commit
             commit [Reckless
                     [Reckless Endangering Another Person
                                                   Person ("REAP")],
                                                          ("REAP")], a
                                                                     a person

must recklessly engage in conduct which places or may place another person
                                                                    person in

actual danger of death or serious bodily injury... Additionally, unlike aggravated

assault, REAP requires the element of actual danger of death or serious bodily

injury. An individual could attempt to cause serious bodily injury to another person
                                                                              person

without placing that person in actual danger, which would support aaconviction for

aggravated
aggravated assault but not REAP."
                           REAP,»Io2
                                  102

        Lastly, the Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to provide

sufficient evidence for aa conviction of simple assault.
                                                assault. "A
                                                         "A conviction for simple

    Jackson •
or ckson
101          v. Virginia, 443 U.$.
                              U.S. 307,319
                                   307,319 (4(1979)
                                              1979).
    COm. v.
o Com.
102      I,. Cianci, 130 A.3d
                          A34 780, 782-83
                                    782--83 (Pa.        Cc. 2019)
                                            (Pa. Super. C.  2015)

                                                   Page
                                                   Page 48 of 83
                                                        48 of 83
assault requires the Commonwealth to establish that aa defendant caused, or

attempted
attempted to cause, bodily injury
                           injury to another person."
                                             person,"Io       103

        In addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the Appellant
                                                                        Appellant also

claims that the verdicts for Count 2, Count 33and Count 4
                                                        4 are against the weight
                                                                          weight of

the evidence. In Commonwealth v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306
                                                             306 ((1998),
                                                                   1998), the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that issues not included in a
                                                            a Pa.R.A.P. I
                                                                        925(b)
                                                              Pa.R.A.P.1925(b)

statement are deemed waived on appeal.
                               appeal. In that case, the Court noted the purpose
                                                                         purpose

of Rule 1925(b) as being aid to trial judges in identifying and focusing
                                                                focusing upon
                                                                         upon those

issues which the parties plan to raise on appeal. The general
                                                      general statement that the

                                                       identifying a
verdict was against the weight of the evidence without identifying   specific
                                                                   a specific

weight issue is too vague to allow the court to identify
                                                identify the issues raised on appeal.

        In
        In order
           order for
                 for the
                     the trial court to
                                     to address
                                        address the
                                                the weight
                                                    weight of evidence claim as
                                                                             as stated,

it would have to guess what issue or issues the Appellant is appealing.
                                                             appealing. This the

trial court is not required to do. As stated in Commonwealth v. Dowling,
                                                                Dowling, 778

A.2d 683, 686
          686 (Pa.
              (Pa. Super. 2001), "a
                                 "a concise statement which is too vague to allow

          to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no
the court to

concise statement at all."

       In order to preserve
                   preserve aa challenge to either the sufficiency or weight of the
       evidence on appeal, an appellant's Rule 1925(b) concise statement must state
       with specificity
            specificity the elements or verdicts for which the appellant alleges that
       the evidence was insufficient or against the weight of the

o Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 96 A.3d
103                                1055 (Pa. Super. 2014).
                              A.34 1055(Pa.         2014)

                                              Page 49 of
                                                      0f 83
        evidence. See Commonwealth v.                                          1248-[12]49
                                            v, Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231, 1248-[12149
        (Pa. Super.
        (Pa. Super. 2015)
                     2015) (finding
                             (finding waiver
                                       waiver of  appellant's sufficiency
                                               of appellant's sufficiency andand weight
                                                                                  weight
        challenges where
        challenges  where thethe Pa.R.A.P.
                                 Pa.R.A.P. 1925
                                             1925 statement was
                                                              was too
                                                                   too vague
                                                                         vague to
                                                                                to permit
                                                                                   permit the
                                                                                            the
        court to identify
                 identify ((I)
                            1) which crimes, or the elements of any any crimes, that the
        Commonwealth
        Commonwealth allegedly
                           allegedly failed
                                      failed to prove
                                                prove beyond
                                                       beyond aa reasonable
                                                                 reasonable doubt;      or (2)
                                                                                doubt; or  (2)
        which verdicts were contrary to the weight of the evidence, and      and the
                                                                                  the specific
                                                                                      specific
        reasons why the verdicts were contrary to the weight of       o,f'the
                                                                          the evidence). Such
                                                                                           Such
        specificity is
                    is of
                       of particular
                          particular importance
                                     importance in          where [the
                                                   in cases where   [the appellant]
                                                                           appellant] was
                                                                                      was
        convicted of
        convicted  of multiple
                       multiple crimes, each of of which
                                                   which contains
                                                          contains elements
                                                                    elements that
                                                                                that the
                                                                                     the
        Commonwealth must prove  prove beyond aareasonable doubt.

Commonwealth v.
Commonwealth v. Juray,
                Juray, 275
                       275 A.3d 1037, 1048
                           A.3d 1037, 1048 (Pa.
                                           (Pa. Super.
                                                Super. 2022)
                                                       2022) (emphasis
                                                             (emphasis

added).

        Appellant
        Appellant has failed
                      failed to
                             to comply with Rule
                                            Rule 1925(b)
                                                 1925(b) and this court has

concluded that Appellant's weight of the evidence issues as stated in the 1925(b)

Concise
Concise Statement are
                  are too
                      too vague
                          vague to
                                to permit
                                   permit review of that issue by
                                                               by the trial
                                                                      trial court

and have therefore been waived. The Rule 1925(b) statement raise aaweight
                                                                   weight of

evidence claim that
               that merely
                    merely contained boilerplate
                                     boilerplate language
                                                 language which
                                                          which is
                                                                is too vague to
                                                                   too vague to

allow
allow the court to identify the
                to identify the issues raised on appeal.
                                                 appeal.

        Even
        Even though
             though the
                    the weight of evidence
                                  evidence claims have
                                                  have also been
                                                            been waived,
                                                                 waived, those

claims will      be addressed.
       will also be

        "The
        The weight                     exclusively for the finder of fact, who is free
             weight of the evidence is exclusively

to believe
   believe all,
           all, none[,]
                none[,] or some of
                                of the evidence and to
                                                    to determine
                                                       determine the credibility of the
                                                                                    the

witnesses."
witnesses.Io' A court
              A court may
              104     may not
                          not substitute its
                                         its own
                                             own judgment
                                                 judgment for that of
                                                                   of the trier
                                                                          trier of

  Commonwealth r.
o commonwealth
144                                     545 (Pa.
               v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536,545 (Pa. Super.
                                                 Super. 2015)
                                                        20I5) (quotations
                                                              (quotations omitted).

                                              Page 50 of 83
fact. Io>
facet 10 ' ·gResolving
           "Resolving contradictory testimony and questions
                                                  questions of credibility
                                                               credibility are matters

for the finder of fact."
                  fact,1o6
                         106

         "In order for an Appellant
                          Appellant to
                                    to prevail
                                       prevail on aachallenge
                                                    challenge to
                                                              to the weight of
                                                                 the weight of the

evidence, the evidence must be so tenuous, vague
                                           vague and uncertain that the verdict

shocks
shocks the
       the conscience of     court. »Io7
                      of the cout   "107 When
                                         When ruling
                                              ruling on aaweight
                                                          weight claim, the trial
                                                                            trial

court must determine
           determine whether
                     whether "certain
                             "certain facts
                                      facts are so
                                                so clearly
                                                   clearly of greater
                                                              greater weight
                                                                      weight that
                                                                             that to
                                                                                  to

ignore
ignore them, or to give
                   give them equal weight
                                   weight with all the facts, is to deny
                                                                    deny justice."
                                                                         justice."

Commonwealth v. Holt, 273 A.3d 514, 532
                                    532 (Pa.
                                        (Pa. 2022),
                                             2022), cert. denied sub nom. Holt

v. Pennsylvania, 22-5463, 2022 WL 16542034 (U.S.
                                           (U.S. Oct. 31, 2022) (citation
                                                                (citation

omitted).

         In the case before us, the Appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence

underpinning
underpinning his
             his convictions on
                             on identical grounds
                                          grounds as those that were
                                                                were alleged
                                                                     alleged in his
                                                                                his

weight of evidence claim.                       In
                                                In particular,     Appellant alleges
                                                   particular, the Appellant alleges that
                                                                                     that the

Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to establish, beyond a
                                                                  a reasonable

doubt, that Tyrone Clark assaulted William Brown on September
                                                    September 11, 2021.

        These claims, as developed by the Appellant, are asserted with the backdrop

consisting
consisting of evidence that
                       that includes testimony from
                                               from the
                                                    the victim, William
                                                                William Christopher

Brown, who identified Tyrone Clark as the man who caused his injuries at trial.

   Id
105p
o
o Commonwealth
106cosmorowealth v.i, Delmonico, 251 AdA.3d 829,837
                                             829, 837 (Pa. Super. 2021).
                                                      (Pa. Super  2021). See id.
                                                                              id. (citing
                                                                                  (citing Talbert,
                                                                                          Talbent, 129 A.3d at 545).
                                                                                                               545)
on Talbert,
107            A.3d at 54$
   r4bent, 129 A.d      545 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
                            (internal quotation                      omitted).

                                                   Page 51 of 83
Brown provided testimony stating the Appellant cut him while they
                                                             they were both on

Fredrick Tumer's
         Turner's front porch.
                        porch.

        The Commonwealth also offered testimony from the responding
                                                         responding police
                                                                    police

officer, Officer Bialik, who testified that his immediate concern when he first

encountered the victim
                victim was
                       was to
                           to get him
                                  him to the
                                         the hospital
                                             hospital because
                                                      because he might
                                                                 might die.

        Evidence involving camera footage                             admitted; that
                                  footage of the altercation was also admitted;

surveillance footage
             footage showed the Appellant
                                Appellant and
                                          and the victim standing
                                                         standing on
                                                                  on the
                                                                     the porch
                                                                         porch in
                                                                               in aa

manner consistent with the testimony provided by Brown. This footage
                                                             footage also

depicted the Appellant leaping towards the victim and the victim fleeing     scene.
                                                                 fleeing the scene,

Photographs of the subsequent blood trail leading from Turner's porch, past several
                                                                porch, past

parked cars and down Beaver Road were also admitted into evidence.

        Brown's treating physician also testified, and explained
                                                       explained that upon
                                                                      upon seeing
                                                                           seeing the

laceration to the victim's throat, her immediate priority
                                                 priority was to prevent
                                                                 prevent him from

dying.
dying. During
       During her
              her testimony, she
                             she explained that
                                           that Brown
                                                Brown was
                                                      was admitted
                                                          admitted to the trauma
                                                                          trauma

unit as a
        a Level 11trauma patient, nothing he was "actively bleeding
                                                           bleeding in a
                                                                       a life-

threatening way." 108

        Furthermore, the Appellant took the stand and stated that he had in fact cut

William Christopher Brown with a
                               a razorblade while they were both on Fredrick

Turner's porch.

108 Transcript
or  pnscript of Record, July 6, 2022, at I82,
                                         182, Commonwealth ofPennsvh ania i•
                                                             Pennsylvania v Tyrone Clark, 1651 of 2021.
                                                                                                  202

                                              Page 52 0f83
                                                      of 83
         The Commonwealth provided sufficient evidence to prove
                                                          prove that the Appellant
                                                                         Appellant

acted with
acted with the
           the specific
               specific intent
                        intent to cause the
                               to cause the victim
                                            victim serious
                                                   serious bodily injury. The
                                                           bodily injury.     weight
                                                                          The weight

of the
of the evidence
       evidence provided by the
                provided by the Commonwealth in this
                                Commonwealth in this case
                                                     case was
                                                          was sufficient
                                                              sufficient to
                                                                         to

support a
        a guilty
          guilty conviction
                 conviction of the
                               the Appellant
                                   Appellant as to
                                                to Count 2, Count 3
                                                                  3 and
                                                                    and Count 4.
                                                                        Count 4,

This court, under these facts,
                        facts, cannot find                      guilt was
                                      find that the evidence of guilt was so tenuous,
                                                                             tenuous,

vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court. Therefore,
                                                                         Therefore,

the
the weight of the evidence
                  evidence claims, if not
                                      not deemed to
                                                 to be
                                                    be waived,
                                                       waived, were properly
                                                                    properly

denied

       THE    COURT DID
       THE COURT      DID NOT     ERR IN
                            NOT ERR      IN DENYING
                                            DENYING THE  THE DEFENDANT'S
                                                               DEFENDANT'S
    MOTION TO STRIKE POTENTIAL JUROR NUMBER                      JL5A-8 AND
                                                      NUMBER JLSA-8
                                  JUROR 14
           the Appellant argues that the court erred in denying
     Next, the                                          denying the Defendant's

motion
motion to
       to strike a
                 a juror because
                         because she had a
                                         a personal
                                           personal belief
                                                    belief that
                                                           that if
                                                                if a Defendant
                                                                     Defendant were
                                                                               were

not guilty
    guilty that the Defendant would testify.
                                    testify. The
                                             The Appellant
                                                 Appellant argues
                                                           argues that the juror
                                                                           juror

used ambiguous language on her ability to set her personal
                                                  personal belief aside and follow

the
the court's instruction.

      The issue raised by the Appellant stems from Juror Number JL5A-8

changing an answer on her questionnaire,
                          questionnaire, which asked if the juror
                                                            juror would have a
                                                                             a

problem following the court's instructions that aadefendant in a
                                                               a criminal case does

not have to take the stand or present
                              present evidence, and that remaining
                                                         remaining silent and

presenting no evidence cannot be held against the defendant.

                                    Page 53 of 83
                                            0f83
       The Juror had answered
                     answered "no," but her questionnaire indicated that the Juror

         checked "yes" originally. When asked about changing
may have checked                                    changing her answer,
                                                                 answer, the

Juror said that she would want to tell her side of the story
                                                       story if she were aadefendant

in a
   a criminal case, but that she had no issues following
                                               following the court's instructions. The

Commonwealth proceeded to rehabilitate the potential juror,
                                                     juror, and she confirmed

that she would be
               be to follow
                     follow the court's instructions.

       Similarly, the Appellant argues that the court erred in denying
                                                               denying their motion

for cause in dismissing Juror 14. This claim arises from this Juror disclosing to the

court that there was a
                     a possibility she had been familiar with the victim thirty-five
                                                                         thirty-five

years ago. This Juror explained that William Brown may have dated aateammate

of hers in high-school, but she was unable to confirm if the victim was that same

person.

      On appeal, challenges involving aamotion to strike jurors for cause are

subject to the following test:

      The test for determining
                   determining whether a  a prospective
                                            prospective juror should be
      disqualified is whether he is willing and able to eliminate the
      influence of any scruples and render a  a verdict according to the
      evidence, and this is to be determined on the basis of answers to
      questions and demeanor.... A  A challenge for cause should be granted
                                                                       granted
      when the prospective
                 prospective juror has such aaclose relationship,
                                                      relationship, familial,
      financial, or situational, with the parties, counsel, victims, or
      witnesses that the court will presume a  a likelihood of prejudice or

                                     Page 54 of 83
                                             0f83
                                                                                                      Circulated 12/ WV11013 PM
                                                                                                      crated     17488PP

          demonstrates aalikelihood of prejudice
                                       prejudice by
                                                 by his or her conduct and
          answers to questions. Io9
                     questions 109

           When
           When aajuror
                  juror demonstrates
                         demonstrates aalikelihood   of prejudice
                                         likelihood of  prejudice by  conduct or
                                                                  by conduct   or
          answers
           answers to questions, the
                   to questions, the standard
                                     standard of
                                               of review
                                                  review "must   depends upon
                                                          "must depends    upon the
                                                                                 the
          answers and demeanor of the potential juror as observed by   by the trial
          judge and[,] therefore[,] reversal is appropriate
                                                appropriate only
                                                             only in the case of
                    error."' 10
          palpable error.»Io

          We will first apply the above test to Juror No. JL5A-8. Here, the potential
                                                                            potential

Juror repeatedly stated that she would be able to following
                                                  following the court's instructions

and confirmed she would be able to set aside her desire to provide testimony
                                                                   testimony if she

were aadefendant in a
                    a criminal proceeding.
                               proceeding. There is no evidence of palpable
                                                                   palpable error

in the court's decision to deny the motion to strike this juror.
                                                          juror. It should also be
                                                                                be

noted that the Appellant in this case did eventually take the stand in his own

defense, which ultimately eliminated the main concern defense counsel when

raising this motion to strike. l"Therefore, the court did not err in denying
                       strike.'!                                     denying the

defense's motion
          motion to
                 to strike Juror
                           Juror No.
                                 No. JL5A-8.
                                     JL5A-8.

                      14, the court determined that any
          As to Juror I4,                           any possible relationship between
                                                        possible relationship

the victim and juror was too remote to qualify her for disqualification under the

     Commonwealth r.
Io commonwealth
11                                  563 Pa. 1,
                       v. Bridges, 563PA.        757 A/24
                                               1,7$7  A/2d 859,873
                                                            859, 873 (2000)
                                                                       (2000) (citing
                                                                                (citing Commonwealth v.              543 PA.
                                                                                                           • Wilson, $43  Pa. 429,
                                                                                                                              429,
672 A.2d 293
6724.24     293 ((1996)).
                  1996)).
"commonwealth
   0 Commonwealth •    v. Johnson,   299 Pa.Super.
                          Johnson, 299    Pa.Super 172,    445 A.2d
                                                       172,445   A.2d 509,
                                                                       509,512512 ((1982)
                                                                                    1982) (quoting
                                                                                           (quoting Commonwealth v. Colon, 223  223
Pa.Super.
Pa Super 202, 299 A.24 A.2d 326,328
                             326, 328 ((1972))
                                          1972)).
11 ' By Mr.
!lg          Schmierer, "My
        Mr. Schmierer,    "My concern
                                concem is is that the amount of detail that         gave in describing
                                                                          that she gave      describing her belief that somebody
would necessarily
         necessarily have to give
                               give their account of the incident would bias her to an extent that if Mr.    Mr Clark decides,
      again be
and again    he may
                may decide to to testify,
                                 testify, but if he decides not
                                                             not to testify,
                                                                     testify, that she may
                                                                                        may hold that
                                                                                                   that against
                                                                                                        against the Defendant
merely because of her
merely                her personally
                           personally held belief
                                              belief. So, for that reason, l I did raise that cause motion." Transcript
                                                                                                               Tescript of
Record, July
           July 5, 2022, at 60, Commonwealth ofPennsylvania i•• .Tyrone     Tyrone Clark, 1651 of 2022.
                                                                                                     2022

                                                        Page 55 of 83
statute. The
         The juror could
                   could not
                         not confirm with
                                     with certainty
                                          certainty that
                                                    that the victim was the same

person she was acquainted with in high school, and if it was the same person,
                                                                      person, she

had
had not seen or
             or spoken to him in
                              in thirty-five years.     explained that she had
                                             years. She explained          had not
                                                                               not

recognized his
           his name
               name on
                    on the
                       the witness list, and
                                         and that
                                             that the
                                                  the possibility
                                                      possibility that
                                                                  that this
                                                                       this might
                                                                            might be

the person who dated her friend did not cross her mind until the victim's testimony

was
was completed. This juror
                    juror was
                          was able
                              able to
                                   to verify
                                      verify that
                                             that this
                                                  this possible
                                                       possible connection
                                                                connection would

not prevent
    prevent her from being
                     being fair in this case to be fair and impartial
                                                            impartial to both sides,

nor would it
nor would it impact her evaluation
             impact her evaluation of
                                   of the
                                      the facts
                                          facts and circumstances in
                                                and circumstances in any
                                                                     any way,
                                                                         way. She
                                                                              She

confirmed she would be able to continue to follow all the instructions given
                                                                       given to her

by the court. In consideration of
by                             of Juror
                                  Juror 14's
                                        14's testimony,
                                             testimony, the
                                                        the court was correct
                                                                      correct in

denying the
        the Appellant's motion
                        motion to strike
                                  strike Juror
                                         Juror 14.
                                               14.

           COURT WAS CORRECT IN DENYING THE DEFENDANTS
     THE COURT                                                DEFENDANT'S
 MOTION  IN LIMINE
 MOTION IN  LIMINE TO JO INTRODUCE
                           INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
                                           EVIDENCE OF    OF VICTIM'S    PAST
                                                              VICTIM'S PAST
                             CONVICTIONS
                             CONVICTIONS
    The Appellant
        Appellant next argues that the court erred in denying
                                                      denying the Defendant's

motion
motion in
       in limine to
                 to introduce
                    introduce prior
                              prior crimen
                                    crimen falsi
                                           falsi convictions of the victim, William
                                                                            William

Christopher Brown. Point
Christopher        Point (h)
                         (h) of the Appellant's Concise Statement claims that the

court erred in denying this motion
            in denying      motion "under
                                   "under the
                                          the premise
                                              premise that
                                                      that the
                                                           the Defendant
                                                               Defendant did not
                                                                             not

provide written
provide written notice
                notice to
                       to the
                          the Commonwealth;" under
                                             under Point
                                                   Point (i)
                                                         (i) the
                                                             the Appellant
                                                                 Appellant states

"this error was because the probative value of allowing this evidence substantially

outweighed its
outweighed its prejudicial effect." Both
               prejudicial effect." Both issues
                                         issues will be addressed
                                                will be addressed in
                                                                  in this section.
                                                                     this section.

                                             of 83
                                     Page 56 0f
         During pretrial discussions, the defense provided
                                                  provided dockets and criminal

information related to two cases involving William Christopher
                                                   Christopher Brown,
                                                               Brown; aaguilty
                                                                        guilty

plea involving theft by unlawful taking
                                 taking from 2006, and a                     by
                                                       a conviction of theft by

unlawful taking
unlawful        from 2003.'
         taking from 2003."'Upon
                            Upon introducing
                                 introducing this evidence in
                                             this evidence in his
                                                              his motion,
                                                                  motion,

Attorney
Attorney Schmierer stated the following:
                              following:

         "Judge, and I I can show Mr. Wischnowski
                                          Wischnowski [the[the Commonwealth]
                                                               Commonwealth] what I     I
         have if he's agreeable to submitting these. For the first case which is
         captioned as, I I believe it's, it's captioned as 3157 of 2002, as a  a result
         of the fact that the docket was migrated from this being an older case,
         the information was unavailable to access on Infocon. However,However, I  I do
         have what is a a petition for hearing on a  a violation of probation that was
         filed by the district attorney, and it does articulate that on January
                                                                          January 29,
         2003, the Defendant entered a     a plea
                                             pica of guilty to a
                                                               a charge of theft by
         unlawful taking as a  a misdemeanor of the second degree.
                                                                 degree. If the
         Commonwealth is willing to stipulate that that's the case, I     I can offer
         that to the Court as proof that the alleged victim did, in fact, enter a    a
         plea
         plea of
              of guilty to
                         to theft
                            theft by
                                  by unlawful
                                     unlawful taking."
                                                 taking." '3        1

         There is no indication in the record that notice of the intention to

introduce this evidence was provided to the Commonwealth prior to the

motion
motion in limine;
          limine; however,
                  however, the                     objection to the
                           the Commonwealth had no objection

Criminal Information being admitted into pretrial
                                         pretrial evidence.

         In ruling
            ruling on the
                      the admissibility of crimen falsi
                                                  falsi convictions, the Superior
                                                                     the Superior

Court of Pennsylvania
         Pennsylvania has utilized weighing the following
                                                following factors:

         In
         In making this determination, the following
                   this detennination,     following factors should be
                                                                    be
         considered: 1)
                     I) the degree to which the commission of the prior
                                                                   prior

    Transcript of Record,7/06/22,
n12 reascript     Record, 7/06/22, at 19, Commonwealth
                                          Commonweallh i• Tyrone Clark, 1651 of 2021.
                                                                                2021. See also Pretrial Exhibit A
and B.
ad
I'p
  Id. at17
      at 17

                                                 Page 57 of 83
           offense reflects
           offense            upon the
                     reflects upon   the veracity
                                         veracity of
                                                   of the  defendant-witness; 2)
                                                      the defendant-witness;    2) the
                                                                                   the
           likelihood, in view of the nature and extent of the prior prior record, that it
           would have a   a greater tendency to smear the character of the defendant
           and suggest a  a propensity
                            propensity to commit the crime for which he stands
           charged,
           charged, rather than provide
                                    provide aalegitimate
                                               legitimate reason for discrediting
                                                                       discrediting him
           as an untruthful
                  untruthful person;
                              person; 3) the
                                           the age and
                                                    and circumstances
                                                         circumstances of the
                                                                            the
           defendant; 4) the strength
                                strength of the prosecution's
                                                 prosecution's case and the
           prosecution's
           prosecution's need to resort to this evidence as compared with the
           availability
           availability to the defense of other witnesses through
                                                               through which its version
           of
           of the
              the events
                   events surrounding
                           surrounding the    incident can
                                          the incident  can be presented;
                                                                presented; and
                                                                            and S)  the
                                                                                 5) the
           existence of alternative means of attacking the defendant's
           credibility.
           credibility.'
                       114

           The court touched
                     touched on
                             on all of
                                    of these factors
                                             factors in      capacity in
                                                     in some capacity in its
                                                                         its findings
                                                                             findings

on this motion
        motion in
               in limine.
                  limine. In
                          In its
                             its finding,
                                 finding, the court
                                              court stated
                                                    stated that
                                                           that while
                                                                while these
                                                                      these two

convictions involved dishonesty, they were over ten years old and the

probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the
probative

prejudicial
prejudicial effect. Further, there
                             there were other available
                                              available means
                                                        means to
                                                              to impeach this

witness.

           The Appellant
               Appellant goes on
                              on to say
                                    say that the Commonwealth "suffered
                                             the Commonwealth "suffered no
                                                                        no

prejudice
prejudice from the lack of written notice and had aafair opportunity to contest

the use
the use of such evidence."
        of such            While the
                evidence." While the court
                                     court noted
                                           noted the timing and
                                                 the timing and notice
                                                                notice

provided
provided to the Commonwealth in its findings,
                                    findings, there were other factors

considered that supported
                supported the denial of this motion in limine. However, it is

undeniable that Rule 609 includes aatiming requirement:

 con. •v. Palo, 2011 PA Super
114 COm.                Super 136,
                              136,24
                                   24 A.3d 1050, 1056
                                                 1056 (2011)
                                                      (2011) (citing Commonwealth v.
                                                             (citing Commomwealth v. (Montez) Harris, 884
A.2d
A.24 920, 925 (Pa.Super.2005)).
     920,925  (PA.Super.2005))

                                              Page
                                              Page 58 of 83
       Pa.R.E.
       Pa.R.E. 609, which governs the admission
                                      admission of impeachment
                                                   impeachment evidence,
                                                               evidence,
       provides as follows:
       provides as follows:
       Rule 609. Impeachment
                  Impeachment by
                               by evidence of conviction of crime

       (b) Time limit.
                  limit. Evidence
                          Evidence of aaconviction
                                         conviction under
                                                       under this rule
                                                                   rule is not
       admissible if aaperiod of more than ten years has elapsed since the
       date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the
       confinement
       confinement imposed
                       imposed for
                                for that
                                    that conviction,
                                         conviction, whichever
                                                       whichever is is the
                                                                       the later
                                                                            later date,
                                                                                  date,
       unless
       unless the
               the ocurt determines,
                          determines, in
                                       in the
                                          the interests
                                               interests of
                                                         of justice,
                                                            justice, that
                                                                      that the
                                                                           the
       probative
       probative value   of the
                  value of  the conviction
                                conviction substantially     outweighs its
                                             substantially outweighs      its
       prejudicial effect.
                    effect. However,
                            However, evidence of   of aaconviction
                                                        conviction moremore than
                                                                              than ten
                                                                                     ten
       years
       years old
              old as
                   as calculated herein
                                  herein isis not
                                              not admissible
                                                   admissible unless
                                                                 unless the
                                                                         the
       proponent    gives to the adverse party sufficient written notice of
       proponent gives
       intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party     party with a   a
       fair opportunity
            opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.
                                                          evidence,'°  1'

       The Appellant
           Appellant claims that the Commonwealth
                                     Commonwealth "acknowledged
                                                  "acknowledged

providing
providing the criminal record of the alleged victim about a
                                                          a week prior to trial"

and
and that
    that they              prejudice from the
         they suffered "no prejudice      the lack
                                              lack of written
                                                      written notice."
                                                              notice." While itit

could be argued that the Commonwealth was not prejudiced
                                              prejudiced by the lack of

written notice on the part
                      part of the Appellant,
                                  Appellant, that is not aafactor to be considered

under the plain language of the rule.

       In consideration of the foregoing,
                               foregoing, the court was correct in its ruling for

the denial of the introduction of crimen falsi evidence of the victim.

            ADMISSION OF JAIL CALL AND JURY INSTRUCTION

       Appellant
       Appellant next claims that it was error to admit aajail calls in which the

Appellant
Appellant was aaparticipant.
                participant. The jail
                                 jail call at issue contained comments made by the

0 Commonwealth v.
115            v. Palo, 24 A.3d
                           Ad 1050, 1056
                                    1056 (Pa.
                                         (Pa. Super. 2011), emphasis added.
                                              Super 201),

                                             Page 59 of 83
Appellant demonstrating his attempts to influence a
                                                  a witness to perjure
                                                               perjure himself by
                                                                               by

minimizing the Appellant's role in the razor attack, all in an effort to clear the

Appellant. Specifically, the Appellant
                             Appellant requested
                                       requested the other person
                                                           person on the call to

"[T]alk to
"(T]alk to Will because Will's supposed
                               supposed to give
                                           give the boy something to drop
                                                    boy something    drop the

charges." That portion                   by the Appellant
               portion of the call ended by     Appellant telling
                                                          telling the other caller

that, in order for his scheme to work, was
                                       was "like the only
                                                     only way
                                                          way he can drop
                                                                     drop the

charges
charges is if he
        is if he [the
                 [the boy] says he
                      boy] says he had
                                   had a
                                       a knife.
                                         knife.""
                                                "116

          It was clear that
          It was       that the
                            the Appellant was
                                          was attempting
                                              attempting to get
                                                            get the
                                                                the witness
                                                                    witness to
                                                                            to lie at trial
                                                                                      trial

about who
      who possessed aaknife
                      knife and he
                                he also
                                   also attempted to
                                                  to put
                                                     put together
                                                         together aapayoff
                                                                    payoff to
                                                                           to

accomplish that feat.
                feat. Trial
                      Trial counsel
                            counsel objected
                                    objected to
                                             to the
                                                the admission
                                                    admission of this evidence
                                                                      evidence at

trial.
trial. This court ruled that
                        that the
                             the evidence
                                 evidence was admissible
                                              admissible to demonstrate
                                                            demonstrate the
                                                                        the

Appellant's
Appellant's consciousness of guilt
                             guilt and the evidence was not to be admitted for

demonstrating that
              that the
                   the appellant
                       appellant engaged in
                                         in any illegal
                                                illegal conduct
                                                        conduct outside of the
                                                                           the

allegations made in the instant case.'
                                case.'          17

          Admission of
          "Admission    of evidence is
                                     is within
                                        within the
                                               the sound discretion of the
                                                                         the trial court and
                                                                                         and
               be reversed only
          will be           only upon
                                  upon aashowing
                                          showing that the trial court clearly
                                                                       clearly abused its
          discretion." Commonwealth
                        Commonwealth v.  v. Drumheller,
                                            Drumheller, 570 Pa.
                                                              Pa. 117,
                                                                  117, 135,
                                                                        135, 808
                                                                              808 A.2d
                                                                                   A.2d 893,
                                                                                         893,
          904 (2002),
          904  (2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 919, 123 S.Ct. 2284, 156 L.Ed.2d 137
          (2003) (quoting
          (2003)  (quoting Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 566 Pa. 349, 363, 781 A.2d
          110, 117
                117 (2001));
                    (2001)); Commonwealth v. Collins, 70 A.3d 1245, 1251
          (Pa.Super.2013). "An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment,
          (Pa.Super.2013).                                                         judgment,
          but is rather the overriding
                            overriding or misapplication
                                           misapplication of the law, or the exercise of

us Transcript
116renscrip of Record, July 6, 2022, at 22, Commonwealth •
                                                         v. Clark, 1651 of 2021
                                                                           2021.
 p. at11
117 1d. at 111.

                                                       of 83
                                               Page 60 0f
         judgment
         judgment that
                    that is
                          is manifestly unreasonable, or
                             manifestly unreasonable,     the result
                                                       or the         of bias,
                                                               result of bias, prejudice,
                                                                               prejudice, ill-
                                                                                          ill-
         will
         will or partiality, as shown byby the
                                           the evidence of
                                                        of record.""g
                                                            record "I

         Appellant claims
         Appellant claims that
                          that the
                               the admission
                                   admission of
                                             of this evidence was
                                                this evidence was "an
                                                                  "an improper
                                                                      improper use
                                                                               use

 of other crimes, wrongs, or acts evidence offered against     accused. "' 19 Te
                                                   against the accuse.I!9     The trial

court clearly
court         admitted this
      clearly admitted      as being
                       this as       relevant to
                               being relevant    demonstrate Appellant's
                                              to demonstrate Appellant's

consciousness of guilt. The recording suggests
                                      suggests that Appellant
                                                    Appellant was engaged
                                                                  engaged in

some effort
some effort to
            to prevent
               prevent or
                       or discourage
                          discourage the
                                     the victim
                                         victim from
                                                from testifying
                                                     testifying against
                                                                against him in aa
                                                                        him in

truthful manner.
truthful manner.

         Our Supreme Court has explained,
                               explained, "all relevant evidence, i.e.,
                                                                  i.e., evidence

which tends to make the existence or non-existence of aamaterial fact more or less

probable, is
          is admissible,
             admissible, subject to
                                 to the
                                    the prejudice/probative
                                        prejudice/probative value
                                                            value weighing
                                                                  weighing which

attends all decisions
attends all decisions upon
                      upon admissibility.19
                           admissibility." 110 Moreover,
                                               Moreover, "all relevant
                                                              relevant

Commonwealth evidence is meant to prejudice aadefendant
                                              defendant [and]
                                                        [and] a
                                                              a trial court is not

required to sanitize the trial to eliminate all unpleasant
                                                unpleasant facts from the jury's
                                                                          jury's

consideration[.]"'
consideration[.]" 21

        An
        An exception to
                     to this
                        this rule
                             rule is that "[e]vidence of aacrime, wrong,
                                     that "[e]vidence             wrong, or other act
                                                                                  act is
                                                                                      is

not admissible to prove a
                        a person's character in order to show that on a
                                                                      a particular
                                                                        particular

occasion
occasion the
         the person acted in
             person acted in accordance
                             accordance with
                                        with the
                                             the character."
                                                 character." Pa.R.E.
                                                             Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1).
                                                                     404(b(1).

    Commonwealth v. Tyson,
 Commonwealth
1's                    1yson, 119 A.3d
                                  A.34 353,357-58
                                       3$3,357--58 (Pa.Super.2015)
                                                    (PA.Super.2015) (en
                                                                      (en Banc)
                                                                          bane) (quoting,
                                                                                  (quoting, Commonwealth v.
                                                                                                         v. Harris,
884  A.2d 920,924
884 A.2d  920,924 (Pa.Super.2005),
                    (Pa.Super.2005), appeal denied, 593
                                     appeal denied,      Pa. 726,
                                                    593Pa.   726, 928
                                                                  928 A.2d    1289 (2007)).
                                                                       A.2d 1289    (2007)
I9 Appellant's
19  Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complain of on Appeal,     ¶8(1)
                                                               Appeal, 8(I
    Commonwealth •
no comoowealthe
120              v. Dillon, 925 A.2d
                                A.24 131, 136
                                           136 (Pa. 2007).
                                               (Pa. 2007)
    Commonwealth v.
121 coomorwealth • Dula, 262
                          262 A.34
                              A.3d 609,633(Pa.
                                    609, 633 (Pa. Super.
                                                  Super. 2021)
                                                          2021) (citation
                                                                (citation omitted).
                                                                          omitted)

                                                 Page
                                                 Page 61 of 83
Evidence
Evidence may be
             be admissible for aapurpose other
                                         other than to               propensity,
                                                    to show criminal propensity,

"such as proving motive, opportunity,
                         opportunity, intent, preparation,
                                              preparation, plan, knowledge,
                                                           plan, knowledge,

identity,
identity, absence
          absence of
                  of mistake,
                     mistake, or lack of accident." Pa.R.E.
                                                    Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).
                                                            404(b)02).

          "Evidence of prior bad acts may also be introduced to prove consciousness
          Evidence

                                                    wrongdoing. "122Even
of guilt, i.e., that the defendant was aware of his wrongdoing.ma    Even where an

exception to Rule 404(b)'s prohibition against evidence of prior
                                                           prior bad acts applies,
                                                                          applies,

the evidence is admissible
                admissible "only if the probative
                                        probative value of the evidence outweighs
                                                                        outweighs

its potential for unfair prejudice." Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2).
                                             404(b)(2). "Unfair prejudice
                                                                prejudice means aa

tendency
tendency to
         to suggest decision on an improper
                                   improper basis
                                            basis or to
                                                     to divert
                                                        divert the jury's
                                                                   jury's attention

away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially."
                                            impartially." Pa.R.E. 403
                                                                  403 (comment)
                                                                      (comment).

          Pennsylvania courts long recognized that any attempt by an appellant
                                                                     appellant to

interfere
interfere with
          with aawitness's
                 witness's testimony is
                                     is admissible to
                                                   to show appellant's
                                                           appellant's

                 guilt. " I In
consciousness of guilt'     [ that case, the action of the appellant in threatening

one witness
    witness and attempting to
                           to influence
                              influence another
                                        another witness
                                                witness to
                                                        to concoct an
                                                                   an alibi were
                                                                            were

found to
found to be
         be permissible
            permissible evidence of consciousness
                        evidence of consciousness of guilt. 124
                                                  of guilt.

          "[T]he only offer I
          [T]he             I had was those guys
                                            guys [defendants].
                                                 [defendants]. These people
                                                                     people offered

me
me $$5,000.00
     5,000.00 not to come to court."
                             cour.'  125 This statement, made by
                                                              by aawitness, was

deemed admissible based on that court's acknowledgement that "testimony

X22 Commonwealth i . Ivy,
 amowealth • y, 146 A.34
                   t    A.3d 241,  251 (Pa. Super
                              241,251       Super. 2016)
                                                   2016) (citation
                                                         (citation omitted).
iz3 Commonwealth. v. Rega, 593 Pa. 659, 681, 933 A.2d 997,1009
caamomwealth. v. Rega, 593 Pa. 659,681,933 4.24 997, 1009 (2007).
                                                              (2007)
124 Id.
 A
   Commonwealth v.
as commonwealth
"I              v. Johnson, 542
                            $42 Pa. 384, 398,668
                                         398, 668 A.24
                                                  A.2d 97,104
                                                       97,104 ((1995)
                                                                1995).

                                               Page 62 of
                                                       0f 83
 regarding attempts by aadefendant in aacriminal prosecution
                                                 prosecution to interfere with

 witnesses is admissible to
                         to show the defendant's consciousness ofguilt.
                                                               of guilt.°   In
                                                                        126 1%

 Commonwealth v. Lark,
 Commonwealth    Lark,'127 evidence of threats made by     appellant to aawitness
                                                    by the appellant

was deemed to be
              be "admissible as such evidence constituted admissions by
                                                                     by conduct

showing consciousness of guilt. In this
                                   this case, in       language, the
                                              in clear language,     appellant
                                                                 the appellant

desperately tried to alter the story that the victim would tell to the jury.
                                                                       jury. His efforts

were unsuccessful and what was revealed through his own words in the telephone
                                                                     telephone

recording was Mr. Clark's own consciousness of guilt.
                                               guilt.

          The Appellant also claims that the trial court erred in not providing
                                                                      providing aa

limiting instruction regarding the introduction of the jail recording.
                                                            recording. No such

instruction was requested at the time that the recording was played
                                                             played or when points
                                                                            points

for charge were to be submitted and, no objection was made to the final charge
                                                                        charge that

did not include aalimiting instruction.

          Therefore,
          Therefore, this
                     this particular challenge
                                     challenge has
                                               has been waived.
                                                        waived.1' Pa.R.A.P
                                                                  Pa.R.A.P 302(x)
                                                                           302(a)

requires an appellant to make aatimely and specific objection
                                                    objection at trial or face waiver

of his issue on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Failure
                                          "Failure to request
                                                      request aacautionary
                                                                cautionary

126 Id.
 I
127 Commonwealth v.
 coomoowealth    v. Lark, 518 Pa. 290, 308, 543 A.2d 491, 500
                     Larke, 518 PA. 290, 308,543 A.2 491, 5$00 ((1988)
                                                                   1988)
  Transcript of Record, July 6, 2022 at 113,
 fenscript
12 '
   1                                                      of 2021.
                                          13, Clark, 1651 0f 2021

                                                  Page
                                                  Page 63 of 83
instruction upon
            upon the introduction
                     introduction of evidence constitutes a
                                                          a waiver
                                                            waiver of aaclaim of trial
                                                                                 trial

court error
      error in failing
               failing to issue
                          issue a
                                a cautionary instruction."
                                             instruction."129
                                                           129

          The
          The record
              record reveals
                     reveals that appellant presented this issue for the first time in his
                             that appellant                                            his

Rule 1925(b) statement. It is well settled that issues not raised in the lower court

are
are waived and
           and cannot be raised for the first time    appeal."' Moreover,
                                              time on appeal.   Moreover, a
                                                                          a party
                                                                            party

cannot rectify the failure to preserve an issue by raising
                                                   raising it for the first time in a
                                                                                    a

Rule 1925()
     1925(b) statement.
             statement,"'

   THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT THE COURT PERMITTED THE
  COMMONWEALTH TO TO COMMENT ON DEFENDANT'S RETENTION
  OF COUNSEL PROVIDED LITTLE
                      LIITLE GUIDANCE FOR THIS COURT TO
              CONDUCT AA MEANINGFUL REVIEW

          In point (m)
                   (m) the Appellant's Concise Statement, the
                                                          the Appellant
                                                              Appellant argues:
                                                                        argues: "The
                                                                                "The

Court erred in
            in permitting
               permitting the Commonwealth
                              Commonwealth to
                                           to comment on the
                                                         the Defendant's
                                                             Defendant's

retention of counsel prior to trial in violation of his rights under the Pennsylvania
                                                                         Pennsylvania

and
and United States Constitutions.""'  Despite multiple
                  Constitutions."I32Despite  multiple reviews
                                                      reviews of the trial
                                                                     trial transcripts
                                                                           transcripts

in its entirety, this statement is too vague
                                       vague for this court to identify, with absolute

certainty, when this alleged comment occurred on the part of the Commonwealth.

129 Commonwealth
n   commonwealth v. Bryant,        579 Pa.
                          Bryant,5$79        119, 141, 855 A.24
                                        PA. 119,141,          A.2d 726,739
                                                                    726,739 (2004)     (citing Commonwealth ,
                                                                                (2004) (citing                   v. Wallace, 522
Pa.
Pa. 297,565611 A.2d   719 ((1989
               A.24 719      1989) (holding trial counsel's failure to object, when trial countcourt did not issue cautionary
instruction following
             following introduction of evidence of defendant's prior incarceration, resulted in waiver of any claim o£          of
error based
error based upon
              upon trial  court's failure
                    trial court's  failure to give aacautionary
                                           to give    cautionary instruction);
                                                                   instruction), Commonwealth v.     v, Jones,
                                                                                                        Jones, 501
                                                                                                               $01 Pa. 162, 460
                                                                                                                       162,460
A.2d  739 ((1983)
A24 739     1983) (deeming
                    (deeming issue waived where defense counsel immediately objected to prosecutor's conduct but
failed
failed to request mistrial
                   mistrial or   curative instructions)
                              or curative  instructions).
130 Commonwealth
e   commonwealth v. Watson, 835 A.2d     A.24 786,791
                                               786,791 (Pa.     Super. 2003); see also Pa.R.A.P.
                                                          (Pa. Super.                     Pa.R.A.P, 302(a).
                                                                                                       302(a)
    .See Commonwealth v,
131 See                       , Pi Delta Pt,
                                          Psi, Inc.,  211 A.3d
                                                Ince_21          875, 884 (Pa.
                                                           A.34 87$,884     (PA. Super.   2019) (stating
                                                                                  Super 2019)    (stating "issues, even those of
constitutional
constitutional dimension,
                 dimension, are waived if not not raised
                                                   raised in
                                                           in the trial court.
                                                                        count.")
                                                                               ")
132 Appellant's Concise
  Appellant's               Statement of
                  Concise Statement         Matters Complain
                                         of Matters   Complain of of on
                                                                     on Appeal,    ¶8(m)
                                                                         Appeal,8(m)

                                                        Page 64 0f
                                                                of 83
        Raising clear and precise issues is a
                                            aparamount pillar to the 1925 opinion

process. In Commonwealth v.
                         v Lord,
                            lord, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
                                                       Pennsylvania

spearheaded vague issues raised on appeal,
                                   appeal, reasoning:
                                           reasoning:

        The absence of a
                       a trial court opinion poses aasubstantial impediment to
        meaningful and effective appellate review. Rule 1925 is intended to to
        aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues which
        the parties plan to raise on appeal. Rule 1925 is thus a    a crucial
        component of the appellate
                           appellate process." 133
                                     process.133

The court in Lord was addressing general situations where an appellant completely
                                                                       completely

fails to mention an issue, however this point was extended to "Concise Statements

which are so vague as to prevent the court from identifying the issue to be raised

on appeal" by the Pennsylvania Superior Court:134
                                        Court:'

        When a acourt has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that
        is not enough for meaningful review. When an appellant fails
        adequately to identify in a    a concise manner the issues sought to be
        pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded in its preparation of aa
        legal analysis which is pertinent to those issues. In other words,
        a[c]oncise [s]tatement
                    [s]tatement which is too vague to allow the court to
        identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no
                               all. 115
        Concise Statement at all.>

        For the reasons explained above, this court feels that providing an analysis

on an issue this unclear would amount to guessing on the part of the court. This

►.. Commonwealth v.
 commonwealth    v. Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 719 A.2d 306, 308
                                                     308 ((1998)
                                                           1998).
•aa coomoowealth
4   Commonwealth v.
                 • Dowling, 778 A.2d        686 (Pa.Super.
                                  A.24 683, 686 (Pa.Super 2001).
ass Commonwealth •
 scamowealth     v. Reeves, 907 A.21,2(Pa.Super.2006).
                                A.2d 1, 2 (Pa.Super.2006).

                                               Page 65 of 83
court is
      is unable to
                to provide
                   provide aameaningful
                             meaningful review
                                        review as to the
                                                     the issue
                                                         issue raised
                                                               raised in point
                                                                         point (m)
                                                                               (m) of

the Appellant's Concise Statement.

THE COMMONWEALTH DID        DID NOT
                                  NOT SUGGEST THAT  THAT THE DEFENDANT_
                                                              DEFENDANT
 HAD A
 HAD   DUTY TO
     ADUTY     TO ASSIST
                    ASSIST THETHE COMMONWEALTH IN MEETING ITS       ITS
 BURDEN
 BURDEN OEOF PROOF,
               PROOF, AND/OR
                         AND/OR ASSIST
                                    ASSIST THE
                                             THE LAW ENFORCMENT
                                                         ENFORCMENT IN
                         THEIR INVESTIGATION
    The next
        next points
             points raised
                    raised by
                           by the
                              the Appellant
                                  Appellant are
                                            are as
                                                as follows:

        n)     The Court erred in permitting the Commonwealth's questioning
        which
        which suggested
                suggested to
                          to the
                             the jury that the
                                           the Defendant
                                                Defendant has
                                                            has an
                                                                 an obligation to
                                                                               to
        assist the Commonwealth in meeting its burden of proof, thus shifting
        the burden
             burden to
                     to the
                        the Defendant,
                             Defendant, in violation
                                             violation of his
                                                           his rights
                                                                rights under the
                                                                              the
        Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.
        o)     The Court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to
        impermissibly suggest that Defendant and by extension, Defendant's
        counsel, had an obligation to assist law enforcement in the
        investigation
        investigation of
                       of the case
                                case in violation
                                          violation of his
                                                         his rights
                                                              rights under the
        Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.

        Point
        Point (n)
              (n) has similar vagueness issues addressed in the section above

regarding the analysis for point
regarding                  point (m);
                                 (m); it's unclear when the Commonwealth

suggested that the Defendant has an obligation to assist the Commonwealth in

meeting its burden of proof.
                      proof. This court assumes the Appellant is referencing
                                                                 referencing

redirect testimony
         testimony of the Commonwealth's witness, Officer Bialik. The redirect
                                                                      redirect

testimony is relevant to the issue raised in point
                                             point (o)
                                                   (o) and will be addressed here as

well.

                                      Page
                                      Page 66
                                           66 of
                                              0f 83
                                                 83
      During
      During the
             the Commonwealth's initial line    questioning, Officer
                                        line of questioning, Officer Bialik
                                                                     Bialik was

asked about his observations as responding officer on September 11,
                                                                 H, 2021, as well

as
as his
   his role in
            in the investigation as the affiant and
                                                and investigating
                                                    investigating officer.

      On cross-examination, counsel for the
                                        the Appellant
                                            Appellant asked
                                                      asked aaseries of questions
                                                                        questions

related to Officer Bialik's training
                            training and experience
                                         experience as an affiant, as well as his

process
process in interviewing
           interviewing witnesses to crimes.
                                     crimes. Appellant
                                             Appellant on cross examination
                                                                examination also

asked Officer Bialik about the inclusion of interviews of a
                                                          a defendant during his

investigations. It should be noted that whether or not the Appellant made aa

statement to police was a
                        a question presented by the Defense in their cross-

examination of Officer Bialik. Retention of counsel was not an issue touched on or

included in the Commonwealth's direct-examination or redirect, as noted in the

analysis for the section above. Moreover, the question
                                              question initially
                                                       initially posed by Attorney
                                                                          Attorney

Schmierer regarding
          regarding the officer receiving aastatement from the Appellant
                                                               Appellant included

no limiting time-frame, meaning it was not clear if he was asking the officer if he

sought a
       a statement before or after the Appellant retained counsel for trial.

      After a
            a sidebar concluded, the Commonwealth's re-direct of their witness,

Officer Bialik, continued:

      MR.
      MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
            WISCHNOWSKI: Thanks, Your   Your Honor.
                                             Honor. Officer Bialik,
                                                              Bialik, IIwas
      asking you about your communications, just in general, with defense
      asking
      attorneys with the cases that you conduct, the investigations that you
      lead. Do you
               you know pretty much every criminal defense in this county?

                                      Page 67 of 83
                                              0f83
          BIALIK
          BIALIK ["A"]:
                   ["A"]: I
                          I know
                            know aalot
                                   lot of them I
                                               I would
                                                 would say.
                                                       say. Yeah,
                                                            Yeah, IIknow a
                                                                         a lot
          of them.
             them.
          MR. WISCHNOWSKI
               WISCHNOWSKI["Q"]:   HQ"]: Do you communicate with them almost
          every day or at least every
          every day             every week?
         A: Honestly, no. IIhardly ever. Minus a
                                               a few, I
                                                      I hardly
                                                        hardly ever speak
                                                                    speak to
         them.
         Q: If a
               a defense lawyer reached out to you
                                               you to ask you       questions
                                                          you some questions
         about your investigation, would you
                                         you make yourself
                                                    yourself available up
                                                                       up until
         the time of trial?
         A: If someone called, yes.
         Q:
         Q: Did
            Did anybody onon Mr.
                             Mr. Clark's behalf reach
                                                reach out to
                                                          to you to
                                                                 to ask you
                                                                        you
         some of those clarifying
                       clarifying questions?
                                  questions?
         MR. SCHMIERER: I'm going to renew my objection,
                                              objection, Your Honor.
         THE COURT: Overruled.
         BY MR. WISCHNOWSKI:
         Q: The question is, did Mr. Schmierer or any counsel or Mr. Clark
         ever reach
              reach out to
                        to you
                           you to
                               to ask        clarify some of those
                                  ask you to clarify               things you
                                                             those things you
         were asked about'?
                     about?
         A:
         A: No.
            No.'I"

         We disagree
            disagree that
                     that this line of questioning
                                       questioning was
                                                   was the Commonwealth's attempt
                                                           Commonwealth's attempt

to
to shift the burden of proof to the defense. We also do not agree
                                                            agree that this line of

questioning implied that the Defendant, and by extension, the Defendant's counsel,

had an obligation to assist law enforcement in their investigation, as argued by
                                                                              by the

Appellant. Conversely, the court viewed this line of questioning as the

Commonwealth's attempt to rehabilitate their witness after the defense challenged

the thoroughness of the criminal investigation.
                                 investigation.

    Transcript of Record, July 6, 2022, at
 rnscript
136           of Record, July 6, 2022, at 140-141, Commonwealth
                                                   Commonwealth i•• Clarke,
                                                                    Clark, 1651 of 2021.
                                                                                   2024

                                                 Page 68 of 83
          The case law on this issue is clear. In aacriminal trial, aasuggestion
                                                                      suggestion that a
                                                                                      a

defendant has a
              a duty or obligation to produce evidence may
                                                       may infringe
                                                           infringe on the

defendant's constitutionally-protected presumption of innocence in violation of his

fair right
fair       to trial.
     right to trial.     A statement
                         A
                       137 statement from
                                     from which
                                          which the
                                                the jury
                                                    jury can draw an
                                                         can draw an adverse
                                                                     adverse inference
                                                                             inference

from the defendant's failure to produce evidence will violate a
                                                              a defendant's

constitutionally-protected right to be presumed innocent.
                                                innocent.'1' However, as stated by
                                                                                by

the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in
                                  in Commonwealth v. Sneed, aacomment from

the Commonwealth concerning
                 concerning aadefendant's failure to produce
                                                     produce evidence does not

violate aadefendant's right
                      right to aafair trial when
                                            when the
                                                 the statements
                                                     statements are in response
                                                                       response to

"defense counsel's argument"
                   argument" or aa "theory                 defense[.] )) 139
                                   "theory espoused by the defensef,1139

Additionally, our Supreme Court has found that suggesting
                                               suggesting "weaknesses regarding
                                                                      regarding

the defense's proffered evidence" does not amount to an improper
                                                        improper shift of the

Commonwealth's burden
Commonwealth's burden to
                      to procedure
                         procedure evidence.
                                   evidence.Mo
                                             140

          In the case at hand, the Commonwealth's comments were made in response
                                                                        response

to allegations advanced by the defense in their cross-examination of Officer Bialik,

where the defense attempted to theorize about the completeness of his investigation
                                                                      investigation

as lead
   lead investigating officer and affiant.
                                  affiant. If anything,
                                              anything, the Commonwealth was
                                                                         was able
                                                                             able

 Commonwealth v.
carmonwealth
137           v. Miller, 208 A.2d 867, 869-71
                                       869-71 (Fa_ 1965).
                                              (Pa. 1965)
    at
I. 870
138 1d.870.
    Commonwealth v.
139 omorwealth             45 A.3d
                 v. Sneed, 4  A.34      1096, 1112 (Pa.2012).
                                        1096, 1112(Pa.2012
peas       v. Pennsylvania, 134 CE 173,
140 Thomas v. Pennsylvania, 134 $.
                                S.Ct.
                                   173,187
                                        187 (U.S.2013)
                                            (0.$.2013)

                                                           of 83
                                                   Page 69 0f83
to establish that it would be out of the ordinary for an investigating officer to speak
                                                                                  speak

with defense counsel in the course of their investigation.
                                            investigation.

              WISCHNOWSKI [" Q'T Do you communicate with
         MR. WISCHNOWSK["Q"]:                                with [defense
                                                                  [defense
         attorneys] almost every day or at least every week?
         A:
         A: Honestly,
            Honestly, no. I
                          I hardly
                            hardly ever. Minus a
                                               a few, I
                                                      I hardly      speak to
                                                        hardly ever speak
         them.
Since the door was open
                   open in regard
                           regard to the thoroughness
                                         thoroughness of Officer Bialik's

investigation during cross examination by trial counsel, the court was correct in

permitting this line of questioning over the defense's objections.

         Likewise, although point (m)
                                  (m) is vague
                                         vague as to what line of questioning
                                                                  questioning the

Appellant
Appellant is referring
             referring to,
                       to, the
                           the court does
                                     does not
                                          not believe
                                              believe it was implied
                                                             implied that the
                                                                          the

Defendant
Defendant had
          had an obligation
                 obligation to
                            to assist
                               assist the
                                      the Commonwealth in
                                                       in meeting
                                                          meeting its burden
                                                                      burden of

proof during this line of questioning.
                          questioning. Additionally, this argument
                                                          argument fails in light
                                                                            light of

the jury instructions read on July 8, 2022:

         "And
         And so, to summarize, you may not find the Defendant guiltyguilty based
        upon
        upon mere                guilt. The
              mere suspicion of guilt,  The Commonwealth has has the
                                                                  the burden
                                                                       burden of of
        proving
        proving the
                 the Defendant
                     Defendant guilty
                                guilty beyond
                                        beyond aareasonable
                                                  reasonable doubt. IfIf itit meets
                                                                              meets
        that burden, then the Defendant is no longer
                                                longer presumed
                                                       presumed innocent, and
        you should find him guilty. On the other hand, if the Commonwealth
        does not meet its burden, then you must find him not guilty.
                                                              guilty,I
                                                                     "141

        For the reasons stated above, the Commonwealth's line of questioning did

not violate the Appellant's rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution or the

United States Constitution.

141 Transcript of Record, July
wrascript                 July $,
                               8, 2022, at 62, Commonwealth v.
                                                            v. Clark, 1651 of 2022.
                                                                              2022

                                                 Page 70 of
                                                         0f 83
                                    BEST EVIDENCE CLAIM

                                                     overruling the Defendant's
        The Appellant argues that the court erred in overruling

objection under the best evidence rule, specifically
                                        specifically stating
                                                     stating that the "Court erred in

overruling
overruling the Defendant's objection
                           objection under the best evidence rule where Officer

Bialik was asked to provide
                    provide his opinion
                                opinion that the alleged
                                                 alleged victim was standing
                                                                    standing in aa

passive
passive or non-threatening
           non-threatening way in
                               in a
                                  a video, here
                                           here the
                                                the officer did
                                                            did not
                                                                not personally
                                                                    personally

observe
observe the
        the incident.
            incident"in?  The Appellant
                      142 Te            argues that the since the
                              Appellant argues                the officer
                                                                  officer only
                                                                          only

viewed the surveillance footage,
                        footage, the objection
                                     objection should have been sustained under

the
the best evidence rule.
                  rule. This line                         during the
                             line of questioning occurred during

Commonwealth's redirect of Officer Bialik. The relevant portions
                                                        portions are as follows:

        BY
        BY MR. SCHMIERER:
        Q: All right.
                right. Just aafew final questions, Officer
                                                   Officer Bialik.
                                                           Bialik. Now,
                                                                   Now, we
                                                                         we didn't
        see in the video that you
                                you had gone
                                         gone back to retrieve that surveillance
        video, but you did that at a a later time?
        A:
        A: Yeah.
           Yeah. It
                 It was e-mailed to
                                 to me.
        Q:
        Q: It was e-mailed to you?
        A:
        A: Yes.
           Yes.
           Okay. And that was from a
        Q: Okay.                   a Ms. Brown?
        A: Yes.
           Yes.
        Q: And
           And you're
                you're familiar
                       familiar with Brown
                                     Brown as being aaneighbor
                                                      neighbor of Fred
                                                                  Fred
        Turner's?
        Turner's?
        A: Yes.
        A:
        Q: Okay.
           Okay. And I I think you
                               you testified maybe
                                             maybe that you had occasion to
        speak
        speak with her in the past
                              past and obtain video from her house on other
        investigations?

'42 Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complain of on Appeal,
                                                                 ¶8(p)
"Appellant's Concise Statement of Matters Complain of on Appeal, 8(p)

                                                Page 71 of 83
         A: Yes.
         Q: Okay. And so II guess subsequent to that day is when you would
         have received that video by e-mail?
         A: Excuse me?
         Q: You would have gotten that video later by e-mail?
         A: It would have been very, I  I want to say, like, when you see me enter
         the police station, at the very end of my body camera, it should have
         been because you see me walking up and talking to Mrs. Brown.
         She's looking through and trying to figure out how to e-mail to me.
         By the time II got back to the station, she had probably e-mailed it to
         me by then.
         Q:
         Q: Okay. And did
                      did you
                          you have
                              have it
                                   it before you
                                             you filed
                                                 filed your
                                                       your total Complaint?
                                                                  Complaint?
        A:
        A: Yes.
           Yes."141

        [BY MR. WISCHNOWSKI:]
                  WISCHNOWSKI]
        Q: Now, you got to watch the video that Mr. Schmierer referenced of
        the surveillance camera footage; correct?
        A: Yes.
        Q: That was provided to you by Jacque Brown?
        A: Yes.
        Q: And you watched it before you filed the charges;
        Q:And                                      charges; correct?
        A: Yes.
        Q:
        Q: Did that impact the way that you filed the charges and the
        decisions that you made when you prepared your Criminal
        Complaint?
        A: Yes.
        Q: How did it influence you? Well, let me ask it to
                                                         to you this way. How
        many people were in that
                             that footage?
        A:
        A: Two.
        Q: And were you able to identify them easily?
        A: Yes.

143 Transcript of Record, July
wenscript                 July 6, 2022, a1
                                        at 133-13$,1651
                                           133-135, 1651 0f
                                                         of 2021.
                                                            2021,

                                                  Page 72 of 83
                                                          0f83
       Q: Who were they?
       A: It was Christopher Brown, William Christopher Brown, and the
       Defendant.
        Q: Why weren't you concerned that Mr. Brown might
                                                     might have raised a
                                                                       a
        knife before the Defendant raised his knife?
       A: His, it appeared he had his arms crossed. I
                                                    I don't want to, we'll say,
                                                                           say,
       you couldn't really see arm, but you could see he was in aanon-
       threatening manner—
                    manner-
       MR. SCHMIERER: Your Honor, I'm going to object at this point. I      I
       think that we're discussing the video that we've, that hasn't been
       admitted into evidence at this point, and obviously the video is the
       best evidence of what is being discussed.
       THE COURT: Overruled.
       MR. WISCHNOWSKI,
            WISCHNOWSKI. Thank you. So, you were explaining that Mr.
       Brown was standing in aa nonthreatening way. How was the beginning
       of the video, how was Mr. Clark portrayed in that video?
       A: Passive. If IIhad to describe him, he was lounging.
                                                    lounging."                 144

       The trial transcript shows this line of question was in response to cross-

examination of Officer Bialik by Attorney Schmierer. The purpose of this re-direct

was to establish the completeness of Officer Bialik's investigation of the incident

and to provide context to the charges Bialik included in the criminal information.

The testimony as to what the officer no
                                     noticed
                                        I iced in the video was in response to a
                                                                               a

question as to what impact
                    impact his observation of the video had on the charges that he

filed. His explanation of what he observed was not comment on the video so much

as his explanation as what he
                           he reviewed to formulate the charges that were included

in the Complaint.

 Transcript of Record, July
reanscript
144                    July 6,
                            6, 2022,             Commonwealth v. Clark,
                               2022, at 141-143, Commonwealth    Clark, 1651
                                                                        165l of 2021.
                                                                                202

                                              Page
                                              Page 73 of
                                                      0f 83
                                                                 standing in a
         The Commonwealth did not directly ask if the victim was standing    a non-

threatening way, they asked why the investigating officer was not concerned that

the victim had raised aaknife before the Defendant raised his. Once again,
                                                                    again, this

question must be read in the context of the original question that was asked of the

office, namely,
office, namely, what
                what he observed in
                     he observed in the
                                    the video
                                        video which led to
                                              which led to his
                                                           his filing of charges
                                                               filing of charges

against the Appellant. Moreover, it was the Appellant
                                            Appellant who was described as

standing in aa "passive" manner, not
                                 not the victim.
                                         victim.

        A 2022 Superior Court case, Commonwealth v. Abrams, addressed best
        A

evidence rules as
               as applied
                  applied to surveillance video:
                                          video;

        Pursuant to Rule 1002, known as the "best evidence rule" under
        common law,
                  law, "[a]n original writing,
                                      writing, recording,
                                               recording, or photograph
                                                              photograph is
        required in order to prove its content unless these rules,
                                                             rules, other rules
        prescribed by the Supreme Court, or a  a statute provides
                                                         provides otherwise."
        Pa.R.E. 1002.
                I 002.
        Although the best evidence rule is traditionally
                                            traditionally applied
                                                           applied only
                                                                    only to
        writings, "[surveillance
                  "[s]urveillance videotapes
                                  videotapes `present
                                              'present the same type
                                                                  type of
        circumstances which the best evidence rule was designed
                                                            designed to guard
                                                                         guard
        against,' namely testimony about the content of aavideotape
                                                              videotape when the
        original tape has not been produced
                                   produced or admitted." Commonwealth v.
        Green,
        Green, 162  A.3d 509,
                162 A.3d  509, 518
                               518 (Pa.  Super. 2017),
                                    (Pa. Super.         citing Commonwealth
                                                2017), citing   Commonwealth v.  v.
        Lewis,
        Lewis, 623
                623 A.2d
                    A.2d 355,  358 (Pa.
                          355, 358  (Pa. Super. 1993)
                                                1993) (first
                                                       (first case to apply best
                                                                   to apply best
        evidence rule to videotape evidence).
        While testimony to to prove content isis inadmissible
                                                  inadmissible if
                                                               if neither
                                                                  neither an
        original nor a a duplicate is introduced,
                                       introduced, "[a]
                                                      "[a] duplicate is admissible[,]
                                                                        admissible[,]
        to
        to the
           the same  extent as
               same extent   as the original[,] unless
                                the original[,] unless aa genuine
                                                          genuine  question
                                                                   question  is
                                                                             is raised
                                                                                raised
        about the original's authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to
        admit  the duplicate."
        admit the  duplicate." Pa.R.E.
                                Pa.R.E. 1003.   14 '
                                          1003.'°

w   Commonwealth v.
ias commonwealth e. Abrams, 272
                            272 A.3d 483
                                     483 (Pa,
                                         (Pa. Super.
                                              Super. Ct. 2022),          added.
                                                         2022), emphasis added

                                               Page 74 0f
                                                       of 83
         Here, the actual surveillance footage was played for the jury
                                                                  jury on the same day
                                                                                   day

 as Officer Bialik's testimony. This evidence was introduced when the

 Commonwealth's next witness, Jacque Brown, was called to testify.
                                                          testify,"146 Jacque
                                                                       Jacque

 Brown was able to authenticate that the video was generated
                                                   generated from surveillance

 cameras on her property. The authenticity of the surveillance footage
                                                               footage was not

 objected to during her testimony.

        Rule I1002
               002 is applicable only in circumstances where the contents of
        the writing, recording or photograph are integral
                                                        integral to proving
                                                                     proving the central
        issue in a
                 a trial....
                   trial... Consequently, if the Commonwealth is introducing
                                                                           introducing a a
        writing, recording, or photograph at trial, Rule 1002 requiresrequires that the
        original
        original be introduced only if the Commonwealth must prove
                 be  introduced    only if the Commonwealth        must  prove the
                                                                                 the
        contents of the writing, recording or photograph
                                                  photograph     to
                                                                 to establish  the
        elements of its case." Commonwealth v. Fisher, 764 A.2d 82, 88
        (Pa.Super. 2000).
                     2000). "The rule is not implicated
                                                implicated just
                                                             just because evidence is
        relevant;" the rule applies if the writing,
                                               writing, recording,
                                                          recording, or photograph
                                                                            photograph
        is necessary to prove the elements of a       acase. Id,
                                                               Id. at 381.
                                                                      38]. In other
        words, the content of the video must be material to, and not just         just
        mere evidence
              evidence of, of, the issues at bar
                                             bar for
                                                 for the
                                                      the best evidence
                                                                evidence rule toto apply.
                                                                                    apply.
        Lewis, supra at 358.
                           358. "If the Commonwealth does not need to prove        prove
        the content of the writing or recording
                                           recording to prove
                                                            prove the elements of
        the offense charged, then the Commonwealth is not required to
        introduce the original writing or recording." Commonwealth v. Dent,        Dent,
        837 A.2d 571, 590 590 (Pa.Super.   2003).
                               (Pa.Super. 2003).1 147

        In the case at hand, the Commonwealth did not need the surveillance video

in order to prove the elements of the charges against the defendant. Nonetheless,

case law establishes that a
                          a violation of the best evidence rule is subject to the

146 See Commonwealth's Exhibit 8
gee Commonwealth's Exhibit 8
 Commonwealth v.
commonwealth
141           v. Green, 2017 PA Super 140, 162 A.3d 509, 518--19
                                                         518-19 (2017)
                                                                 (2017

                                           Page 75 0f
                                                   of 83
                 test. "I4s Not every violation will rise to the level of reversible error
 "harmless error tegt        148

 in every case where there is aatrue violation.  "
                                                 An error will be deemed harmless
                                     violation.""An         149

 where the appellate court concludes beyond aareasonable doubt that the error could

not have contributed to the verdict.is0
                            verdict. " The Commonwealth bears the burden of
                                                 i50

establishing that the error was harmless; this burden is satisfied when the

Commonwealth is able to show:
                        show: ((l)
                                1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the

prejudice was de minimis; or
                          or (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely
                                                                       merely

cumulative of other untainted evidence which was substantially
                                                 substantially similar to the

erroneously admitted evidence; or
                               or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted

evidence of guilt was
                  was so overwhelming and the
                                          the prejudicial
                                              prejudicial effect of the error so

insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the

verdict.
verdict.'151

           As stated, the Commonwealth was able to produce
                                                   produce the surveillance footage
                                                                            footage

in question. Even if defense's
                     defenses best evidence objection was overruled in error, that

error was harmless. Regardless of Officer Bialik's testimony regarding
                                                             regarding what he

observed in the footage, the Commonwealth provided testimony from the victim,

William Christopher Brown, who was able to describe the incident. This testimony

included a
         a description from the victim of the injuries he had sustained from

er Commonwealth v. Lewis, 424 Pa.Super. 531, 623 A.2d 355 (1993).
148 carmomwealth v. Lewis, 424 PA.Super $31,623 A.24 355(1993
1491d.
, .. Id.
"' Commonwealth it
 commonwealth   e. Mitchell, 576
                             576 Pa.
                                 PA. 258, 280, 839 A.2d 202,214
                                                        202, 214 (2003).
                                                                 (200.3).
   Commonwealth v. Green, 2017 PA Super 140,162
151commonwealth                         140, 162 A.3d 509,519
                                                      509,519 (2017)
                                                              (2017) (quoting
                                                                     (quoting Commonwealth v.
                                                                                           v. Passmore,
867 A.2d           (Pa.Super. 2004)).
     4.2d 697, 711 (Pa.Super. 2004))

                                                Page 76 of
                                                        0f 83
Appellant as aaresult of Appellant's conduct,
                                     conduct. While the surveillance footage
                                                                     footage was

evidence that would support that the Clark and Brown were on Freddie Turner's

porch together, it was not the only evidence offered by the Commonwealth that

established this fact. Furthermore, the Appellant was able to establish that he was

on the porch with Brown, and the Appellant provided testimony confirming that he

did strike Brown with a
                      a razor blade. Therefore, even if the objection
                                                            objection to this line of

questioning was incorrectly overruled, the testimony of the officer who viewed the

footage in question was not dispositive of the Appellants guilt
                                                          guilt and amounts to

harmless error.

DR. CHRISTIE PROVIDED TESITMONY AS THE VICTIMS TREATING
                PHYSICIAN, NOT AN EXPERT WITNESS
                PHYSICIAN,
     Next, the Appellant claims that "[t]he Court erred in permitting
                                                           permitting the fact

witness, Sabrina Christie, who was not qualified as an expert witness, to testify that

a
a laceration that is 5
                     S centimeters in depth is deep enough to
                                                           to pierce the
                                                                     the `'platysma
                                                                           platysma

muscle.""" The testimony in question involves Commonwealth witness Dr.
muscle,19

Sabrina Christie
        Christie (Dr. Christie), who testified as William Christopher Brown's

treating physician.

        Dr. Christie testified and referred to her operative dictation records for the

victim during the course of his treatment.
                                treatment.S Her testimony that aalaceration that is
                                                       I"

5
5 centimeters in depth is enough to pierce the platysma muscle was permitted, as

 concise
152 Concise Statement of Errors Complained on Appeal,
                                              Appeal, 8(q)
                                                      ¶8(q).
s   See Commonwealth Exhibit 11.
153 ge                          IL

                                                Page 77 of 83
                                                        0f83
she had personal knowledge of the injuries sustained by
                                                     by the victim and she was

required to measure the wound in the course of his treatment. Her operative

dictation records were not prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.

        Our Superior
            Superior Court has addressed issues regarding
                                                regarding challenges
                                                          challenges to treating
                                                                        treating

physician
physician testimony on appeal. In Krolikowski
                                  Krolikowski v.
                                              v. Ethicon
                                                 Ethicon Womens'
                                                         Womens' Health
                                                                 Health &&

Urology   Div. of
Urology aaDiv. ofEithicon,
                  Eithicon, Inc.,
                            Inc., the court explained:

        Appellant's
        Appellant's argument fails for several reasons. First, the Polett Court
        placed no emphasis on the fact that the treating physician was
        qualified as an expert at trial. Rather, the Court focused on the fact
        that the physician's causation opinion was formed
                                                      formed during the course of
        treatment, rather than in anticipation of litigation. See
                                                              See Polett,
                                                                  Polett, 126 A.3d
        at 924-26. See  also Crespo,
                    See also  Crespo, 167 A.3d at 182
        (concluding treating physician waswas "qualified to comment as
        a
        a fact witness on causation because his testimony was based
                                                                  based on his
        observations, diagnosis, and medical judgment at the time he rendered
        treatment to
                   to [the plaintiffl;"
                           plaintiff];" question posed to physician asked him to
        clarify
        clarify "his own notes").
                          notes") 154
                                    I9

        In another case, Kurjan
                         Kurjan v.
                                v. Anisman, the Superior Court explained

when testimony of aatreating physician can
                                       can survive an expert witness

testimony challenge; specifically stating that opinions formed by aatreating

physician
physician before litigation are admissible."
                                admissible. 155 "Assuming arguendo
                                                "Assuming arguendo that Dr.

Hector's testimony is considered to be
                                    be `opinion'
                                       opinion' testimony, this testimony is

still admissible as Dr. Hector was plaintiffs
                                   plaintiff's treating physician prior to and

without any regard to litigation."

grolikow.skt
 Krolikowski •
15¢          v. Ethic
                Ethicon
                   on Womens`Health    & Urology a
                        Womens' Health &         aDhr
                                                   Die, ofEthicon, Inc., 240 A.3
                                                                             A.3d 151 (Pa. Super.
                                                                                           Super, Ct. 2020)
155 Kurjan v,
  grfan    v. Anisman, 851
            Amusma, 8$1 A.2d 152,156
                        A.24 152, 16 (Pa.Super.2004)
                                      Super.2004)
                                     (Pa

                                              Page 78 of 83
                                                      0f83
        In
        In another challenge to physician testimony
                   challenge to                        appeal, the
                                          testimony on appeal, the Superior
                                                                   Superior

 Court differentiated between expert         testimony and opinion
                              expert medical testimony     opinion

testimony of aatreating
               treating physical.
                        physical.

        Appellant
        Appellant first
                   first alleges
                         alleges that because Dr.
                                 that because  Dr. Channapati
                                                   Channapati testified
                                                                testified as
                                                                          as a
                                                                             a
        medical expert,
        medical  expert, he
                          he was  required to
                             was required  to provide
                                              provide aa pre-trial
                                                         pre-trial report
                                                                   report pursuant
                                                                          pursuant
        to
        to Pa.R.C.P.
           Pa.R.C.P, 4003.5. Therefore,
                               Therefore, Appellant   argues that
                                          Appellant argues    that because
                                                                    because Dr.
                                                                             Dr.
        Channapati
        Channapati did did not
                            not provide
                                 provide aapre-trial
                                              pre-trial report,    the trial
                                                         report, the    trial court
                                                                              court should
                                                                                      should
        have
        have precluded
                precluded his    testimony. The
                            his testimony.     The trial   court found
                                                     trial court   found that
                                                                            that Dr.
                                                                                  Dr.
        Channapati was not required to provide a            a pre-trial
                                                              pre-trial report
                                                                          report pursuant
                                                                                   pursuant to  to
        Rule
        Rule 4003.5
                4003.5 because
                         because he he was
                                       was notnot retained
                                                   retained in  in anticipation
                                                                   anticipation of    of
        litigation.
        litigation. WeWe agree.
                           agree. This    Court has
                                   This Court     has held
                                                        held that
                                                              that where
                                                                    where a     doctor's
                                                                             a doctor's
        opinions and knowledge are acquired before an action commences,         commences,
       the doctor's
              doctor's "opinions proffered at trial fall outside the scope      scope of Rule
       4003.5." KatzKat v. St. Mary's
                                 Mary's Hospital,
                                           Hospital, 816 A.2d 1125,   1125, 1127
       (Pa.Super.2003). Presently, Dr.
       (Pa.Super.2003).                     Dr. Channapati was   was the
                                                                       the decedent's treating
                                                                                           treating
       physician. His testimony related to his personal observations of the
       decedent
       decedent in the the months
                            months prior
                                      prior to
                                             to her
                                                 her death.
                                                      death. HeHe testified regarding
                                                                               regarding her her
       condition and the care he provided to her. Dr. Channapati   Channapati did not
       express any
       express     any opinion
                        opinion regarding
                                  regarding whether Appellee
                                                           Appellee was was negligent
                                                                              negligent or  or
       breached the standard of care required required    for  apersonal
                                                               a personal    care   home.    Thus,
                                                                                             Thus,
       it
       it is
           is clear
              clear that
                    that Dr.   Channapati's testimony
                          Dr. Channapati's      testimony regarding
                                                              regarding thethe decedent's
                                                                                 decedent's
       condition was
       condition     was not offered
                               offered asas expert
                                            expert medical       opinion and that
                                                      medical opinion             that he
                                                                                       he was
                                                                                            was
       not retained
       not   retained byby Appellee
                           Appellee in in anticipation
                                           anticipation of of trial.
                                                               trial. Accordingly,
                                                                       Accordingly, the  the trial
                                                                                              trial
       court
       court diddid not
                    not err
                         err in
                             in finding
                                finding   Rule
                                          Rule   4003.5
                                                 4003.5    inapplicable.'
                                                           inapplicable.I     11

       Similarly, Dr.
                  Dr. Christie provided
                               provided testimony
                                        testimony regarding
                                                  regarding the
                                                            the victim's
                                                                victim's injuries
                                                                         injuries as
                                                                                  as

related
related to
        to her
           her personal observations in
               personal observations in the course of
                                        the course of his
                                                      his treatment.
                                                          treatment. A
                                                                     A treating
                                                                       treating

physician's testimony
            testimony is     subject to
                      is not subject    expert witness
                                     to expert witness disclosure
                                                       disclosure when
                                                                  when the opinions
                                                                       the opinions

or facts
or facts are developed in
         are developed    the normal
                       in the nonnal course
                                     course of
                                            of medical treatment for
                                               medical treatment for aapatient and
                                                                       patient and

are not
are not developed
        developed in
                  in anticipation of litigation.
                     anticipation of litigation. As the treating
                                                 As the treating physician
                                                                 physician who
                                                                           who

4
1Alwine
s6wte •v. Sugar Creek Rest,
                      Rest, Inc.,              241, ¶
                            Ie., 2005 PA Super 291,$n13-15, 883 A.2d 605, 610
                                                                          610 (Pa. Super. Ct.
                                                                              (Pa. Sper.  Ct, 2005)
                                                                                              2005$)

                                             Page    of 83
                                             Page 79 0f 83
measured the depth of the injuries sustained by William Christopher
                                                        Christopher Brown, she

was permitted to testify whether or not an injury.
                                           injury was deep enough to pierce
                                                      deep enough    pierce the

platysma muscle, as this knowledge
                         knowledge was required                          injury.
                                       required for her to treat Brown's injury.

This does
This does not
          not amount
              amount to
                     to expert
                        expert testimony,
                               testimony, as alleged by
                                          as alleged by the
                                                        the Appellant, and the
                                                            Appellant, and the

court was correct in ruling
                     ruling over
                            over defense counsel's
                                         counsel's objection on
                                                             on this
                                                                this matter.
                                                                     matter.

      JURY INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE DEFINITION FOR DEADLY
       WEAPON UNDER THE STATUE NOT CONTAINED IN STANDARD
                   CRIMINAL
                   CRIMINAL JURY
                            JURY INSTRUCTION
                                 INSTRUCTION

        Finally,
        Finally, the
                 the Appellant argues that
                     Appellant argues that the
                                           the trial court erred
                                               trial court erred in
                                                                 in providing
                                                                    providing aa

definition for deadly weapon
                      weapon under the statute, which was not contained in

standard criminal jury instructions. Prior to jury
                                              jury instructions being
                                                                being provided,
                                                                      provided, the

court asked
court asked if there were
            if there      any specific
                     were any specific interrogatories
                                       interrogatories being
                                                       being requested on the
                                                             requested on the verdict
                                                                              verdict

slip. The Commonwealth requested aaspecial
                                   special interrogatory
                                           interrogatory for deadly weapon
                                                         for deadly weapon to

Count 1
      I and 2, over no objection from the defense counsel. This issue is related to

a
a question
  question posed by the jury
                        jury during
                             during the course of deliberations, where they
                                                                       they

requested the
          the statutory definition for "Deadly Weapon."
                                               Weapon."

        It's well-settled that suggested
                               suggested standard jury
                                                  jury instructions themselves are not

binding. 157Suggested
binding.'    Suggested standard jury
                                jury instructions do not alter the discretion afford to

      judges in crafting
trial judges    crafting jury
                         jury instructions; the instructions are guides only."' The
                                                                        only, The

trial courts of Pennsylvania
                Pennsylvania "are invested with broad discretion in crafting jury
"ICommonwealth v.
  commooealth  v. Simpson,
                  Simpson, 620
                           620 Pa.
                               Pa. 60,
                                   60, 95,
                                       95, 66 A.3d 253,274
                                           66 A.3d 253,274 (2013).
                                                           (2013)
Id.
p
159

                                             Page 80 of 83
instructions, and such instructions will be upheld so long as they clearly and

accurately present the law to the jury for its consideration."
                                           its consideration.1s                    159

         There is no doubt that the instructions read to the jury
                                                             jury were a
                                                                       a clear and

accurate presentation of the law.
                             law, In ruling on this matter, the court stated the

following:

         I
         I was aware of the notion, and it's been referred to as aawell-
         settled principle that the standard jury instructions are not
         themselves binding, do not alter the discretion in me crafting
        jury instructions, and so given that that is the status of the law
         and given the clear authority that aatrial judge may frame jury
         instructions and language that deviates from standard
         instructions, so long as the instruction adequately and
         accurately defines essential terms, so long as I I abide by that
         polestar, IIfeel that giving the definition in Section 2301 is
         something that could very easily have been included in the
        original instruction and at this point it very well maybe if I  I have
        this instruction come up. It doesn't misstate the law or what aa
         deadly weapon is. It doesn't confuse the jury by telling them
        that this is what it is. They have aaspecific question, and this is
        one of those times where it can definitely be answered with
        exact words. The question can be with, when I      I say exact words,
        IImean words straight from what they reference as
        Commonwealth law.
        So my intentions are to read the definition and tell them that
        this definition was not previously provided to them; however,
        this is the definition that arises out of Pennsylvania law, which
        is in something we call Title 18 in Section 2301. IIdon't like to
        give too may technical terms, but I   I think the reference to
        Pennsylvania law is necessary there.
                                          there.''10

159 Commonwealth
    coamomealth v.v. Rainey, 593 Pa.Pa. 67, 112-13,928
                                             112-13, 928 A.2d
                                                         A2d 215, 242-43
                                                                  242-43 (2007).
                                                                          (2007)
reo Transcript of Record, July 8, 2022, at
 geanscript                              at 100-01,
                                            100-0I, Commonwealth ofof Pennsylvania v.
                                                                                   v. Tyrone Clark, 1651 of 2021.
                                                                                                            2021

                                                 Page 81 of 83
The
The instruction
    instruction read to
                     to the
                        the jury included
                                 included the
                                          the exact
                                              exact language
                                                    language under     statutory
                                                             under the statutory

definition of deadly weapon. Providing this clarifying instruction to the jury
                                                                          jury was

well within the discretion of the trial judge in this case.

                                   CONCLUSION
                                   CONCLUSION

      For the reasons stated above, this court respectfully
                                               respectfully submits that the

allegations of error in this case are without merit and therefore this court's holding
                                                                               holding

resulting from a
               a deemed denial
                        denial should be
                                      be affirmed.
                                         affirmed. The
                                                   The Beaver County Clerk of
                                                       Beaver County       of

Courts is hereby directed to file the record of these proceedings          Superior
                                                      proceedings with the Superior

Court of Pennsylvania, an appropriate order shall follow.

                                            Respectfully
                                            Respectfully Submitted,

                                                                             -·-
                                                                             G
                                                                                         J
                                                                             ±
                                                                             A
                                                                             c
                                                                                   .-c
                                                                                   ' '
                                                                             J>    c

                                                                        ii
                                                                        tr
                                                                        z
                                                                             --
                                                                             c,n
                                                                             cn
                                                                             o
                                                                             c
                                                                                   -
                                                                                   �

                                                                      VINdhlASNN3d
                                                                      VINVA1A SNN3d
                                                                   A1Nn3 9
                                                                 62 : 1Pd
                                                                 62:l     OS NYT
                                                                       H 0€  Ny r7?
                                                                                 EZE
                                                                  St CH

                                     Page
                                     Page 82
                                          82 of
                                             0f 83
                                                83
      IN THE
      IN THE COURT
             COURT OF
                   OF COMMON
                      COMMON PLEAS    OF BEAVER
                               PLEAS OF  BEAVER COUNTY,
                                                COUNTY,
                        PENNSYLVANIA
                        PENNSYLVANIA
                      CRIMINAL
                      CRIMINAL DIVISION
                                DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH
COMMONWEAL  TH OF
PENNSYLVANIA                                          CP-04-CR-001651-2021
             VS.
             vs.
                                                       1412 WDA 2022
TYRONE CLARK

                                        ORDER
                                        ORDER

      AND NOW, this 30"
                    30 day of January, 2023, it appearing
                                                appearing that the defendant

has filed a
          a Notice of Appeal
                      Appeal in the above-captioned
                                    above-captioned case and it further appearing
                                                                        appearing

that the
     the accompanying Memorandum Opinion satisfies the requirements
                                                       requirements of Pa.

R.A.P. 1925(a), it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Criminal Court Division of

the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County
                                    County transmit the record in the above

captioned case
          case to
               to the
                  the Superior
                      Superior Court
                               Court forthwith.
                                     forthwith.
                                                                  _
                                                        BY THE COURT:-
                                                               COLMT            ~
                                                                                C

                                                       ll4
                                                       Mitchell
                                                       Mitchell P.-,ha•qn,
                                                                P.Sha[en,
                                                                  r, E
                                                                           Judge
                                                                           Judge
                                                                          z-

                                                         V1N'4A3,lSNN3d
                                                         V IN VA1A SNN3d
                                                        •' [ Nr!) 11 •
                                                        A[No         a-1 aV _rI"?
                                                                     w2Aw10

                                                      6Z ::11H
                                                      62     lid 0E NV r
                                                                 0£ YT  QR'
                                                                        £2A?
                                                         •v ≤1-•• •,-• fit•`;'--': rt

                                   Page 83 0f83
                                           of 83