Com. v. Wilkins, H.

J-A14019-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : HANEF WILKINS : : Appellant : No. 2948 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 6, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008007-2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : HANEF WILKINS : : Appellant : No. 2949 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 6, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008013-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2025

Appellant Hanef Wilkins appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

after a jury convicted him of third-degree murder and criminal conspiracy at

Docket No. 8007-2021,1 and criminal conspiracy, possessing an instrument of

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(c) and 903, respectively. J-A14019-25

crime (PIC), possession of a firearm without a license, possession of a firearm

in Philadelphia, and two counts of aggravated assault, at Docket No. 8013-

2021.2,3 On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the

evidence, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, and claims that the trial court

erred in denying a motion for a mistrial. After careful review, we affirm on

the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

The facts of the case are well known to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op.,

8/16/24, at 1-17. Briefly, on October 4, 2018, at approximately 8:00 P.M.,

there was a shooting at a gas station on the 2400 block of West Passyunk

Avenue in Philadelphia. Appellant, Yameen Mofield, Khalid Nyheem Harrison,

and Markell Davis were identified as the shooters, and Appellant and Mofield

were affiliated with the 31 st Street gang. The shooting resulted in the death

of one minor, R.B., and wounding of two additional minors, K.B. and Q.B. 4

The victims were alleged to be affiliated with the 27 th Street gang, and there

was a history of back-and-forth violence between the two rival gangs. See

id. Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the aforementioned

crimes. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of forty-five

to ninety years of incarceration. See id. at 19.

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903, 907(a), 6106(a)(1), 6108, and 2702(a), respectively.

3 The appeals were consolidated sua sponte pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513. See Order, 7/31/24.

4 All three victims were juveniles, and the trial court identified the victims by

their initials. See Trial Ct. Op., 8/16/24, at 1.

-2- J-A14019-25

Appellant filed post-sentence motions, which the trial court denied, and

Appellant filed a timely notice appeal. Appellant filed a concise statement of

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and the trial

court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion in response.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues:

1. Was the evidence insufficient to convict Appellant of murder in the 3rd degree and related charges for the killing of R.B., and aggravated assault and related charges as to the shooting of K.B. and Q.B. as there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed either offense?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not finding that the guilty verdicts entered against . . . Appellant were against the weight of the evidence?

3. Did the trial court err by granting the Commonwealth’s motion to admit other acts permitting the jury to hear that almost one year prior to the killing of R.B., Appellant was in possession of a firearm not connected to the charges in this case, and that eighteen months after the killing of R.B. that Appellant was in a stolen vehicle, where firearms were recovered, and [Appellant was] shot at another location in Philadelphia by unknown individuals?

4. Did the trial court err by not granting a mistrial after the prosecution called Khalid Nyheem Harrison, an alleged co- conspirator in the killing of R.B. who previously pled guilty to killing R.B., to testify about his involvement in the killing of R.B. and after Harrison refused to testify, specifically referenced Harrison’s guilty plea referencing that he killed R.B. with Appellant and Mofield?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (some formatting altered).

Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and relevant legal

authority, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op.,

-3- J-A14019-25

8/16/24, at 1-61.5 The trial court set forth the correct standards of review for

each issue, thoroughly addressed Appellant’s claims of error, and concluded

that Appellant was not entitled to relief. See id. For these reasons, we affirm

based on the trial court’s well-reasoned opinion. 6

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 9/23/2025

____________________________________________

5 As noted above, Appellant was convicted of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. Recently, a panel of this Court concluded that Section 6108 was unconstitutional as applied to the appellant in that matter. See Commonwealth v. Sumpter, ___A.3d___, ___, 2025 PA Super 124, 2025 WL 1743218, at (Pa. Super. filed June 23, 2025). As a new rule of law, the Sumpter decision applies retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal so long as the issue was preserved at all stages of adjudication. See Commonwealth v. Grooms, 247 A.3d 31, 37 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2021). Here, Appellant did not challenge the constitutionality of Section 6108. Therefore, Appellant has not preserved this issue, and we are constrained to find it waived in this appeal. See id.

6 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the

event of further proceedings.

-4-

J-A14019-25

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : HANEF WILKINS : : Appellant : No. 2948 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 6, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008007-2021

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : HANEF WILKINS : : Appellant : No. 2949 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 6, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0008013-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2025

Appellant Hanef Wilkins appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

after a jury convicted him of third-degree murder and criminal conspiracy at

Docket No. 8007-2021,1 and criminal conspiracy, possessing an instrument of

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2502(c) and 903, respectively. J-A14019-25

crime (PIC), possession of a firearm without a license, possession of a firearm

in Philadelphia, and two counts of aggravated assault, at Docket No. 8013-

2021.2,3 On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the

evidence, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, and claims that the trial court

erred in denying a motion for a mistrial. After careful review, we affirm on

the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

The facts of the case are well known to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op.,

8/16/24, at 1-17. Briefly, on October 4, 2018, at approximately 8:00 P.M.,

there was a shooting at a gas station on the 2400 block of West Passyunk

Avenue in Philadelphia. Appellant, Yameen Mofield, Khalid Nyheem Harrison,

and Markell Davis were identified as the shooters, and Appellant and Mofield

were affiliated with the 31 st Street gang. The shooting resulted in the death

of one minor, R.B., and wounding of two additional minors, K.B. and Q.B. 4

The victims were alleged to be affiliated with the 27 th Street gang, and there

was a history of back-and-forth violence between the two rival gangs. See

id. Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the aforementioned

crimes. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of forty-five

to ninety years of incarceration. See id. at 19.

____________________________________________

2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903, 907(a), 6106(a)(1), 6108, and 2702(a), respectively.

3 The appeals were consolidated sua sponte pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513. See Order, 7/31/24.

4 All three victims were juveniles, and the trial court identified the victims by

their initials. See Trial Ct. Op., 8/16/24, at 1.

-2- J-A14019-25

Appellant filed post-sentence motions, which the trial court denied, and

Appellant filed a timely notice appeal. Appellant filed a concise statement of

errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and the trial

court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion in response.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues:

1. Was the evidence insufficient to convict Appellant of murder in the 3rd degree and related charges for the killing of R.B., and aggravated assault and related charges as to the shooting of K.B. and Q.B. as there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed either offense?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not finding that the guilty verdicts entered against . . . Appellant were against the weight of the evidence?

3. Did the trial court err by granting the Commonwealth’s motion to admit other acts permitting the jury to hear that almost one year prior to the killing of R.B., Appellant was in possession of a firearm not connected to the charges in this case, and that eighteen months after the killing of R.B. that Appellant was in a stolen vehicle, where firearms were recovered, and [Appellant was] shot at another location in Philadelphia by unknown individuals?

4. Did the trial court err by not granting a mistrial after the prosecution called Khalid Nyheem Harrison, an alleged co- conspirator in the killing of R.B. who previously pled guilty to killing R.B., to testify about his involvement in the killing of R.B. and after Harrison refused to testify, specifically referenced Harrison’s guilty plea referencing that he killed R.B. with Appellant and Mofield?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (some formatting altered).

Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and relevant legal

authority, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op.,

-3- J-A14019-25

8/16/24, at 1-61.5 The trial court set forth the correct standards of review for

each issue, thoroughly addressed Appellant’s claims of error, and concluded

that Appellant was not entitled to relief. See id. For these reasons, we affirm

based on the trial court’s well-reasoned opinion. 6

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 9/23/2025

____________________________________________

5 As noted above, Appellant was convicted of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108. Recently, a panel of this Court concluded that Section 6108 was unconstitutional as applied to the appellant in that matter. See Commonwealth v. Sumpter, ___A.3d___, ___, 2025 PA Super 124, 2025 WL 1743218, at (Pa. Super. filed June 23, 2025). As a new rule of law, the Sumpter decision applies retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal so long as the issue was preserved at all stages of adjudication. See Commonwealth v. Grooms, 247 A.3d 31, 37 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2021). Here, Appellant did not challenge the constitutionality of Section 6108. Therefore, Appellant has not preserved this issue, and we are constrained to find it waived in this appeal. See id.

6 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the

event of further proceedings.

-4-  Circulated Circulated 08/27/2025 08/27/2025 10:05 10:05 AM AM

IN IN THE THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OFOF PHILADELPHIA PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COUNTY FIRST FIRST JUDICIAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT OF OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL TRIAL DIVISION DIVISION --- CRIMINAL CRIMINAL SECTION SECTION

Commonwealth Commonwealth of ofPennsylvania Pennsylvania . CP-51-CR-0008007-2021 CP-51-CR-0008007-2021 I} F!LED Fu.Eo CP-51-CR-0008013-2021 CP-51-CR-0008013-2021

v. AUG 1 6 2024 2024: SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT COURT NO: NO: Appeais/Host Appeals(+-ost Trial: Trial: 2948 2948 EDA EDA 2023 2023 Hanef Hanef Wilkins Wilkins Office Office of of Judicial Judicial Records Records 2949 2949 EDA EDA 2023 2023

OPINION OPINION

Ehrlich, Ehrlich, J.J.

Hanef Hanef Wilkins, Wilkins, hereinafter hereinafter referred referred to to as as “Appellant,” “Appellant,” was was found found guilty guilty by by aa jury jury on on June June

21, 21, 2023, 2023, of of Murder Murder of of the the Third Third Degree, Degree, Conspiracy, Conspiracy, Aggravated Aggravated Assault, Assault, Possessing Possessing

Instruments Instruments of of Crime, Crime, and and two two (2) (2) violations violations of of the the Uniform Uniform Firearms Firearms Act. Act. This This Court Court

subsequently subsequently sentenced sentenced Appellant Appellant to to an an aggregate aggregate term term of of forty-five forty-five (45) (45) to to ninety ninety (90) (90) years years of of

confinement. confinement. Appellant Appellant timely timely appealed appealed his his judgment judgment of of sentence, sentence, challenging challenging the the sufficiency sufficiency

and and weight weight of of the the evidence, evidence, the the admission admission of of other other acts acts evidence, evidence, and and the the denial denial of of his his motion motion for for

aa mistrial mistrial following following aa Commonwealth Commonwealth witness’s witness's refusal refusal to to answer answer questions. questions. Appellant’s Appellant's claims claims

are are without without merit merit and and no no relief relief is is due. due.

Statement Statement of of Facts Facts

On On October October 4, 4, 2018, 2018, at at around around 8:00 8:00 p.m., p.m., three three (3) (3) minors minors - - R.B., R.B., K.B., K.B., and and Q.B. Q.B. --- were were

shot shot at at aa gas gas station station on on 2435 2435 West West Passyunk Passyunk Avenue Avenue in in Philadelphia. Philadelphia. R.B. R.B. died died from from aa gunshot gunshot

wound wound he he sustained. sustained. Video Video footage footage of of the the shooting shooting showed showed at at least least two two (2) (2) shooters shooters who who arrived arrived

at at the the gas gas station station in in aa vehicle vehicle and and fled fled after after shooting. shooting. Police Police connected connected this this shooting shooting to to aa series series of of

11  back-and-forth shootings back-and-forth shootings between between the the 27th 27th Street Street gang and the gang and the 3 31st Street gang, 1st Street rival gangs gang, rival in gangs in

South Philadelphia. South An individual Philadelphia. An individual associated associated with with 3 31st Street ultimately 1 st Street ultimately cooperated with police cooperated with police

and gave and gave aa statement statement identifying identifying Appellant, Y ameen Mofield, Appellant, Yameen Mofield, Khalid Khalid Harrison, Harrison, and and Markell Markell

Davis as Davis as the the individuals individuals involved involved in in the the shooting. Police were shooting. Police were able able to to determine determine that that Appellant Appellant

and Mofield and Mofield were were both both affiliated affiliated with with the the 3 31st Street gang 1st Street and corroborate gang and corroborate various various details details given given

in inthe the cooperator’s cooperator's statement. statement.

Appellant was subsequently Appellantwas arrested and subsequently arrested and charged Murder,11 two withMurder, charged with two (2) counts of (2) counts of

Attempted Murder,' AttemptedMurder, two(2) 2two countsof (2) counts ofConspiracy to Commit Conspiracyto CommitMurder, Murder,° two (2) 3two countsof (2) counts of

Aggravated Assault, 4Possessing AggravatedAssault, Instrumentsof PossessingInstruments ofCrime Crime(“PIC”), (PIC),' andtwo 3and two(2) violationsof (2)violations ofthe the

Uniform UniformFirearms FirearmsAct: Act: Firearms FirearmsNot NottotoBe BeCarried CarriedWithout WithoutaaLicense ("VUFA§$ 6 License(“VUFA 106”), 6and 6106),° and

Carrying CarryingFirearms Firearmson onPublic PublicStreets StreetsororPublic PublicProperty PropertyininPhiladelphia (“VUFA§$6108”). Philadelphia(“VUFA 6108”).77

Appellantwas Appellant wastried triedalongside alongsideYameen YameenMofield. Mofield.At Attrial, trial,the theCommonwealth Commonwealthpresented presentedtwenty- twenty-

two(22) two (22)witnesses witnessesasaspart partof ofitsitscase-in-chief case-in-chiefagainst againstAppellant andMofield. Appellantand Mofield.The Theevidence evidenceand and

testimony testimonygiven givenatattrial trialare aresummarized summarizedbelow. below.

PhiladelphiaPolice Philadelphia PoliceSergeant CarmenPalmiero SergeantCarmen Palmierotestified testifiedthat thathehewas wasatatthe thePhiladelphia Philadelphia

PoliceFirst Police FirstDistrict Districtatataround around8:00 8:00p.m. onOctober p.m.on October4,4,2018, 2018,when whena ayoung blackmale, youngblack male,later later

identifiedasasK.B., identified K.B.,ran raninto intothe thelobby lobbybleeding bleedingand andclaimed claimedthat thathehehad hadbeen beenshot shotatata agas station. gasstation.

AtAtthe thesame sametime, time,police receivedmultiple policereceived callsreporting multiplecalls reportinga ashooting shootingatat25th 25thand andPassyunk. Passyunk.

SergeantPalmiero Sergeant Palmierosubsequently respondedtotothe subsequentlyresponded thegas gasstation stationatat2435 2435West WestPassyunk PassyunkAvenue, Avenue,

1 11818Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A.§ §2502. 2502. 2 2 18Pa.C.S.A. 18 Pa.C.S.A.§ 901(a). $901(a). 18Pa.C.S.A. § 903(c). 3·18Pa.C.S.A. $ 903(c). 4 4 1818 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A.§ §2702(a). 2702(a). 5 5 1818 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A.§ 907(a). $ 907a). 6 6 1818 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A.§ §6106(a)(1). 6106(a)(l). 7 1818 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A.§ §6108. 6108.

22 located around the comer from the First District. Upon arrival, Sergeant Palmiero was directed to

the rear of the gas station, where he found an unresponsive black male on the ground covered in

blood. Sergeant Palmiero and his partner immediately transported the male, later identified as

fifteen-year-old R.B., in the back of their police vehicle to Presbyterian Hospital. R.B. was

pronounced dead at the hospital at 8:35 p.m. Jacqueline Nichols testified that R.B. was her

grandson, bom born on March 19, 2003, and that she last last saw him alive on October 3, 2018, when he

visited visited her her at her house. N.T. 6/12/2023, at 81-86; 81-86; N.T. 6/20/2023, at 23-25.

Philadelphia Police Detective Ralph Domenic testified that that he was assigned to investigate investigate

R.B.’s R.B.'s murder. murder. Detective Detective Domenic Domenic went went to to the the scene scene of of the the murder murder and and was was able able to to recover recover video video

footage footage from from the the gas gas station station where where the the murder murder occurred. occurred. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth and and counsel counsel for for

Appellant Appellant and and Mofield Mofield stipulated stipulated that that video video was was recovered recovered from from the the gas gas station station at at 2435 2435 West West

Passyunk Passyunk Avenue Avenue and and surrounding surrounding areas areas which which depicted depicted the the shooting shooting on on October October 4, 4, 2018. 2018. N.T. N.T.

6/12/2023, 6/12/2023, at at 90-91; 90-91; N.T. N.T. 6/13/2023, 6/13/2023, at at 4-6, 4-6, 12-15. 12-15.

Philadelphia Philadelphia Police Police Detective Detective Thorsten Thorsten Lucke, Lucke, an an expert expert in in digital digital surveillance, surveillance, video video

recovery, recovery, and and analysis, analysis, testified testified that that he he created created aa compilation compilation of ofvideo video footage footage of ofthe the shooting. shooting.

The The footage footage showed showed aa vehicle vehicle traveling traveling westbound westbound and and pulling pulling up up to to the the gas gas station, station, shooting shooting at at

individuals individuals who who could could be be seen seen standing standing around around the the gas gas station, station, then then traveling traveling west west toward toward 25th 25th

Street Street after after the the shooting shooting concluded. concluded. A A slowed-down slowed-down and and zoomed-in zoomed-in version version of ofthis this same same footage footage

showed showed an an individual individual leaving leaving the the shooting shooting vehicle vehicle through through the the front front passenger passenger side side door door and and aa

second second individual individual inside inside the the vehicle vehicle by by the the passenger passenger side side rear rear door. door. Visible Visible muzzle muzzle flashes flashes and and

disturbances disturbances captured capturedby by the the infrared infrared cameras cameras indicated indicated that that both both individuals individuals were were sources sources of of

gunfire. gunfire. This This footage footage also also showed showed an an individual individual with with aa gun gun running running and and reentering reentering the the vehicle vehicle

prior prior to to the the vehicle vehicle driving driving away. away. Detective Detective Lucke Lucke testified testified that thatpolice police were were unable unable to to obtain obtain any any

33 additional additional footage footage which which showed showed the the continued continued path path of oftravel travel for for the the vehicle vehicle involved involved in in the the

shooting. shooting. N.T. N.T. 6/12/2023, 6/12/2023, at at 90-106, 90-106, 109-124. 109-124.

Philadelphia Philadelphia Police Police Officer Officer Terry Terry Tull Tull testified testified that that at at 9:45 9:45 p.m. p.m. on on October October 4, 4, 2018, 2018, he he

assisted assisted with with processing processing the the scene scene at at 2435 243 5 West West Passyunk Passyunk Avenue. Avenue. Officer Officer Tull Tull testified testified that that

several several pieces pieces of ofphysical physical evidence evidence were were recovered recovered from from the the scene, scene, including including ballistic ballistic evidence, evidence,

swabs swabs of of blood blood stains, stains, aa black black book book bag, bag, and and aa black black hooded hooded sweatshirt. sweatshirt. All All recovered recovered evidence evidence

was was placed placed on on aa property property receipt receipt and and submitted submitted for for further further analysis. analysis. Detective Detective Lucke Lucke testified testified

that that he he was was asked asked to to reexamine reexamine the the video video footage footage to to locate locate an an object object consistent consistent with with the the

recovered recovered book book bag. bag. Detective Detective Lucke Lucke explained explained that that the the video video footage footage initially initially did did not not appear appear to to

show show anything anything on on the the ground ground where where the the bag bag was was ultimately ultimately found, found, but but that that itit showed showed an an item item

consistent consistent with with the the recovered recovered bag bag after after the the shooting shooting occurred occurred and and the the vehicle vehicle fled fled the the scene. scene. This This

item item then then remained remained in in place place until until itit was was recovered recovered by by police. police. N.T. N.T. 6/13/2023, 6/13/2023, at at 117-138; N.T. 117-138;N.T.

6/15/2023, 6/15/2023, at at 17-30. 17-30.

Dr. Dr. Lindsay Lindsay Simon, Simon, an an expert expert in in forensic forensic pathology, pathology, testified testified that that on on October October 5, 5, 2018, 2018, she she

performed performed an an autopsy autopsy on on R.B. R.B. Dr. Dr. Simon Simon concluded concluded that that R.B.’s R.B. 's cause cause of of death death was was aa gunshot gunshot

wound wound of of the the torso torso and and that that the the manner manner of of his his death death was was homicide. homicide. Dr. Dr. Simon Simon testified testified that that the the

gunshot gunshot entered entered through through the the left left side side of of R.B.’s R.B.'s back back and and exited exited through through the the left left side side of of his his chest, chest,

perforating perforating two two (2) (2) of of his his ribs, ribs, his his aorta, aorta, and and multiple multiple areas areas of of his his heart. heart. Based Based on on the the lack lack or or

stippling stippling on on R.B.’s R.B.'s body, body, Dr. Dr. Simon Simon estimated estimated that that the the gun gun was was fired fired at at least least two two (2) (2) to to three three (3) (3)

feet feet away. away. N.T. N.T. 6/15/2023, 6/15/2023, at at 5-16. 5-16.

On On October October 5, 5, 2018, 2018, the the day day after after the the murder, murder, Detective Detective Domenic Domenic received received information infonnation

that that some some statements statements were were made made during during the the execution execution of of aa search search warrant warrant at at Yameen Y ameen Mofield’s Mofield' s

residence residence which which potentially potentially implicated implicated him him in in the the murder. murder. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth and and counsel counsel for for

44  Appellant Appellant and and Mofield Mofield stipulated stipulated that that while while Philadelphia Philadelphia Police Police Officer Officer Matthew Matthew York York was was

executing executing aa search search warrant warrant at at 2832 2832 Aramingo Aramingo Avenue, Avenue, Mofield’s Mofield's mother mother asked asked if if Mofield Mofield had had

anything anything to to do do with with what what happened happened at at the the gas gas station station the the day day before, before, which which would would have have been been

October October 4, 4, 2018. 2018. N.T. N.T. 6/12/2023, 6/12/2023, at at 125-133; 125-133; N.T. N.T. 6/13/2023, 6/13/2023, at at 15-18. 15-18.

On October On October 6, 6, 2018, 2018, Detective Detective Domenic Domenic interviewed interviewed the the second second shooting victim, K.B., shooting victim, K.B., at at

Penn Penn Presbyterian Presbyterian Hospital, Hospital, where where he he was was being being treated treated for for aa gunshot gunshot wound. wound, K.B. K.B. told told

Detective DetectiveDomenic Domenicthat thathe he saw sawaawhite whitevehicle vehiclepull pull up up and, and, although although he he could couldnot not give give specific specific

information informationabout aboutthe the shooters, shooters, stated statedthere therewere weretwo two (2) (2)people people shooting. shooting. Through Throughhis his continued continued

investigation. DetectiveDomenic investigation,Detective Domenicwas was able ableto to identify five(5) identifyfive individuals,all (5)individuals, allunder underthe theage ageof of

eighteen eighteen(18), whowere (18),who werepresent presentatatthe thegas stationatatthe gasstation thetime timeof ofthe themurder: murder:R.B., R.B.,K.B., K.B.,M.B., M.B.,

Q.B., andQ.R. Q.B.,and Q.R.Detective DetectiveDomenic Domenicmade madeseveral severalunsuccessful unsuccessfulattempts attemptstotointerview interviewM.B., M.B.,Q.B., Q.B.,

and andQ.R. Q.R.N.T. N.T.6/13/2023, 6/13/2023,atat18-27. 18-27.

DetectiveDomenic Detective Domeniclearned learnedthat thatQ.B., whohad Q.B.,who hadbeen beenshot shotatatthe thegas station,was gasstation, wasbeing being

soughtby sought thepolice bythe policeatatthe thetime timethe theshooting hadoccurred. shootinghad occurred.Q.B. Q.B.testified testifiedthat thathehewas waswith withR.B. R.B.

andK.B. and K.B.atatthe thegas stationatat25th gasstation 25thand andPassyunk whenR.B. Passyunkwhen R.B.was waskilled killedand K.B.was andK.B. wasshot. shot.Q.B. Q.B.

showed showeda agraze grazewound woundon onhis hisright rightarm armbut buttestified testifiedthat thathehecould couldnot notremember rememberififitithappened happened

whilehehewas while wasrunning fromthe runningfrom thegunfire thatnight. gunfirethat Q.B.also night.Q.B. alsotestified testifiedthat thathehedid didnot notsee seewho whoshot shot

atatthem. them.Id.Id.atat16-17, 16-17,50-57. 50-57.

DetectiveDomenic Detective Domenictestified testifiedthat thatononOctober October18, 18,2018, 2018,Philadelphia PoliceOfficer PhiladelphiaPolice Officer

Christopher ChristopherLai Laigave gavehim himthe thenames namesofofseveral severalpossible possiblesuspects suspectsfor forthe themurder: murder:Yameen Y ameen

Mofield, Mofield,Nyseem NyseemSmith, Smith,and andKameron KameronPurnell. Purnell.Officer OfficerLai Laitestified testifiedthat thathehewas wasassigned assignedtotothe the

SeventeenthPolice Seventeenth PoliceDistrict DistrictininSouth SouthPhiladelphia foralmost Philadelphiafor almostfifteen fifteen(15) yearsand (15)years andknew knewmany many

people fromthe peoplefrom theneighborhood fromhishistime neighborhoodfrom timepatrolling there,including patrollingthere, includingR.B.’s R.B.'sfamily familyand andQ.B’s Q.B's

55  family. In 2016, family. In 2016, Officer Officer Lai Lai helped helped police determine that police determine that shootings shootings occurring in the occurring in the Grays Grays Ferry Ferry

area were area were related related to to two two (2) (2) groups. reports compiled Multiple reports groups. Multiple from recovered compiled from recovered firearms firearms and and fired fired

cartridge casings showed cartridge casings showed aa pattern ofback-and-forth pattern of back-and-forth shootings on 27th shootings on 27th Street Street and and 3 31st Street. 1st Street. Based on Based on conversations conversations with with people in the people in the neighborhood and social neighborhood and social media media posts he found, posts he found,

Officer Lai Officer Lai determined determined that that there there were were two two (2) gangs-- one (2) gangs one representing 27th Street representing 27th Streetand andthe the other other

representing 31st representing3 Street---which 1st Street whichhad had come come into into conflict conflictwith with each eachother. Id. atat 1 other. Id. 18-23, 57-71. 8-23, 57-71.

OfficerLai Officer Laitestified testifiedthat thathe hebegan beganmonitoring gangactivity monitoringgang onsocial activityon socialmedia mediaand andfound found

thatmembers that membersof ofboth bothgangs wereactive gangswere activeon onInstagram Instagramand andYouTube. YouTube. Officer OfficerLai Laiidentified identified

Instagram accountsbelonging Instagramaccounts belongingtotoAppellant andMofield, Appellantand Mofield,both bothof ofwhich whichhad hadusernames usernamesthat that

referenced31st referenced 31stStreet. Street.Officer OfficerLai Lairecognized numerousindividuals recognizednumerous individualswho whowere wereassociated associatedwith with

the31st the 31stStreet Streetgang, includingAppellant, gang,including Mofield,Khalid Appellant,Mofield, KhalidHarrison, Harrison,Nyseem Smith,Kameron NyseemSmith, Kameron

Purnell,Jhaquil Purnell, Eguilar,Tymeir JhaquilEguilar, Shands,and TymeirShands, andTroy Norman.Officer TroyNorman. OfficerLai Laitestified testifiedthat thatininthe the

processofofinvestigating process investigatingthe theGrays GraysFerry shootings,police Ferryshootings, beganrecovering policebegan stolenvehicles recoveringstolen vehiclesused used

ininthese theseshootings shootingsclose closetotothe thehome homeaddresses addressesofofthe theknown known331st Streetgang 1st Street gangmembers. members.Officer Officer

Laitestified Lai testifiedthat thatheheknew knewthe thenicknames nicknamesused usedbybyindividuals individualsassociated associatedwith withthe the331st Streetgang, 1 st Street gang,

identifyingAppellant identifying Appellant's nicknameasas“Nu” s nickname "Nu“oror“Nuski” ”Nuski“and andMofield Mofield's nicknameasas“Su” ’s nickname ”Su“oror“Su- ”Su-

Su.” Su."Id. Id.atat69-88. 69-88.

OnDecember On December5,5,2018, 2018,Detective DetectiveDomenic Domenicinterviewed interviewedDean DeanFosque afterlearning Fosqueafter that learningthat

hadinformation Fosquehad Fosque informationregarding regardingthe themurder murderofof R.B.Dean R.B. DeanFosque confirmedthat Fosqueconfirmed thathehewas was

homicidedetectives questionedbybyhomicide questioned detectivesononthat thatdate, date,but butstated statedthat thatthe thequestioning wasnot questioningwas notrecorded recorded

andthat and that hehewas wasnot notasked askedtotoreview reviewororsign signa statement a statementafterward. afterward.Police Policewrote wroteinina statement a statement

that that Fosque hadstated Fosquehad stated“that "that hishiscousin, cousin,who whoheheidentified identified[as] Yuseem,a.k.a. [as]Yuseem, a.k.a.‘Su 'SuSu’, Su',told told him him that that hehe(Yuseem) (Yuseem)diddida murder a murder at at thethe gas station gasstation onon Passyunk Passyunk near near Wilson Wilson Park Park Projects Projects a few a few

6 6  months back.“ Fosque testified that when questioned in front of a grand jury on March 11, 2021, months back.” Fosque testified that when questioned in front of a grand jury on March 11, 2021, he stated that he knew a”Yameen" who went by the nickname Su-Su. Fosque told the grand jury he stated that he knew a “Yameen” who went by the nickname Su-Su. Fosque told the grand jury that Su-Su had tried selling him a stolen car on Instagram, that Su-Su was on the run at this time, that Su-Su had tried selling him a stolen car on Instagram, that Su-Su was on the run at this time, and that he had heard that Su-Su had committed a homicide. Fosque denied giving any of these and that he had heard that Su-Su had committed a homicide. Fosque denied giving any of these details to the grand jury and failed to correctly identify Su-Su in the courtroom. Id. at 7-8; N.T. details to the grand jury and failed to correctly identify Su-Su in the courtroom. Id. at 7-8; N.T.

6/12/2023, 153-168. 134-149,153-168. 6/12/2023,atat134-149,

According to Detective Domenic, Fosque stated that Yameen Mofield had told him that According to Detective Domenic, Fosque stated that Yameen Mofield had told him that he was involved in the murder on Passyunk Avenue. Fosque told Detective Domenic that he was involved in the murder on Passyunk Avenue. Fosque told Detective Domenic that Mofield was trying to sell him a stolen car so he could have enough money to get out of town Moiield was trying to sell him a stolen car so he could have enough money to get out of town because he had seen himself on the news in connection with the murder. Mofield told Fosque because he had seen himself on the news in connection with the murder. Mofield told Fosque that he was the individual wearing a hood chasing a boy in the video footage, but that he would that he was the individual wearing a hood chasing a boy in the video footage, but that he would not be able to be identified because of the hood. Detective Domenic testified that Fosque also not be able to be identified because of the hood. Detective Domenic testified that Fosque also positively identified a photo of Mofield. N.T. 6/13/2023, at 7-12, 30-46. positively identified a photo of Mofield. N.T. 6/13/2023, at 7-12, 30-46. Agent Christopher Marano, the Section Director of the Gun Violence Task Force in the Agent Christopher Marano, the Section Director of the Gun Violence Task Force in the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office, testified that he led an investigation into the rivalry Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, testified that he led an investigation into the rivalry between 27th Street and 31st Street in South Philadelphia which put him into contact with between 27th Street and 31st Street in South Philadelphia which put him into contact with Nyseem Smith. Smith testified that he grew up near 31st Street and Tasker Street and that people Nyseem Smith. Smith testified that he grew up near 31st Street and Tasker Street and that people from 31st Street had “beef' with people from 27th Street. Smith testified that people from 31st from 31 st Street had “beef’ with people from 27th Street. Smith testified that people from 31 st Street and 27th Street shot at each other because of this beef and that's ”just how it was." Smith Street and 27th Street shot at each other because of this beef and that’s “just how it was.” Smith testified that he later got involved with this conflict and that he and his friends from 31st Street testified that he later got involved with this conflict and that he and his friends from 31st Street would share guns and use them while driving stolen cars through 27th Street territory. Smith and would share guns and use them while driving stolen cars through 27th Street territory. Smith and his friends would shoot back at anyone who shot at them and would also target someone that his friends would shoot back at anyone who shot at them and would also target someone that they spotted, N.T. 6/13/2023, at 142-165; N.T. 6/15/2023, at 75-79. they spotted. N.T. 6/13/2023, at 142-165; N.T. 6/15/2023, at 75-79.

7 7  Smith testified that Smith testified that he he and his friends and his friends from from 31st 31 st Street Street were active on were active on social social media media and and

that they would that they would sometimes sometimes make make music music videos videos which which attacked 27th Street. attacked 27th Street. Smith stated that Smith stated that most most

of the of the people people present present in in these these music music videos videos were 31st Street were 31st Street gang gang members members and and specifically specifically

identified Yameen identified Y Mofield and ameen Mofield Khalid Harrison and Khalid Harrison in in aa screenshot taken from screenshot taken from one one of of these these music music

videos. Smith videos. Smith also also identified identified numerous individuals seen numerous individuals seen in in photographs posted to photographs posted Instagram, to Instagram,

including Jhaquil Eguilar, including Jhaquil Eguilar, Khalid Khalid Harrison, Harrison, Mujihad Mujihad Dean, Dean, Saheem Saheem Tart, Aquil Collins, Tart, Aquil Collins, Omar Omar

Wright, Tymeir Wright, Tymeir Shands, Shands, Justin Justin Price, Kameron Purnell, Price, Kameron Purnell, Javon Javon Parris, Parris, Appellant, Appellant, and and himself. himself.

Smith testified Smith testified that that these individuals were these individuals were connected connected to to 31st 31st Street Street and and that that he he had had committed committed

shootings and traded shootings and traded guns guns with with some some of of them. them. Smith identified both Smith identified both Mofield and Appellant Mofield and Appellant in in the the

courtroom. Smith courtroom. Smith stated stated that that Appellant Appellant was younger than was younger him but than him but that that they sometimes hung they sometimes out hung out

and that and that he also sometimes he also sometimes hung hung out out with with Mofield. Id. at Mofield. Id at 165-174; 165-174; N.T. N.T. 6/14/2023, 6/14/2023, at at 6-23. 6-23.

Smith admitted Smith admitted that that he he was was arrested arrested various various times times in in 2015, 2015, 2016, 2016, and and 2018 2018 in connection in connection

with firearms and with firearms and stolen stolen vehicle vehicle charges. charges. Smith testified that Smith testified that in in August August 2018, 2018, he he committed committed aa

triple shooting triple shooting with Jhaquil Eguilar with Jhaquil and Khalid Eguilar and Harrison on Khalid Harrison on the the 1600 1600 block block of of Marston Marston Street. Street.

Smith testified Smith testified that he was that he was in in aa stolen vehicle acting stolen vehicle acting as as aa lookout lookout for for police police and and that that he he identified identified

the targets the that Eguilar targets that Eguilar and and Harrison Harrison shot shot at at from from another another stolen vehicle. Smith stolen vehicle. Smith continued continued to to

drive the drive the stolen stolen vehicle the day vehicle the day after after the the shooting shooting but but observed observed the the police police recovering recovering the the vehicle vehicle

later that later that day. Smith was day. Smith was questioned questioned by by Officer Officer Lai Lai about about the the vehicle, vehicle, but but Smith Smith denied denied having having

any involvement. any involvement. Smith's Smith’s DNA DNA was was later later detected detected on on aa sweatshirt sweatshirt left left in in the the vehicle vehicle and and the the

steering wheel steering wheel of of the the vehicle. vehicle. N.T. N.T. 6/14/2023, at 23-31, 6/14/2023, at 23-31, 130-136, 130-136, 146-149, 146-149, 156-159. 156-159.

Officer Lai Officer Lai testified testified that he assisted that he assisted with with the the investigation into this investigation into this triple shooting, in triple shooting, in

which the occupants which the occupants of of aa stolen Buick Verano stolen Buick Verano drove drove alongside alongside another another vehicle vehicle in in which four (4) which four (4)

members of members of the the 27th 27th Street gang were Street gang were sitting sitting and fired numerous and fired numerous gunshots into the gunshots into the vehicle. vehicle.

88 Three Three (3) (3) of ofthe the 27th 27th Street Street gang gang members members were were struck struck while while the the fourth fourth was was able able to to flee flee the the

vehicle. vehicle. Officer Officer Lai Lai testified testified that that police police were were able able to to identify identify the the stolen stolen Buick Buick Verano Verano used used in in

this this shooting shooting and and recovered recovered itit the the following following day day near near 22nd 22nd Street Street and and Passyunk Passyunk Avenue. Avenue. N.T. N.T.

6/13/2023, 6/13/2023, at at 88-91. 88-91.

Smith Smith testified testified that that he he was was arrested arrested on on March March 6, 6, 2019, 2019, in in relation relation to to the the Marston Marston Street Street

triple triple shooting. shooting. At At the the time time he he was was arrested, arrested, Smith Smith was was in in possession possession of of aa Glock Glock .40, .40, which which he he

stated stated had had been been used used in in aa shooting shooting near near 2200 2200 Point Point Breeze Breeze Avenue Avenue the the previous previous night. night. While While in in

custody, custody, Smith Smith decided decided itit was was in in his his best best interest interest to to cooperate cooperate with with the the Commonwealth Commonwealth and and the the

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Attorney Attorney General’s General's Office. Office. Following Following aa proffer proffer session, session, Agent Agent Marano Marano ultimately ultimately

decided decided to to take take formal formal statements statements from from Smith. Smith. From From 2019 2019 to to 2021, 2021, Agent Agent Marano Marano received received

approximately approximately fifteen fifteen (15) (15) to to twenty twenty (20) (20) statements statements from from Smith Smith in in which which Smith Smith gave gave accounts accounts

that that implicated implicated himself himself and and others others in in multiple multiple 31st 31st Street Street gang-related gang-related shooting shooting incidents. incidents. Smith Smith

testified testified that that he he had had to to sign sign aa cooperation cooperation agreement agreement and and that that he he was was advised advised that that if if he he did did not not

abide abide by by the the terms terms of of the the agreement, agreement, he he would would potentially potentially be be subject subject to to aa sentence sentence of of life life

imprisonment. imprisonment. Smith Smith ultimately ultimately pled pled guilty guilty to to multiple multiple criminal criminal offenses, offenses, including including conspiracy, conspiracy,

aggravated aggravated assault, assault, and and firearms firearms charges, charges, in in twelve twelve (12) (12) different different cases. cases. Smith Smith testified testified that that he he

was was offered offered aa sentence sentence of of five five (5) (5) to to twenty twenty (20) (20) years years of of confinement confinement in in exchange exchange for for his his

cooperation. cooperation. Id. Id. at at 31-35 31-35 101-118, 101-118, 121-128, 121-128, 159-161, 159-161, 207-209; 207-209; N.T. N.T. 6/15/2023, 6/15/2023, at at 79-82. 79-82.

Smith Smith confirmed confirmed that that he he gave gave aa series series of of statements statements to to police police in in which which he he revealed revealed details details

of of shootings shootings that that the the 31st Street 31st Street gang gang was was involved involved in, in, much much of of which which was was previously previously unknown unknown

to to police. police. One One of of the the statements statements that that Smith Smith gave gave was was regarding regarding the the Marston Marston Street Street triple triple shooting shooting

for for which which he he had had been been arrested. arrested. Philadelphia Philadelphia Police Police Detective Detective Andrew Andrew Gallagher, Gallagher, who who responded responded

to to the the Marston Marston Street Street triple triple shooting, shooting, testified testified that that he he later later became became aware aware of of Smith’s Smith's statement statement

99  and stated and stated that that itit revealed revealed details details previously unknown to previously unknown to police. N.T. 6/14/2023, police. N.T. 6/14/2023, at at 95-96; 95-96; N.T. N.T.

6/15/2023, 6/15/2023, at at 140-142. 140-142.

Particularly, Smith revealed Particularly, Smith revealed that that he he was was in in aa black black vehicle vehicle in in front front of ofthe the silver silver Buick Buick

Verano which Verano which committed committed the the shooting. Detective Gallagher shooting. Detective testified that Gallagher testified that he he initially initially did didnot not

know about know about this this black blackvehicle’s vehicle's involvement involvement and and was was able ableto to confirm confirm its its presence upon presence upon

reviewing footage reviewing fromthe footagefrom the shooting. Smithalso shooting. Smith also.revealed revealedthat thathe he was was in inthe theblack blackvehicle vehiclewith with

EricWoodard Eric Woodardand andWoodard’s Woodard'sgirlfriend, whichwas girlfriend, which wasconsistent consistentwith withother otherinformation informationDetective Detective

hadseen. Gallagherhad Gallagher seen.Smith Smithidentified identifiedJhaquil JhaquilEguilar andKhalid Eguilarand KhalidHarrison Harrisonasasthe theshooters shootersininthe the

BuickVerano. Buick Verano.Detective DetectiveGallagher testifiedthat Gallaghertestified thatphone recordsfor phonerecords forHarrison’s Harrison'scell cellphone phoneshowed showed

movementconsistent movement consistentwith withthis thisinformation informationand andthat thatEguilar wasobserved Eguilarwas observedinside insideaabarbershop barbershop

nexttotowhere next wherethe theVerano Veranowas waslocated locatedthe theday dayafter afterthe theshooting. N.T.6/15/2023, shooting.N.T. 6/15/2023,atat142-149. 142-149.

Smithadditionally Smith additionallygave statementsregarding gavestatements regardingaaseries seriesofofshootings thatoccurred shootingsthat occurredfrom from

October17, October 17,2017, 2017,totoJuly July16, 16,2020. 2020.Smith Smithidentified identifiedKhalid KhalidHarrison, Harrison,Jhaquil Eguilar,Mujihad JhaquilEguilar, Mujihad

Dean,Tahkeam Dean, TahkeamWilliams, Williams,Saheem SaheemTart, Tart,Hyfese Richardson,Eric HyfeseRichardson, EricWoodard, Woodard,Tymeir TymeirShands, Shands,and and

himselfasas31st himself 31stStreet Streetgang memberswho gangmembers whoparticipated participatedininthese theseshootings, whichwere shootings,which werelargely largely

committedusing committed stolenvehicles usingstolen vehiclesand andtargeted targetedatatknown knownmembers membersofofthe the27th 27thStreet Streetgang. gang.Smith Smith

thathehewas agreedthat agreed waspersonally involvedininshooting personallyinvolved shootingincidents incidentswhere wherea atotal totalofofnineteen nineteen(19) (19)

people wereshot peoplewere shotat,at,and andthat thathehewas wasinvolved involvedinina ashooting shootingononDecember December19,19,2017, 2017,which which

resultedininthe resulted thedeath deathofof NasirLivingston. Nasir N.T.6/14/2023, Livingston.N.T. 6/14/2023,atat31-39, 31-39,64-104, 64-104,136-174. 136-174.

Smithgave Smith a signedstatement gavea signed statementregarding theshooting regardingthe shootingofof sixteen-year-oldJ.W.H. sixteen-year-old J. W.H.which which

occurredononOctober occurred October18,18,2017, 2017,around around8:00 8:00p.m. near p.m.near the1400 the 1400block blockofof SouthEtting South Street. EttingStreet.

Philadelphia Philadelphia PoliceDetective Police Detective MichaelFerry Michael Ferry testified testified that that J.W.H.,a member J.W.H., a member ofof thethe 27th 27th Street Street wasshot gang,was gang, shot multiple multiple times.Ballistic times. Ballisticevidence evidence and and videofootage video footage recovered recovered from from thethe crime crime

1010  scene indicated that four (4) individuals were involved. Smith, who was on house arrest at the scene indicated that four (4) individuals were involved. Smith, who was on house arrest at the time of the shooting, testified that Khalid Harrison and Jhaquil Eguilar came to his home and time of the shooting, testified that Khalid Harrison and Jhaquil Eguilar came to his home and discussed the shooting. Agent Marano testified that he investigated the Etling Street shooting and discussed the shooting. Agent Marano testified that he investigated the Etting Street shooting and determined that four (4) firearms were used to shoot J.W.H. Three (3) days after this shooting, determined that four (4) firearms were used to shoot J.W.H. Three (3) days after this shooting, Appellant was arrested while in possession of one of the guns that had been used in the shooting. Appellant was arrested while in possession of one of the guns that had been used in the shooting. Agent Marano later found communications on Instagram between Tahkeam Williams, who was Agent Marano later found communications on Instagram between Tahkeam Williams, who was identified as one of the shooters, and Yameen Mofield from October 2017 in which they identified as one of the shooters, and Yameen Mofield from October 2017 in which they discussed being armed and preparing to shooting someone. N.T. 6/13/2023, at 95-103; N.T. discussed being armed and preparing to shooting someone. N.T. 6/13/2023, at 95-103; N.T. 6/14/2023,atat35-39; 6/14/2023, 35-39;N.T. N.T.6/15/2023, 6/15/2023,atat102-110. 102-110.

Smith also gave a signed statement regarding the murder of R.B. on October 4, 2018, at Smith also gave a signed statement regarding the murder of R.B. on October 4, 2018, at 2548 Passyunk A venue. Smith stated that on the night of the murder, he was with his cousin 2548 Passyunk Avenue. Smith stated that on the night of the murder, he was with his cousin Devon Jacobs, Javon Parris, and Tymeir Shands at Jacobs' house at 1600 Napa Street. Smith Devon Jacobs, Javon Parris, and Tymeir Shands at Jacobs’ house at 1600 Napa Street. Smith testified that after the shooting, Khalid Harrison, Yameen Mofield, Appellant, and another testified that after the shooting, Khalid Harrison, Yameen Mofield, Appellant, and another person came to the house. Smith did not know the fourth person but identified him in his person came to the house. Smith did not know the fourth person but identified him in his statement to police as “a young boy named Markell.” Harrison, Mofield, and Appellant told statement to police as “a young boy named Markell.” Harrison, Mofield, and Appellant told Smith and the others present that somebody had been shot and killed at a gas station on Smith and the others present that somebody had been shot and killed at a gas station on Passyunk. Passyunk. N.T. N.T. 6/14/2023, 6/14/2023, at at 39-45, 39-45, 48-49, 48-49, 200. 200. Mofield told the group that they had rode through Wilson Park and “saw Jameir pumping Mofield told the group that they had rode through Wilson Park and “saw Jameir pumping gas at the gas station” as they were corning out. Mofield then said that they spun around and gas at the gas station” as they were coming out. Mofield then said that they spun around and found Jameir gone, but that they still started shooting When they saw a couple other people from found Jameir gone, but that they still started shooting when they saw a couple other people from Wilson. Mofield said that he started chasing “Naseem's little brother” and that he knew he hit Wilson. Mofield said that he started chasing “Naseem’s little brother” and that he knew he hit him with his gun. Additionally, Mofield stated that he had dropped his phone at the scene. Smith him with his gun. Additionally, Mofield stated that he had dropped his phone at the scene. Smith told police in his statement that Harrison had a PPX9 handgun, Mofield had a .9 Taurus pistol, told police m his statement that Harrison had a PPX9 handgun, Mofield had a .9 Taurus pistol,

11 11 and Appellant and Appellant had had aa .38 .38 revolver, revolver, and and that that he he did did not not know know if if Markell Markell had had aa gun. gun. Smith later Smith later

positively identified positively identified aa photograph photograph of of Markell Grasty that Markell Grasty that was shown to was shown to him him by by police. police. Smith Smith told told

police that police the PPX9 that the had been PPX9 had been previously used in previously used in the Marston Street the Marston triple shooting Street triple that he shooting that he was was

involved in. involved in. Smith Smith also also told police that told police that he he had had watched watched aa video video of of the the shooting shooting on on Instagram Instagram and and

was able was able to to identify identify Mofield Mofleld as as the the individual individual seen seen jumping jumping out out of of aa white white vehicle vehicle with with his his face face

covered and covered and chasing chasing somebody. somebody. Id. at 45-64. at 45-64.

Agent Marano Agent Marano confirmed confirmed that that Smith Smith gave gave aa statement in February statement in February 2020 2020 regarding regarding the the

murder of murder of R.B. R.B. Agent Agent Marano Marano reviewed reviewed the the call detail records call detail records for Smith’s cell for Smith's cell phone phone and and

verified that verified that Smith Smith had had been been present present at at 1600 1600 South South Napa Napa Street at the Street at the time time the murder occurred. the murder occurred.

Based on Based on Smith's Smith’s information information that that aa PPX9 had been PPX9 had been used used in in the the homicide homicide and and that that it it had had been been

used in used in other other shootings shootings too, Agent Marano too, Agent Marano ordered ordered that that the the ballistic evidence recovered ballistic evidence recovered from from the the

homicide at homicide at 2548 2548 Passyunk Avenue Passyunk A be crosschecked venue be crosschecked with ballistic evidence with ballistic evidence recovered recovered from 1600 from 1600

South Marston South Marston Street Street and two (2) and two other shootings. (2) other shootings. N.T. N.T. 6/15/2023, 6/15/2023, at at 82-90. 82-90.

Natalie Murphy, Natalie an expert Murphy, an expert in in firearms firearms identification identification and analysis, testified and analysis, testified that that she she

analyzed sixteen analyzed sixteen (16) (16) 9mm Luger fired 9mm Luger fired cartridge cartridge casings casings and and five five (5) bullet specimens (5) bullet specimens recovered recovered

from the from the murder murder investigation investigation at at 2435 West Passyunk 2435 West Passyunk Avenue. Avenue. Ms. Murphy’s ballistic Ms. Murphy's ballistic analysis analysis

revealed that revealed that the the first first eight (8) fired eight (8) fired cartridge casings were cartridge casings fired from were fired from aa single single firearm while the firearm while the

other eight other eight (8) (8) fired fired cartridge cartridge casings were fired casings were fired from from aa separate firearm. Ms. separate firearm. Ms. Murphy Murphy testified testified

that the that the five five (5) (5) bullet bullet specimens specimens consisted of one consisted of one (1) (1) intact intact bullet bullet and and four (4) bullet four (4) bullet jackets. Ms. jackets. Ms.

Murphy concluded Murphy that the concluded that intact bullet the intact and bullet bullet and jacket 11 were bullet jacket from the were from the .38 .38 or or 9mm family of 9mm family of

caliber, and caliber, and that that bullet bullet jackets jackets 22 and and 44 were were fired fired from the same from the firearm. Ms. same firearm. Ms. Murphy Murphy confirmed confirmed

that she that she was requested to was requested to conduct conduct aa crosscheck crosscheck against against ballistic ballistic evidence recovered from evidence recovered from other other

shootings. This crosscheck shootings. This crosscheck revealed revealed that that the the same firearm was same firearm was used to fire used to fire both both aa group group of of fired fired

12 12 cartridge cartridge casings casings recovered recovered from from 1600 1600 South South Marston Marston Street Street and and the the first first group group of offired fired cartridge cartridge

casings casings recovered recovered from 2435 West from2435 West Passyunk Passyunk Avenue. Avenue. Id. Id at at 38-57. 38-57.

Based Based on on information information in in Smith’s Smith's statement statement that that Appellant, Appellant, Yameen Yameen Mofield, Mofield, Khalid Khalid

Harrison, Harrison, and and Markell Markell Grasty Grasty were were present present at at R.B.’s R.B.'s murder, murder, Agent Agent Marano Marano reviewed reviewed call call detail detail

records records for for Appellant, Appellant, Mofield, Mofield, and and Harrison. Harrison. Agent Agent Marano Marano testified testified that that he hereceived received location location

data data for for Mofield Mofield and and Harrison’s Harrison's cell cell phones phones which which placed placed them them both both in in the the area area of ofthe the murder murder at at

the the time time itit occurred, occurred, but but that that he he was was unable unable to to retrieve retrieve location location data data for for Appellant’s Appellant's cell cell phone. phone.

Agent Agent Marano Marano investigated investigated Smith’s Smith's claim claim that that aa phone phone had had been been dropped dropped at at the the scene scene of ofthe the

murder murder and and determined determined that that the the only only phone phone recovered recovered from from the the scene scene belonged belonged to to one one of of the the

shooting shooting victims. victims. Id. Id at at 90-102, 90-102, 111-113, 111-113, 126-127. 126-127.

Amanda Amanda McCourtie, McCourtie, aa digital digital forensic forensic analyst analyst with with the the Philadelphia Philadelphia District District Attorney’s Attorney's

Office, Office, testified testified as as an an expert expert in in cell cell site site analysis, analysis, cell cell phone phone extraction extraction and and analysis, analysis, and and social social

media media extraction extraction and and analysis. analysis. Ms. Ms. McCourtie McCourtie stated stated that that she she first first assisted assisted with with the the investigation investigation

into into R.B.’s R.B.'s murder murder by by reviewing reviewing posts posts that that had had been been made made on on the the Instagram Instagram page page for for “No "No Gun Gun

Zone Zone Philadelphia,” Philadelphia," which which included included an an image image of of R.B., R.B., aa screenshot screenshot from from aa news news report report about about the the

case, case, and and message message sent sent to to the the page page reporting reporting gunshots gunshots at at the the 24th 24th and and Passyunk Passyunk gas gas station. station.

Based Based on on these these posts, posts, Ms. Ms. McCourtie McCourtie was was ultimately ultimately able able to to find find aa video video capturing capturing the the shooting shooting

posted posted to to the the Philadelphia Philadelphia Inquirer Inquirer YouTube YouTube page. page. N.T. N.T. 6/16/2023, 6/16/2023, at at 57-78. 57-78.

Ms. McCourtie Ms. McCourtie testified testified that that she she was was next next tasked tasked with with looking looking into into Markell Markell Grasty Grasty and and

was was provided provided with with an an extraction extraction of of aa cell cell phone phone associated associated with with Grasty. Grasty. From From this this extraction, extraction, Ms. Ms.

McCourtie McCourtie found found pictures pictures of of Grasty Grasty holding holding firearms, firearms, videos videos of of Grasty, Grasty, videos videos of of Yameen Yameen

Mofield, Mofield, and and aa video video of of Grasty Grasty and and Mofield Mofield together. together. Ms. Ms. McCourtie McCourtie analyzed analyzed the the connections connections

between between the the phone phone number number associated associated with with Grasty ’s phone Grasty's phone and and phone phone numbers numbers associated associated with with

13 13 Appellant, Mofield, Appellant, Mofield, and and Khalid Khalid Harrison, Harrison, and and determined that there determined that there were were communications communications

between between the the numbers numbers belonging belonging to Appellant, Mofield, to Appellant, Mofield, and and Harrison, Harrison, but but that that Grasty Grasty only only had had

communications communications with with Mofield. Ms. McCourtie Mofield. Ms. McCourtie additionally additionally determined determined that Grasty followed that Grasty followed both both

Appellant Appellant and and Harrison Harrison on on Instagram Instagram and and had had communicated communicated numerous times with numerous times Mofield on with Mofield on

Instagram. Instagram. Id. Id. at at 78-88. 78-88.

Ms. Ms. McCourtie McCourtie further further testified testified that that she she reviewed reviewed the the contents contents of of Mofield’ Mofield'ss Instagram Instagram

account account and and found found messages messages sent sent from from Mofield’ Mofield'ss Instagram Instagram account account which which showed that he showed that he was was

using using the the same same phone phone number number both both before before and and after after the the shooting. shooting. Ms. Ms. McCourtie McCourtie conducted conducted cell cell

site site analysis analysis on on that that phone phone number number and phone numbers and phone numbers associated associated with with Appellant, Appellant, Harrison, Harrison, and and

Nyseem Nyseem Smith. Smith. The The cell cell site site analysis analysis on on Smith’s Smith's phone phone revealed revealed that that numerous numerous calls calls were were made made

from from 7:20 7.20 p.m., p.m., shortly shortly before before the the homicide, homicide, until until 8:28 8:28 p.m., p.m., shortly shortly after after the the homicide. homicide. All All of of

these these calls calls utilized utilized the the same same cell cell tower tower which which was was consistent consistent with with the the phone phone remaining remaining stagnant stagnant

and and being being used used at at 1600 1600 South South Napa Napa Street. Street. Id. Id. at at 89-100. 89-100.

The The cell cell site site analysis analysis on on Mofield’s Mofield's phone phone revealed revealed that that the the phone phone used used aa cell cell tower tower

approximately approximately two two (2) (2) miles miles west west of of the the shooting shooting location location at at 7:35 7:35 p.m. p.m. At At 8:10 8:10 p.m. p.m. and and 8:12 8:12

p.m., p.m., Mofield’s Mofield's phone phone used used the the sector sector of of aa cell cell tower tower pointing pointing in in the the direction direction of of the the shooting. shooting. At At

8:11 8:11 p.m. p.m. and and 8:15 8:15 p.m., p.m., Mofield’s Mofield's phone phone used used aa different different cell cell tower tower which which still still pointed pointed in in the the

direction direction of of the the shooting. shooting. From From 9:13 9: 13 p.m. p.m. to to 9:31 9:31 p.m., p.m., Mofield’s Mofield's phone phone used used the the same same cell cell

tower, tower, which which pointed pointed in in the the direction direction of of 1600 1600 South South Napa Napa Street. Street. Calls Calls that that were were placed placed on on

Mofield’s Mofield's phone phone from from 10:23 10:23 p.m. p.m. to to 11:38 11:38 p.m. p.m. and and the the following following morning morning used used cell cell towers towers near near

2832 2832 Aramingo Aramingo Avenue, A venue, Mofield’s Mofield' s residence residence at at the the time. time. Ms. Ms. McCourtie McCourtie agreed agreed that that the the call call

detail detail records records for for Mofield’s Mofield's phone phone showed showed that that itit was was used used to to place place numerous numerous calls calls both both before before

and and after after the the murder. murder. Id. Id. at at 100-108, 100-108, 130-138. 130-138.

14 14  Ms. Ms. McCourtie McCourtie found found messages messages on onAppellant’s Appellant'sInstagram Instagramaccount account from fromthe the morning morning of of

the the homicide homicide in inwhich whichhe he stated stated that thathe he was was going going to to King King of ofPrussia Prussiawith with Khalid Khalid Harrison. Harrison. Cell Cell

site site analysis analysis of ofHarrison’s Harrison's phone phone revealed revealed that that aa call call made made atat 1 111 :43 :43 a.m. a.m. used used cell cell towers towers

pointing pointing toward toward Morris Morris Street Street in in South SouthPhiladelphia Philadelphia and and that that calls calls made made from from 12:58 12:58 p.m. p.m. to to 1 1:00 :00

p.m. p.m. used used cell cell towers towers moving moving toward toward the the King King of ofPrussia Prussia area. area. Calls Calls made made from from 2:31 2:31 p.m. p.m. to to 2:34 2:34

p.m. p.m. placed placed Harrison’s Harrison's phone phone in inthe the King King of ofPrussia Prussia area. area. A A call call made made at at 3:19 3:19 p.m. p.m. placed placed

Harrison’s Harrison's phone phone closer closer to to the the Conshohocken Conshohocken area area and and aa call call made made at at 4:10 4:10 p.m. p.m. used used cell cell towers towers

closer closer to to the the shooting shooting location location in in Philadelphia. Philadelphia. The The last last calls calls made made on on Harrison’s Harrison's phone phone prior prior to to

the the shooting shooting at at 7:26 7:26 p.m. p.m. and and 7:27 7:27 p.m. p.m. used used aa cell cell tower tower with with the the shooting shooting location location in in the the range. range.

Another Another call call was was not not made made until until 8:14 8:14 p.m. p.m. using using aa cell cell tower tower near near Fairmount Fairmount Avenue Avenue and and West West

Girard Girard Avenue, Avenue, followed followed by by aa call call at at 8:26 8:26 p.m. p.m. using using aa cell cell tower tower near near 1714 1714 North North 16th 16th Street, Street, an an

address address associated associated with with 31 st Street 31st Street member member Troy. TroyNorman. Norman. Id. Id at at 108-119. 108-119.

Ms. Ms. McCourtie McCourtie testified testified that that the the cell cell detail detail records records for for Appellant’s Appellant's phone phone showed showed several several

calls calls to to and and from from Harrison’s Harrison's phone phone from from 7:16 7: 16 a.m. a.m. to to 10:3 10:311 a.m. a.m. on on the the day day of ofthe the shooting. shooting.

There There were were no no call call activities activities on on Appellant’s Appellant's between between 7:23 7:23 p.m. p.m. and and 8:48 8:48 p.m. p.m. Ms. Ms. McCourtie McCourtie

noted noted that that there there were were similarly similarly no no call call activities activities on on Mofield’s Mofield's phone phone between between 7:35 7:35 p.m. p.m. and and 8:10 8: 10

p.m. p.m. and and no no call call activities activities on on Harrison’s Harrison's phone phone between between 7:27 7:27 p.m. p.m. and and 8:14 8:14 p.m. p.m. The The shooting

took took place place at approximately 8:00 p.m. Id. Id at 119-122. 119-122.

Ms. McCourtie testified that that she she noticed that that one of the the calls Harrison’s Harrison's phone phone made was was

to a state prison. Ms. McCourtie ultimately determined that the the call was was made to an inmate inmate

named named Markell Markell Davis, Davis, aa 31st 31st Street Street gang gang member. member. Ms. Ms. McCourtie McCourtie listened listened to to all all of of Davis’s Davis's

recorded prison tapes and testified that two (2) calls stood out to her. Ms. McCourtie recognized

Harrison’s Harrison's voice on the first call. In this call, which was placed placed on October 4, 2018, the day of

15 the shooting, the shooting, Harrison Harrison told told Davis Davis that that he he was was out out on on Tasker Tasker Street Street with “Susu and with “Susu and Nunu,” Nunu,” who who

he called he “my young called “my young killers killers ... ... my my young gorillas, my young gorillas, my young savages” who young savages” who were were "out “out here here

doing big doing big things." things.” Id Id. at at 122-127; 122-127; Comm. Comm. Exhibit Exhibit 173. 173.

Ms. McCourtie Ms. McCourtie recognized recognized the the voice voice of of Tymeir Tymeir Shands, Shands, aa 31st 31st Street Street gang gang member, on member, on

the second the call, which second call, which was was placed placed on on October October 14, 14, 2018, 2018, ten ten (10) (1 0) days days after after the the shooting. In this shooting. In this

call, Shands call, Shands stated stated that that “young “young bull bull lil lil Su” was ”on Su“ was “on the the run” run” for for aa 'Joint." “joint.” Davis Davis replied that he replied that he

had been had been told told about about “one “one of of them little young them little young bul bul getting getting boxed boxed in ... at in ... at the the gas gas station.” station.” Shands Shands

told Davis told Davis that that Su Su was “on tour“ was ”on tour” for for that that and and that that “he “he said he dropped said he dropped his his phone phone out out there.” there.”

Shands added Shands added that that “it “it was was aa goodjawn good j awn ... . ..besides besides him him dropping dropping the the phone.” phone.” Shands Shands also also said to said to

Davis that he Davis that he had had advised advised the the others others to to “swap “swap the the nine.” nine.” N.T. N.T. 6/16/2023, at 127-130, 6/16/2023, at 127-130, 138-143; 138-143;

Comm. Exhibit 174. Comm. Exhibit 174.

Craig Judd, an Craig Judd, an expert expert in in the the field field of of forensic forensic DNA DNA and and analysis, analysis, testified that he testified that he

conducted aa DNA conducted DNA analysis analysis for for the the Passyunk Passyunk Avenue Avenue shooting shooting on on October October 4, 4, 2018. 2018. Mr. Mr. Judd Judd

testified that testified that he he conducted conducted DNA DNA analysis analysis on on aa book book bag bag and and aa hooded sweatshirt collected hooded sweatshirt collected from from

the scene the scene of of the the shooting. shooting. Mr. Mr. Judd used aa blood Judd used blood card card from from R.B. and aa buccal R.B. and buccal swab swab from from

Appellant as Appellant as reference reference samples. Mr. Judd samples. Mr. Judd concluded that the concluded that the DNA DNA collected collected from the book from the book bag bag

was consistent was consistent with with aa mixture mixture of of partial partial DNA DNA profiles profiles originating originating from at least from at least three three (3) (3)

individuals, at individuals, at least least one one of of whom whom was was male. male. The The major major component component of of the the DNA DNA mixture mixture was was

consistent with consistent with originating from an originating from an unknown unknown female. female. Results Results were were inconclusive as to inconclusive as to whether whether

R.B. or Appellant R.B. or Appellant contributed contributed to to the the minor minor components components of of the the DNA mixture. Mr. DNA mixture. Mr. Judd Judd also also

concluded that concluded that the the DNA DNA collected collected from from the the hooded hooded sweatshirt sweatshirt was was consistent consistent with with aa mixture mixture of of

partial DNA profiles partial DNA originating from profiles originating from at at least least two two (2) (2) individuals, individuals, at at least least one one of of whom was whom was

male. R.B. male. was determined R.B. was determined to to be be the the source source of of the the major major component component of of the the DNA DNA mixture mixture and and

16 16 results results were wereinconclusive inconclusive as as to to whether whetherAppellant Appellant contributed contributedto tothe the minor minorcomponent component of ofthe the

DNA DNAmixture. mixture. N.T. N.T. 6/15/2023, 6/15/2023, atat60-72. 60-72.

Philadelphia Philadelphia Police Police Detective Detective Robert Robert Conway Conway testified testifiedthat that he he was was the the assigned assigned

investigator investigatorfor for aatriple triple shooting shooting that that occurred occurred on on April April22, 22, 2020, 2020, in in the the area area of of5300 5300 Greenway Greenway

Avenue. Avenue. Detective Detective Conway Conway testified testified that that four four (4) (4) members members of ofthe the 31st 31st Street Street gang, gang, including including

Appellant, Appellant, left left aa recording recording studio studio and and got got into into aa Volkswagen Volkswagen Tiguan Tiguan parked parked on on 5300 5300 Greenway Greenway

Avenue. Avenue. As As soon soon as as the the four four (4) (4) individuals individuals got got into into the the Volkswagen, Volkswagen, aa white white Jeep Jeep Grand Grand

Cherokee Cherokee Jeep Jeep pulled pulled alongside alongside and and opened opened fire fire at at the the occupants occupants of ofthe the Volkswagen. Volkswagen. Three Three (3) (3) of of

the the people people in in the the car, car, including including Appellant, Appellant, were were shot. shot. Video Video footage footage showed showed Appellant Appellant exiting exiting

the the Volkswagen Volkswagen from from the the driver’s driver's side side after after being being shot shot and and hopping hopping away. away. Three Three (3) (3) firearms firearms

were were recovered, recovered, including including aa 9mm 9mm Glock Glock handgun handgun that that was was found found lying lying on on the the street street on on the the

driver’s driver's side side of ofthe the Volkswagen. Volkswagen. Detective Detective Conway Conway testified testified that that the the Volkswagen Volkswagen had had been been

stolen stolen nine nine (9) (9) days days prior prior to to the the shooting. shooting. N.T. N.T. 6/13/2023, 6/13/2023, at at 103-112, 103-112, 115-116. 115-116.

Philadelphia Philadelphia Police Police Detective Detective Francesco Francesco Campbell Campbell testified testified that that he he was was asked asked to to obtain obtain aa

DNA DNA sample sample from from Yameen Yameen Mofield, Mofield, but but that that Mofield Mofield refused refused to to give give aa DNA DNA sample sample on on multiple multiple

occasions. occasions. Supervisory Supervisory Special Special Agent Agent James James Owens Owens testified testified that that an an unsuccessful unsuccessful attempt attempt to to

arrest arrest Yameen Yameen Mofield Mofield was was made made at at his his last last known known residence residence on on April April 15, 15, 2021 2021.. Agent Agent Owens Owens

opened opened aa fugitive fugitive case case for for Mofield Mofield two two (2) (2) days days later. later. After After Agent Agent Owens Owens subsequently subsequently learned learned

that that Mofield Mofield was was in in the the area area of of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, Georgia, he he generated generated aa collateral collateral lead lead which which led led to to

Mofield’ Mofield'ss arrest arrest on on May May 13, 13, 2021, 2021, in in South South Fulton, Fulton, Georgia. Georgia. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth and and counsel counsel

for for Appellant Appellant and and Yameen Y ameen Mofield Mofield stipulated stipulated that that neither neither Appellant Appellant nor nor Mofield Mofield had had aa valid valid

license to carry a concealed weapon. weapon. N.T. 6/15/2023, at 31-36; N.T. 6/20/2023, at 17-23, 26.

17 17  Procedural Procedural History History

On On March March 16, 16, 2023, 2023, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth filed filed aa motion motion in in limine limine to to admit admit other other acts acts

evidence evidence of of continued continued and and sustained sustained violence violence between between warring warring gangs gangs which which would would also also establish establish

that that Appellant Appellant and and Yameen Yameen Mofield Mofield were were both both associated associated with with the the 3 3 1st 1st Street Street gang. gang, The The

Commonwealth Commonwealth additionally additionally sought sought to to admit admit two two (2) (2) shootings shootings which which itit contended contended showed showed aa

pattern pattern of of gun gun violence violence perpetrated perpetrated by by the the 31st Street 31st Street gang gang against against the the rival rival 27th 27th Street Street gang gang

leading leading up up to to the the murder murder of of R.B. R.B. On On March March 23, 23, 2023, 2023, Appellant’s Appellant's counsel counsel submitted submitted aa

memorandum memorandum of law in oflaw in opposition opposition to to the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's motion motion in in limine. limine. On On March March 24, 24,

2023, 2023, this this Court Court held held aa hearing hearing to to decide decide the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's motion motion in in limine limine to to admit admit other other

acts. acts. This This Court Court heard heard argument argument from from the the Commonwealth Commonwealth and and counsel counsel for for Appellant Appellant and and Mofield Mofield

and and ultimately ultimately held held its its decision decision under under advisement. advisement. On On March March 30, 30, 2023, 2023, this this Court Court granted granted the the

Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's motion, motion, allowing allowing the the other other acts acts evidence evidence to to be be admitted. admitted.

On On March March 29, 29, 2023, 2023, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth filed filed aa second second motion motion in in limine limine to to admit admit other other

acts acts evidence evidence of of two two (2) (2) prison prison phone phone calls calls made made to to inmate inmate Markell Markell Davis. Davis. On On March March 30, 30, 2023, 2023,

this this Court Court held held the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's second second motion motion in in limine limine under under advisement advisement until until it it had had an an

opportunity opportunity to to review review the the transcripts transcripts of of the the recorded recorded prison prison calls. calls. This This Court Court later later granted granted the the

Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's motion motion in in limine, limine, allowing allowing the the two two (2) (2) prison prison phone phone calls calls to to be be admitted admitted into into

evidence. evidence.

Appellant Appellant and and Mofield’s Mofield's trial trial commenced commenced on on June June 8, 8, 2023. 2023. On On June June 21, 21, 2023, 2023, after after

hearing hearing all all evidence, evidence, closing closing arguments arguments from from counsel, counsel, and and jury jury instructions instructions from from this this Court, Court, aa

jury jury deliberated deliberated and and found found Appellant Appellant guilty guilty of of one one (1) (1) count count each each of of Murder Murder of of the the Third Third Degree, Degree,

Conspiracy Conspiracy to to Commit Commit Murder Murder of of the the Third Third Degree, Degree, Conspiracy Conspiracy to to Commit Commit Murder, Murder, VUFA VUFA §§

6106, 6106, VUFA VUFA §§ 6108, 6108, and and PIC, PIC, and and two two (2) (2) counts counts of of Aggravated Aggravated Assault. Assault. N.T. N.T. 6/21/2023, 6/21/2023, at at 10- 10-

18 18 13. This 13. This Court ordered aa presentence Court ordered presentence investigation investigation report report and and aa mental health evaluation mental health for evaluation for

Appellant and Appellant and deferred deferred sentencing sentencing to to aa later later date. date. Id. at 20. Id. at 20.

This Court This Court subsequently subsequently held held aa sentencing sentencing hearing hearing for Appellant on for Appellant on October October 6, 6, 2023. 2023.

Appellant’s mother Appellant's addressed this mother addressed Court. N.T. this Court. 10/6/2023, at N.T. 10/6/2023, at 45-49. 45-49. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth read read

into the into the record record victim victim impact impact statements statements submitted submitted by R.B.’s brother, by R.B.'s brother, sister, grandmother, uncle, sister, grandmother, uncle,

aunt, and aunt, and cousin. cousin. Id Id. at at 14-20, 14-20, 52-54. 52-54. Both Both Lynn Lynn Nelson, Nelson, R.B.’s other grandmother, R.B.'s other grandmother, and and Jasmine Jasmine

Morris, R.B.'s Morris, R.B.’s mother, mother, also also addressed addressed this this Court. Court. Id. at 20-34, Id. at 20-34, 52. 52. Appellant Appellant declined declined the the

opportunity to opportunity to address address this this Court Court at at his his sentencing. sentencing. Id. Id. at at 54-55. 54-55.

Thereafter, this Court Thereafter, this sentenced Appellant Court sentenced Appellant to to aa term term of of twenty twenty (20) (20) to to forty (40) years forty (40) years of of

confinement on confinement on Appellant's Appellant’s Murder of the Murder of the Third Third Degree conviction, followed Degree conviction, followed by by consecutive consecutive

terms of terms of twenty (20) to twenty (20) to forty forty (40) (40) years for Conspiracy years for Conspiracy to Commit Murder to Commit Murder of of the the Third Degree Third Degree

and five and five (5) (5) to to ten ten (10) (10) years years for the first for the first Aggravated Aggravated Assault. Assault. Id. Id. at at 55-56. 55-56. This This Court Court

additionally imposed additionally imposed concurrent concurrent sentences sentences of of five five (5) (5) to ten (10) to ten years each (10) years each for Conspiracy to for Conspiracy to

Commit Murder Commit Murder and and the the second second Aggravated Aggravated Assault, Assault, three-and-a-half three-and-a-half (3½) (3 A) to to seven (7) years seven (7) years for for

VUFA $§ 6106, VUFA 6106, and and two-and-a-half (2 A) to two-and-a-half (2½) to five (5) years five (5) each for years each for VUFA VUFA §§ 6108 6108 and and PIC. Id. at PIC. Id. at

56. Appellant 56. Appellant thus thus received received an aggregate sentence an aggregate sentence of of forty-five forty-five (45) (45) to ninety (90) to ninety (90) years years of of

confinement. Id. confinement. Id. at at 57. This Court 57. This expressed its Court expressed its concerns concerns with with how how Philadelphia had become Philadelphia had become so so

dangerous because dangerous because of people like of people like Appellant Appellant who who "don't “don’t care care about the value about the value of of the the human life in human life in

the slightest” the slightest“ and choose to and choose to settle settle matters matters with with guns, guns, with with ”deadly “deadly consequences." consequences.” Id. Id. at 55-56. at 55-56.

On October On October 11, 11, 2023, 2023, Appellant filed timely Appellant filed timely post-sentence post-sentence motions motions and and aa memorandum memorandum

of law of law in which he in which he argued argued that that the the jury's jury’s verdict verdict was was against against the weight of the weight of the the evidence and that evidence and that

there was there was insufficient insufficient evidence evidence to support the to support the jury's jury’s verdict. verdict. On On October October 16, 16, 2023, 2023, this this Court Court

denied Appellant's denied Appellant’s post-sentence post-sentence motions motions without without aa hearing. hearing. On On November November 14, 14, 2023, Appellant 2023, Appellant

19 19 filed aa timely filed timely notice notice of of appeal appeal to to the the Superior Superior Court Court of of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. On On November November 16, 16, 2023, 2023,

this Court directed this Court directed Appellant Appellant to to file file aa 1925(b) 1925(b) Statement of Errors Statement of Errors Complained Complained of of on on Appeal, Appeal,

which Appellant which Appellant subsequently subsequently filed filed on on December December 7, 7, 2023. 2023.

On appeal, On Appellant raises appeal, Appellant the following raises the following four four (4) (4) issues: issues:

1. The 1. The evidence evidence was insufficient to was insufficient to sustain sustain verdicts verdicts of of guilty guilty on on any of the any of the counts counts for for the following the reasons: following reasons: a. The a. only evidence The only evidence thatthat the the Defendant Defendant waswas involved involved in in shooting shooting the the victim, OI] victim, QH Bl. came from came from aa cooperating witness who cooperating witness who alleged alleged that the Defendant that the Defendant admitted admitted after after the the homicide homicide that that he he was was involved, involved, along with along with twotwo individuals, individuals, Nyheem Nyheem Khalid Khalid Harrison Harrison andand Yameen Yameen Mofield, who Mofield, who were were each each armed armed with with 99 mmmm handguns, handguns, andand that that the the Defendant used Defendant used aa .38 .38 caliber caliber revolver to shoot revolver to shoot the the victim; victim; b. The b. The physical physical evidence collected from evidence collected from the the crime crime scene scene consisted consisted of of fourteen (14) fourteen fired cartridge (14) fired cartridge casings casings that were shot that were shot from from two separate 99 two separate mm handguns; mm handguns; c. The c. shooting of The shooting of the the victim victim was was captured captured onon video, video, and and in in it there are it there are only two only individuals who two individuals who are seen shooting; are seen shooting; d. The d. The Commonwealth Commonwealth charged charged Nyheem Khalid Harrison, Nyheem Khalid Harrison, along along with with co- co¬ defendant Yameen defendant Mofield, with Y ameen Mofield, with the the shooting shooting of the victim, of the victim, and and Nyheem Khalid Nyheem Harrison pied Khalid Harrison pled guilty guilty as as part part of of aa negotiated negotiated plea plea to the to the shooting shooting ofof the victim; the victim; e. The e. The remaining factual bases remaining factual bases for for claiming claiming the the [[evidence was insufficient] evidence was insufficient] were set were set forth forth specifically specifically in in the the Defendants Defendants Post-Sentence Motions, Post-Sentence Motions, which were which were denied denied byby the the Trial Trial Court. Court.

2. The 2. verdict was The verdict was against against the the weight weight of the evidence of the evidence asas follows: follows: a. The a. only evidence The only evidence that that the the Defendant Defendant was was involved involved in in shooting shooting the the victim, QI] victim, QH BHH: came Bl. came from from aa cooperating cooperating witness witness who who alleged alleged that the that the Defendant Defendant admitted admitted after after the the homicide homicide that that he was involved, he was involved, along with along with two two individuals, Nyheem Khalid individuals, Nyheem Khalid Harrison Harrison andand Yameen Yameen Mofield, who Mofield, who were were each each armed armed with with 99 mmmm handguns, handguns, andand that that the the Defendant used Defendant used aa .38 .38 caliber caliber revolver revolver toto shoot the victim; shoot the victim; b. The physical b. The physical evidence evidence collected from the collected from the crime crime scene scene consisted consisted of of fourteen (14) fourteen (14) fired fired cartridge casings that cartridge casings that were were shot from two shot from two separate separate 99 mm handguns; mm handguns; c. The c. The shooting shooting of of the the victim victim was was captured captured onon video, video, and and in in it it there there are are only two only two individuals individuals who who are are seen seen shooting; shooting; d. The d. The Commonwealth Commonwealth charged Nyheem Khalid charged Nyheem Khalid Harrison, Harrison, along along with with co- co¬ defendant Yameen defendant Mofield, with Y ameen Mofield, with the the shooting shooting of of the the victim, victim, and and Nyheem Khalid Nyheem Khalid Harrison Harrison pled pled guilty guilty as part of as part of aa negotiated negotiated plea plea to the to the shooting of shooting of the the victim; victim;

20 20  e. The remaining factual bases for claiming the verdict was against the weight of the evidence were set forth specifically in the Defendants Post-Sentence Motions, which were denied by the Trial Court.

3. The Trial Court erred by granting the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Motions to Admit Other Acts Evidence, and admitting the following following evidence: a. The admission of a shooting on August 8, 2018 at 1400 S. Etting Etling Street committed by two members of the 31 31°st Street gang, to which the Defendant allegedly belonged, and the subsequent recovery from the Defendant the following day of a firearm used in in that shooting; b. b. The admission of the shooting of the Defendant and others by unknown individuals at 5300 Greenway Greenway Avenue Avenue on April 22, 2020, during which time three firearms were were recovered; recovered; c. The admission of of aa recorded recorded telephone call call from from a state prison facility from prisoner prisoner Markell Markell Davis to Nyheem Khalid Harrison the the morning of the homicide in which Harrison stated that he was with the Defendant of the homicide in which Harrison stated that he was with the Defendant and co-defendant, Yameen Mofield, in which he referred to them as and co-defendant, Y ameen Mofield, in which he referred to them as “my “my young young killers.” killers.”

4. 4. The The Trial Trial Court Court erred erred by by not not granting granting aa mistrial mistrial after after the the Commonwealth Commonwealth called called Nyheem Nyheem Khalid Khalid Harrison Harrison to to testify testify and and he he refused refused to to answer answer any any questions questions put put to to him, after which the Commonwealth read directly from Harrison’s statement in him, after which the Commonwealth read directly from Harrison's statement in which which he he allegedly allegedly inculpated inculpated the the Defendant Defendant inin the the shooting shooting ofof QI Bl.

Appellant’s Appellant's Pa.RA.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 1925(b) Statement Statement of of Matter Matter (reordered). (reordered).

Discussion Discussion

I.I. There Therewas was sufficient sufficient evidence evidence for for aa jury jury to to find Appellant acted find_Appellant acted with with malice malice and and convict him of Murder of the Third Degree and other related offenses. convict him of Murder of the Third Degree and other related offenses.

Appellant Appellant claims claims that that there there was was insufficient insufficient evidence evidence to to sustain sustain any any of ofhis his guilty guilty verdicts verdicts

relating relating to to the the murder murder of R.B. and ofR.B. and the the shooting shooting of ofK.B. K.B. and and Q.B. Q.B. In In support support of ofhis his claim, claim,

Appellant Appellant contends contends that that the the only only evidence evidence implicating implicating him him came came from from aa cooperating cooperating witness witness who who

stated stated that that Appellant Appellant used used aa .38 .38 caliber caliber revolver revolver in in the the shooting shooting and and that that Yameen Yameen Mofield Mofield and and

Khalid Khalid Harrison Harrison used used 9mm 9mm handguns. handguns. Appellant Appellant argues argues that that the the only only ballistic ballistic evidence evidence recovered recovered

was was from from two two (2) (2) separate separate 9mm 9mm handguns, handguns, that that video video footage footage only only captured captured two two (2) (2) individuals individuals

shooting, shooting, and and that that Harrison Harrison separately separately pled pled guilty guilty to to his his involvement involvement in inthe the shooting. shooting. Appellant Appellant

21 21 thus argues that three (3) individuals were convicted when there was only evidence of two (2)

shooters. shooters. Appellant’s Appellant's first first claim claim is is without without merit merit and and no no relief relief is is due. due.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the standard of review is to

“determine "determine whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences therefrom,

viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, were sufficient to

prove prove every element element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” doubt." Commonwealth v.v. Palmer, 192

A.3d 85, 89 89 (Pa. Super. Super. 2018). This standard standard is equally applicable to cases where the evidence is

circumstantial “so "so long as the combination of the evidence links links the the accused to to the the crime beyond

aa reasonable reasonable doubt.” doubt." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Walker, Walker, 836 836 A. 2d 999, A.2d 999, 1000 1000 n.3 n.3 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2003). 2003). ItIt is is

“within "within the the province province of of the the fact-finder fact-finder to to determine determine the the weight weight to to be be accorded accorded to to each each witness’s witness's

testimony testimony and and to to believe believe all, all, part, part, or or none none of of the the evidence.” evidence." Palmer, Palmer, 192 192 A.3d A.3d at at 89. 89.

To To prove prove aa charge charge of of Conspiracy, Conspiracy, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth must must establish establish that that aa defendant: defendant:

“(1) "(1) entered entered into into an an agreement agreement to to commit commit or or aid aid in in an an unlawful unlawful act act with with another another person person or or

persons, persons, (2) (2) with with aa shared shared criminal criminal intent, intent, and and (3) (3) an an overt overt act act [was] [was] done done in in furtherance furtherance of of

the the conspiracy.” conspiracy." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Beatty, Beatty, 227 227 A.3d A.3d 1277, 1277, 1283-84 1283-84 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2020). 2020). Although Although

the the existence existence of ofan an agreement agreement to to commit commit or or aid aid in in an an unlawful unlawful fact fact isis an an “essential "essential element element of of

conspiracy, conspiracy, ititisis generally generally difficult difficult to to prove prove an an explicit explicit or or formal formal agreement.” agreement." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v»

Spotz, Spotz, 716 716 A.2d A.2d 580, 592 (Pa. 580,592 (Pa. 1998). 1998). Such Such an an agreement agreement may may therefore therefore “be "be established established

inferentially inferentially by by circumstantial circumstantial evidence,” evidence," including including the the relations, relations, conduct, conduct, or or circumstances circumstances of of

the the parties. parties. Id. Id.

Circumstantial Circumstantial evidence evidence of ofthe the “conduct "conduct of ofthe the parties parties and and the the circumstances circumstances surrounding surrounding

such such conduct conduct may may create create aa ‘web 'web of ofevidence’ evidence' linking linking the the accused accused to to the the alleged alleged conspiracy conspiracy

beyond beyond aareasonable reasonable doubt.” doubt." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Irvin, Irvin, 134 134 A.3d A.3d 67, 67, 76 76 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2016). 2016). Once Once aa

22 22 conspiracy conspiracy is is established, established, the the “actions "actions of of each each co-conspirator co-conspirator may may be be imputed imputed to to the the other other

conspirators.” conspirators." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Geiger, Geiger, 944 944 A.2d A.2d 85, 85, 91 91 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2008). 2008). Each Each conspirator conspirator is is

considered considered criminally criminally responsible responsible under under the the law law “for "for the the actions actions of ofhis his co-conspirator, co-conspirator, provided provided

that that the the actions actions are are accomplished accomplished in in furtherance furtherance of of the the common common design.” design." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v.

Baskerville, Baskerville, 681 681 A.2d A.2d 195, 201 (Pa. 195,201 (Pa. Super. Super. 1996). 1996). Such Such responsibility responsibility “extends "extends evento even to aa

homicide homicide which which is is aa contingency contingency of of the the natural natural and and probable probable execution execution of of the the conspiracy, conspiracy, even even

though though such such homicide homicide is is not not specifically specifically contemplated contemplated by by the the parties.” parties." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Eiland, Eiland,

301 301 A.2d A.2d 651 651 (Pa. (Pa. 1973). 1973).

Murder Murder of of the the Third Third Degree Degree is is statutorily statutorily defined defined as as “all "all other other kinds kinds of ofmurder” murder'' other other

than than Murder Murder of of the the First First Degree Degree and and Murder Murder of of the the Second Second Degree. Degree. 18 Pa.C.S.A. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(c). 2502(c). In In

effect, effect, to to convict convict aa defendant defendant of of Murder Murder of of the the Third Third Degree, Degree, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth must must prove prove

“the “the killing killing of of an an individual individual with with legal legal malice.” malice.” Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Jones, Jones, 271 271 A.3d A.3d 452, 458 (Pa. 452,458 (Pa.

Super. Super. 2021). 2021). Malice Malice is is defined defined as as “exhibiting “exhibiting an an ‘extreme 'extreme indifference indifference to to life.’” life.'” Commonwealth Commonwealth

v.v. Ludwig, Ludwig, 874 874 A.2d A.2d 623, 623, 632 632 (Pa. (Pa. 2005) 2005) (quoting (quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Young, Young, 43 4311 A.2d A.2d 230, 230, 232 232

(Pa. (Pa. 1981)). 1981)). Malice Malice includes includes “not "not only only particular particular ill ill will will toward toward the the victim, victim, but but also also wickedness wickedness

of of disposition, disposition, hardness hardness of of heart, heart, wantonness, wantonness, and and cruelty, cruelty, recklessness recklessness of of consequences, consequences, and and

conscious conscious disregard disregard by by the the defendant defendant of of an an unjustified unjustified and and extremely extremely high high risk risk that that his his actions actions

may may cause cause serious serious bodily bodily harm.” harm." Id. Id.

A A person person is is guilty guilty of of Aggravated Aggravated Assault Assault if if he he “attempts "attempts to to cause cause serious serious bodily bodily injury injury to to

another, another, or or causes causes such such injury injury intentionally, intentionally, knowingly knowingly or or recklessly recklessly under under circumstances circumstances

manifesting manifesting extreme extreme indifference indifference to to the the value value of of human human life.” life." 18 18 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2702(a). 2702(a). Serious Serious

bodily bodily injury injury is is defined defined as as “[b]odily "[b]odily injury injury which which creates creates aa substantial substantial risk risk of of death death or or which which

causes causes serious, serious, permanent permanent disfigurement, disfigurement, or or protracted protracted loss loss or or impairment impairment of of the the function function of of any any

23 23 bodily member or bodily member or organ.“ organ.” 18 18 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2301. 2301. There There is is ”no “no distinction between the distinction between the malice malice

essential to essential to aa third third degree degree murder murder and and that that necessary" necessary” to to commit commit Aggravated Aggravated Assault. Assault.

Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Kling, Kling, 731 A.2d 145, 731 A.2d 145, 147 147 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 1999). 1999).

The Commonwealth The Commonwealth presented presented ample ample evidence sufficient to evidence sufficient to convict convict Appellant Appellant of of Murder Murder

of the of the Third Third Degree, Degree, Conspiracy to Commit Conspiracy to Commit Murder, and Aggravated Murder, and Aggravated Assault. Assault. The The record record

established that established that R.B. RB. was shot and was shot and killed at aa gas killed at gas station at 2435 station at 2435 West Passyunk Avenue West Passyunk around Avenue around

8:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. on on October October 4, 4, 2018. 2018. An An autopsy autopsy conducted conducted on on RB. R.B. revealed that he revealed that he died died from from aa

gunshot wound gunshot to his wound to his torso torso and that the and that the manner manner of of his his death death was was homicide. homicide. K.B. K.B. and and Q.B. Q.B. were were

also struck also by gunfire struck by gunfire during during this this shooting. shooting. K.B. K.B. initially initially ran ran from from the the gas gas station station to to the the nearby nearby

Philadelphia Police Philadelphia Police First District to First District to report report that that he he had had been shot and been shot and was was subsequently subsequently treated treated at at

aa hospital hospital for for aa gunshot gunshot wound. wound. Q.B. Q.B. testified testified that that he he was was at at the gas station the gas station during during the the shooting shooting

and showed and showed aa graze graze wound wound he he may have sustained may have sustained during during the the shooting. shooting. N.T. N.T. 6/12/2023, 6/12/2023, at at 81-86; 81-86;

N.T. 6/13/2023, N.T. 6/13/2023, at at 18-27; 18-27; N.T. 6/15/2023, at N.T. 6/15/2023, at 5-17, 5-17, 50-57. 50-57.

Video footage Video footage recovered recovered from from the the shooting shooting showed showed one one individual individual exiting exiting aa vehicle vehicle that that

pulled up pulled up to to the the gas gas station station and firing gunshots and firing gunshots while while running running and another individual and another individual firing firing

gunshots from gunshots from within the vehicle. within the vehicle. Police Police were able to were able connect this to connect this shooting shooting to to aa series series of of ongoing ongoing

shootings between shootings between rival gangs in rival gangs in South South Philadelphia, Philadelphia, the the 27th 27th Street Street gang gang and and the the 31st 31st Street Street

gang. In gang. In December December 2018, 2018, Dean Dean Fosque Fosque told told police police that that his his cousin cousin Yameen, Yameen, who who went went by by the the

nickname "Su-Su, nickname “Su-Su”, was was involved involved in in the the murder murder at at the the gas gas station station on on Passyunk Passyunk Avenue Avenue aa few few

months prior. months prior. Fosque Fosque positively positively identified identified aa photograph photograph of of Y Yameen Mofield for ameen Mofield for police. police. N. N.T. T.

6/12/2023, at 6/12/2023, at 90-113, 90-113, 134-149; 134-149; N.T. N.T. 6/13/2023, 6/13/2023, at at 7-12; 7-12; 50-88 50-88

Investigators working Investigators on R.B.'s working on R.B.’s homicide homicide later later came came into into contact contact with with Nyseem Nyseem Smith, Smith,

who who was part of was part of the 31 st Street the 31st gang. Smith Street gang. explained how Smith explained how he and his he and his friends friends from 31 st Street from 31st Street

24 24 would would drive drive stolen vehicles through stolen vehicles 27th Street through 27th Street territory and use territory and use shared shared firearms firearms to to shoot shoot at at

anyone anyone they knew to they knew to be be associated associated with with 27th 27th Street. Street. Smith, Smith, who who had been arrested had been arrested for for his his

participation in 3 participation in 1st Street 31st Street related related shootings, shootings, ultimately agreed to ultimately agreed to cooperate cooperate with with investigators in investigators in

exchange exchange for for aa favorable favorable prison prison sentence. sentence. Smith Smith gave gave aa series series of of statements statements about about shootings shootings in in

which which the the 31st 31st Street Street gang gang was was involved, involved, including including the the homicide homicide of of R.B. R.B. N.T. N.T. 6/13/2023, 6/13/2023, at 142- at 142-

174 174 ;; N.T. N.T. 6/14/2023, 6/14/2023, at at 6-128; 6-128; N.T. N.T. 6/15/2023, 6/15/2023, at at 75-82. 75-82.

Smith Smith stated stated that that he he was was at at his his cousin’s cousin's house house when when the the gas gas station station shooting occurred but shooting occurred but

that that Appellant, Appellant, Yameen Yameen Mofield, Mofield, Khalid Khalid Harrison, Harrison, and and Markell Davis came Markell Davis came to to the the house house after after the the

shooting. shooting. Appellant, Appellant, Mofield, Mofield, and and Harrison Harrison told told Smith Smith and others present and others present that that somebody somebody had had

been been shot shot and and killed killed at at the the gas gas station. station. Mofield Mofield told told those those present present that that he he and and the the others others were were

riding riding through through Wilson Wilson Park Park and and that that they they started started shooting shooting when when they they saw saw some some people people from from

Wilson, Wilson, and and that that he he had had chased chased and and shot shot one one of of the the people people there. there. In In his his statement, statement, Smith Smith said said that that

Harrison Harrison had had aa PPX9 PPX9 handgun, handgun, Mofield Mofield had had aa .9 .9 Taurus Taurus pistol, pistol, and and Appellant Appellant had had aa .38 .38 revolver. revolver.

Smith Smith also also identified identified Mofield Mofield as as the the individual individual seen seen in in video video footage footage of of the the shooting shooting exiting exiting the the

vehicle vehicle and and running running after after someone. someone. N.T. N.T. 6/14/2023, 6/14/2023, at at 39-64. 39-64.

Smith Smith testified testified that that Appellant Appellant was was part part of of the the 31 st Street 31st Street gang. gang. Philadelphia Philadelphia Officer Officer

Christopher Christopher Lai, Lai, who who was was familiar familiar with with the the conflict conflict between between 27th 27th Street Street and and 31 st Street, 31st Street, also also

recognized recognized Appellant Appellant as as someone someone associated associated with with 31st 31st Street. Street. Officer Officer Lai Lai noted noted that that an an Instagram Instagram

account account belonging belonging to to Appellant Appellant had had aa username usemame which which referenced referenced 31st Street. 31st Street. On On October October 21, 21,

2017, 2017, Appellant Appellant was was arrested arrested in in possession possession of of aa gun gun which which had had been been used used by by aa 31 st Street 31st Street gang gang

members members three three (3) (3) days days earlier. earlier. On On April April 20, 20, 2020, 2020, Appellant Appellant was was shot shot while while in in aa stolen stolen

Volkswagen Volkswagen with with three three (3) (3) other other 31st Street 31st Street gang gang members. members. Three Three (3) (3) firearms firearms were were recovered recovered

from from the the scene scene of of this this shooting, shooting, including including one one which which was was found found close close to to where where Appellant Appellant exited exited

25 25

.% the Volkswagen the Volkswagen after after being shot. Cell being shot. phone records Cell phone records for for devices belonging to devices belonging Appellant, to Appellant,

Mofield, and Mofield, and Harrison Harrison showed showed communications communications between the three between the three (3) (3) of of them. them. N.T. N.T. 6/13/2023, 6/13/2023, at at

69-81, 103-116; 69-81, 103-116; N.T. N.T. 6/14/2023, 6/14/2023, at at 6-23; 6-23; N.T. N.T. 6/15/2023, 6/15/2023, at at 102-110; N.T. 6/16/2023, 102-110;N.T. 6/16/2023, at at 78-88. 78-88.

A recorded A recorded prison prison call call made made by by Harrison indicated that Harrison indicated that Appellant and Mofield, Appellant and Mofield, who who

Harrison called Harrison called his his “young “young killers,” killers,” were with him were with on the him on the day day the the shooting occurred. shooting occurred.

Additionally, call Additionally, call detail detail records for the records for the devices devices belonging to Appellant, belonging to Appellant, Mofield, Mofield, and and Harrison Harrison

showed no showed no call call activities activities at at the time the the time the shooting shooting take place, but take place, but numerous numerous calls calls both before and both before and

after. Cell after. Cell phone phone location location data data was was consistent consistent with Harrison and with Harrison and Mofield Mofield being being at at the the gas gas station station

at the at the time time of of the the shooting. shooting. Appellant Appellant was was not not excluded excluded as as aa contributor contributor of of DNA collected from DNA collected from aa

book bag book and hooded bag and hooded sweatshirt found at sweatshirt found at the the scene of the scene of the shooting. Sixteen (16) shooting. Sixteen 9mm Luger (16) 9mm Luger

fired cartridge fired cartridge casings casings and and five five (5) (5) bullet bullet specimens were recovered specimens were recovered from from the the scene of the scene of the

shooting. shooting. An An intact intact bullet and aa bullet bullet and jacket were bullet jacket were determined determined to to be be from the .38 from the .38 or or 9mm 9mm family family

of caliber. of N.T. 6/15/2023, caliber. N.T. 6/15/2023, at at 38-50, 38-50, 67-72, 67-72, 90-102; 90-102; N.T. N.T. 6/16/2023, 6/16/2023, at at 89-127. 89-127.

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

winner, winner, established established that Appellant was that Appellant was aa known known member of the member of 31st Street the 31st Street gang, gang, along along with with

Yameen Mofield Yameen Mofield and and Khalid Khalid Harrison. Harrison. Additionally, Additionally, Nyseem Nyseem Smith’s testimony, along Smith's testimony, along with with

evidence presented evidence presented regarding regarding Appellant’s 2017 arrest Appellant's 2017 arrest and and the the 2020 2020 incident incident in in which which he was shot he was shot

while in while in aa stolen stolen vehicle, vehicle, established established that that Appellant Appellant was was aa participant participant in in the ongoing conflict the ongoing conflict

between 31 st Street between 31st and 27th Street and 27th Street. Street. As As part part of of this this conflict, members of conflict, members of the the 31 st Street 31st Street gang gang

would drive would drive through through 27th 27th Street Street territory territory looking looking to to shoot anyone associated shoot anyone associated with with 27th 27th Street, Street,

which included which included individuals individuals from from Wilson Wilson Park. Smith’s statement Park. Smith's statement regarding regarding the the homicide homicide ofR.B. of R.B.

established that established that R.B., R.B., K.B., K.B., and and Q.B. Q.B. were initially targeted were initially targeted because because the the shooters shooters recognized recognized that that

they were they were associated associated with Wilson Park. with Wilson Park.

26 26  The shooters The who targeted shooters who targeted and and struck struck R.B., K.B., and R.B., K.B., and Q.B. Q.B. -- - all all of of whom whom were were minors minors - -

exhibited clear malice. exhibited clear The shooters malice. The drove up shooters drove up to to the the gas gas station station where where R.B., R.B., K.B., K.B., and Q.B. were and Q.B. were

hanging out hanging out and and immediately immediately began began shooting shooting at at them, them, having having recognized their association recognized their association with with aa

rival gang. Based rival gang. Based on on the the number number of of fired fired cartridge cartridge casings casings recovered recovered from from the the crime crime scene, the scene, the

shooters shooters fired at least fired at least sixteen (16) gunshots sixteen (16) gunshots at at the the group group of of teenagers. teenagers. One One of of the the shooters shooters even even

exited the exited the vehicle vehicle and and chased chased one one of of the the teenagers teenagers while while firing firing gunshots gunshots at at him. him. In In committing committing

the the shooting, the shooters shooting, the shooters exhibited exhibited an an extreme extreme indifference indifference to to the value of the value of human human life life and and aa

conscious disregard conscious disregard of of the the unjustified unjustified and and extremely extremely high high risk risk of of serious serious bodily harm that bodily harm that could could

result from firing result from firing aa high high volume volume of of gunshots gunshots at at aa group group of of several several teenagers. As aa result teenagers. As result of of those those

actions, R.B., actions, R.B., K.B., K.B., and and Q.B. Q.B. were were all all struck struck by by gunfire. gunfire. R.B. R.B. died died from from his his gunshot gunshot wound, wound,

while K.B. while K.B. and and Q.B. Q.B. were were injured by gunfire injured by and placed gunfire and in danger placed in danger of of serious bodily injury. serious bodily injury.

Smith identified Smith identified Appellant Appellant as as one one of of the the shooters, shooters, along along with Mofield and with Mofield Harrison, and and Harrison, and

stated that stated that Appellant Appellant was carrying aa .38 was carrying .38 revolver on the revolver on the night night of of the the homicide. homicide. Evidence placed Evidence placed

Appellant and Appellant and Harrison Harrison together on the together on the day day of of the homicide and the homicide and Harrison Harrison and and Mofield Mofield at at the the gas gas

station at station at the the time time of of the the homicide. homicide. Cell Cell phone phone records records showed that phones showed that phones belonging belonging to to

Appellant, Mofield, Appellant, Mofield, and and Harrison Harrison were were all all inactive inactive around around the the time time the the homicide homicide occurred, occurred,

despite being despite active both being active both before and after. before and after. Appellant Appellant was was not not excluded excluded as as aa contributor contributor of of DNA DNA

found on found on items items recovered by police recovered by police following following the the homicide. homicide. The The record also reflects record also that at reflects that at least least

two (2) two pieces of (2) pieces of ballistic evidence were ballistic evidence were determined to possibly determined to possibly originate originate from from aa .38 .38 caliber caliber

firearm, the firearm, the exact type of exact type of firearm firearm that Appellant was that Appellant carrying according was carrying according to to Smith. Smith. Even though Even though

only two only (2) individuals two (2) individuals were identified as were identified as shooters shooters in in the the video video footage, footage, there there was was sufficient sufficient

circumstantial evidence circumstantial evidence to to conclude conclude that that in in the the light light most most favorable favorable to to the the Commonwealth Commonwealth as as the the

verdict winner, verdict winner, there there was was aa third third shooter shooter not not captured captured by by the video footage. the video footage.

27 27  There There was was therefore therefore sufficient sufficient evidence evidence for for aajury jury to to conclude conclude that that to to find find that that Appellant Appellant

was was one one of ofthe the three three (3) (3) shooters shooters who who maliciously maliciously shot shot at at aa group group of ofteenagers teenagers standing standing at at aa gas gas

station, station, killing killing R.B., R.B., and and was was therefore therefore guilty guilty of of Murder Murder of ofthe the Third Third Degree. Degree. Moreover, Moreover, by by

acting acting with with malice, malice, Appellant Appellant also also exhibited exhibited the the same same mens mens rea rea required required to to sustain sustain his his two two (2) (2)

convictions convictions for for Aggravated Aggravated Assault. Assault. Appellant’s Appellant's actions actions in in maliciously maliciously firing firing at at aa group group of of

teenagers teenagers at at aa gas gas station station constituted, constituted, at at aa minimum, minimum, an an attempt attempt to to cause cause serious serious bodily bodily injury injury to to

both both K.B. K.B. and and Q.B. Q.B.

Additionally, Additionally, there there was was sufficient sufficient evidence evidence to to conclude conclude that that Appellant, Appellant, Mofield, Mofield, and and

Harrison Harrison targeted targeted R.B., R.B., K.B., K.B., and and Q.B. Q.B. because because of of an an ongoing ongoing shooting shooting conflict conflict between between the the 31st 31st

Street Street and and 27th 27th Street Street gangs. gangs. By By committing committing the the shooting, shooting, Appellant, Appellant, Mofield, Mofield, and and Harrison Harrison all all

committed committed overt overt acts acts in in furtherance furtherance of of their their shared shared goal goal to to bring bring harm harm to to those those associated associated with with

27th 27th Street. Street. There There was was thus thus sufficient sufficient evidence evidence to to find find Appellant Appellant guilty guilty of of both both Conspiracy Conspiracy to to

Commit Commit Murder Murder of of the the Third Third Degree Degree and and Conspiracy Conspiracy to to Commit Commit Murder. Murder. Accordingly, Accordingly, even even

accepting accepting Appellant’s Appellant's argument argument that that there there were were only only two two (2) (2) shooters shooters and and that that Appellant Appellant was was not not

one one of of them, them, there there would would still still be be sufficient sufficient evidence evidence to to find find Appellant Appellant guilty guilty of of Murder Murder of of the the

Third Third Degree Degree under under aa theory theory of of conspiratorial conspiratorial liability. liability. R.B.’s R.B.'s death death was was aa natural natural and and probable probable

result result of of aa conspiracy conspiracy designed designed to to fire fire gunshots gunshots at at anyone anyone associated associated with with 27th 27th Street. Street.

The The term term “firearm” “firearm” is is defined defined in in 18 18 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6102 6102 as as “[a]ny "[a]ny pistol pistol or or revolver revolver with with aa

barrel barrel less less than than 1 155 inches inches ... ... or or any any pistol, pistol, revolver, revolver, rifle rifle or or shotgun shotgun with with an an overall overall length length of of

less less than than 26 26 inches.” inches." It It is is well well settled settled that that the the testimony testimony of of aa witness witness that that the the defendant defendant

possessed possessed aa firearm firearm is is sufficient sufficient to to establish establish aa violation violation of of the the Uniform Uniform Firearms Firearms Act, Act, even even if if aa

weapon weapon is is never never actually actually recovered. recovered. See, See, e.g., e.g., Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Robinson, Robinson, 817 817 A.2d A.2d 1153, 1153,

1161-62 1161-62 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2003). 2003).

28 28  A person A person violates violates 18 Pa.C.S.A. $§ 6106 18 Pa.C.S.A. of the 6106 of the Uniform Uniform Firearms Firearms Act Act ifhe if he "carries “carries aa

firearm concealed firearm concealed on on or or about about his his person .. . without person ... without aa valid valid and and lawfully lawfully issued issued license." license.” A A

person violates person violates 1 188 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. $§ 6108 6108 of of the the Uniform Firearms Act Uniform Firearms Act if if he he carries carries aa "firearm, “firearm, rifle rifle or or

shotgun at shotgun at any any time upon the time upon the public public streets streets or or upon upon any any public public property" property” in in Philadelphia, Philadelphia, unless unless

he is he is licensed licensed to to do do so or exempt so or exempt from licensing. Both from licensing. Both statutes statutes thus thus require require an an element element of of

possession, which possession, which "can “can be be found found by by proving proving actual actual possession, possession, constructive constructive possession, possession, or or joint joint

constructive possession.” Commonwealth constructive possession." Commonwealth v. v. Heidler, Heidler, 741 741 A.2d A.2d 213, 215 (Pa. 213, 215 (Pa. Super. Super. 1999). A 1999). A

person is person is guilty guilty of of Possessing Possessing Instruments Instruments of of Crime Crime if “he possesses if "he possesses any any instrument instrument of of crime crime

with intent with intent to to employ employ it it criminally." criminally.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. $§ 907(a). 18 Pa.C.S.A. 907(a). A A gun gun is is clearly clearly defined as an defined as an

instrument of instrument crime as ofcrime as contemplated by 18 contemplated by 18 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. $§ 907(a). 907(a). See See Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Monroe, Monroe,

422 A.2d 422 A.2d 193, 195 (Pa. 193, 195 (Pa. Super. Super. 1980). 1980).

The record The reflects that record reflects that an an analysis analysis of ballistic evidence of ballistic evidence revealed that at revealed that at least least two two 9mm 9mm

(2) firearms (2) firearms were used in were used in the the shooting shooting of of R.B., R.B., K.B., and Q.B. K.B., and Q.B. at at the the gas gas station station on 2435 West on 2435 West

Passyunk Avenue Passyunk on October Avenue on October 4, 4, 2018. 2018. This This analysis analysis also also showed showed that that an an intact intact bullet bullet and and aa bullet bullet

jacket recovered jacket from the recovered from the scene scene were were also also from from either either .38 or 9mm .38 or 9mm family of caliber, family of caliber, indicating indicating aa

.38 revolver .38 could have revolver could have been been used used in the shooting. in the shooting. Nyseem Nyseem Smith, Smith, who knew Appellant who knew Appellant as as aa

fellow member fellow member of of the the 31st 31st Street Street gang, gang, gave gave aa statement statement to to police police in in which which he he identified identified

Appellant as Appellant as one one of of the the gas gas station station shooters and specified shooters and specified that that Appellant carried aa .38 Appellant carried .38 revolver. revolver.

The Commonwealth The Commonwealth and and counsel for Appellant counsel for Appellant stipulated stipulated that that Appellant Appellant did did not not have have aa valid valid

license to license to carry carry aa concealed concealed weapon. N.T. 6/14/2023, weapon. N.T. at 45-64; 6/14/2023, at N.T. 6/15/2023, 45-64; N.T. 6/15/2023, at at 38-53; 38-53; N.T. N.T.

6/20/2023, at 6/20/2023, 26. at 26.

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

winner, thus winner, established that thus established Appellant used that Appellant used aa .3 .388 revolver, revolver, aa firearm firearm within within the the definition of 18 definition of 18

29 29 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.S.A. §$ 6102, 6102, to to shoot shoot atatR.B., R.B., K.B., K.B., and and Q.B. Q.B. As AsAppellant Appellant did didnot nothave have aavalid validlicense license to to

carry carry aafirearm fireann atat the the time time of ofthe the shooting, shooting, there there was was sufficient sufficient evidence evidence to to convict convicthim him of VUFA ofVUFA

§$ 6106. 6106. The The shooting shooting occurred occurred after after aavehicle vehicle pulled pulled up up to to aa gas gas station station atat 2435 2435 West West Passyunk Passyunk

Avenue Avenue in in Philadelphia, Philadelphia, committed committed the the shooting, shooting, and and promptly promptly left left the the scene. scene. As As Appellant Appellantthus thus

carried carried aa firearm fireann without without aa license license throughout throughout Philadelphia Philadelphia on on the the way way to to and and from from the the shooting, shooting,

there there was was sufficient sufficient evidence evidence to to convict convict him him of ofVUFA VUFA §$ 6108. 6108. Lastly, Lastly, because because the the firearm fireann used used

by by Appellant Appellant constituted constituted an an instrument instrument of ofcrime crime that that was was employed employed criminally criminally in in the the shooting, shooting,

there there was was also also sufficient sufficient evidence evidence to to convict convict Appellant Appellant of ofPIC. PIC. Appellant’s Appellant's sufficiency sufficiency of ofthe the

evidence evidence claim claim isis therefore therefore without without merit merit and and no no relief reliefisis due. due.

II. II. The The jury’s jury's verdict verdict finding finding Appellant Appellant guilty guilty of ofMurder Murder of of the the Third Third Degree Degree and and other other related related offenses offenses was was not not against against the the weight weight of ofthe the evidence. evidence.

Appellant Appellant next next claims claims that that the the jury’s jury's verdict verdict was was against against the the weight weight of ofthe the evidence. evidence.

Appellant Appellant advances advances the the same same arguments arguments in in support support of ofthis this claim, claim, asserting asserting that that the the only only evidence evidence

implicating implicating him him in in the the murder murder of R.B. and ofR.B. and the the shooting shooting of of K.B. K.B. and and Q.B. Q.B. came came from from a

cooperating cooperating witness witness and and that that forensic forensic evidence evidence was was incompatible incompatible with with this this witness’s witness's statement statement

that that Appellant Appellant used used aa .38 .38 caliber caliber revolver revolver in in the the shooting. shooting. Appellant Appellant thus thus argues argues that that the the jury’s jury's

verdict verdict cannot cannot stand stand where where three three (3) (3) individuals individuals were were convicted convicted yet yet there there was was only only evidence evidence of of

two two (2) (2) shooters. shooters. Appellant’s Appellant's second second claim claim is is also also without without merit merit and and no no relief relief is is due. due.

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania law law regarding regarding appellate appellate review review of of weight weight of of the the evidence evidence claims claims is is well well

settled. settled. A A claim claim that that the the verdict verdict is is against against the the weight weight of of the the evidence evidence is is addressed addressed to to the the

discretion of the trial court. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d A.24 745, 751-752 (Pa. 2000). 2000). In

reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the trial court may may only grant relief “when "when

the jury’s jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s one's sense of justice justice and the award

of of aa new new trial trial is is imperative imperative so so that that right right may may be be given given another another opportunity opportunity to to prevail.” prevail."

30 30 Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Rivera, Rivera, 283 283 A.3d A.3d 482, 482, 497-498 497-498 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2020) 2020) (quoting (quoting Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v.

Jacoby, 170 Jacoby, 170 A.3d A.3d 1065, 1065, 1080 1080 (Pa. 2017)). In (Pa. 2017)). In determining determining if if the the verdict verdict is is against the weight against the weight of of

the evidence, the evidence, the the trial court does trial court does not “sit as not “sit as the the thirteenth thirteenth juror” juror” but instead must but instead find that must find that

“notwithstanding all "notwithstanding all the the facts, facts, certain certain facts facts are are so so clearly clearly of of greater weight that greater weight that to to ignore ignore them or them or

to give them to give them equal equal weight weight with with all all the the facts facts is to deny is to deny justice." justice.” Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Clay, Clay, 64 A.3d 64 A.3d

1049, 1055 1049, 1055 (2013) (2013) (quoting (quoting Widmer, Widmer, 744 744 A.2d A.2d at at 752). 752).

A true A true weight weight of of the the evidence challenge "concedes evidence challenge “concedes that sufficient evidence that sufficient evidence exists exists to to

sustain the sustain the verdict verdict but but questions questions which which evidence evidence is is to to be be believed.” Commonwealth v. believed." Commonwealth v. Thompson, Thompson,

106 A.3d 106 A.3d 742, 758 (Pa. 742, 758 (Pa. Super. Super. 2014). 2014). The The finder finder of of fact fact is is "free “free to to believe believe all, all, none, or some none, or some of of

the evidence the evidence and and to to determine the credibility determine the credibility of of the the witnesses." witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Clemens, Commonwealth v. Clemens, 242 242

A.3d 659, A.3d 659, 667 667 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2020). Reversal Super. 2020). Reversal of of aa trial trial court court verdict verdict should should therefore therefore only only be be

granted where granted where the the evidence evidence is is so “tenuous, vague so "tenuous, vague and and uncertain uncertain that that the the verdict verdict shocks the shocks the

conscience of the conscience of court.” Commonwealth the court." v. Akhmedov, Commonwealth v. Akhmedov, 216 216 A.3d 307, 326 (Pa. A.3d 307,326 (Pa. Super. Super. 2019). 2019). A A

jury’s verdict jury's verdict “shocks “shocks the judicial conscience” the judicial conscience” when when it it "causes “causes the the trial trial judge judge to to lose lose his his breath, breath,

temporarily, and temporarily, and causes causes him him to to almost fall from almost fall from the the bench.” bench." Id. (quoting Commonwealth Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. v.

Davidson, 860 Davidson, 860 A.24 A.2d 575, 575, 581 581 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2004)). 2004)).

As the As the finder finder of of fact fact in in Appellant's Appellant’s case, case, it it was was the the function function of of the the jury jury to to evaluate the evaluate the

evidence and evidence determine the and determine the weight it should weight it should be given. The be given. The Commonwealth Commonwealth presented presented twenty-two twenty-two

(22) witnesses (22) witnesses as as part of its part of its case-in-chief case-in-chief against against Appellant and his Appellant and his co-defendant, co-defendant, Y Yameen ameen

Mofield. The Mofield. The jury jury evidently weighed this evidently weighed this testimony testimony and evidence in and evidence in such such aa manner as to manner as to find find

Appellant guilty Appellant guilty of of Murder Murder of of the the Third Third Degree, Degree, Conspiracy Conspiracy to to Commit Murder of Commit Murder of the the Third Third

Degree, Conspiracy Degree, Conspiracy to to Commit Murder, Aggravated Commit Murder, Aggravated Assault, Assault, VUFA VUFA §§ 6106, VUFA $§ 6108, 6106, VUFA and 6108, and

PIC in PIC in relation to his relation to his role role in in the the murder murder of of R.B. and shooting R.B. and shooting of of K.B. K.B. and and Q.B. Appellant filed Q.B. Appellant filed

31 31 post-sentence motions post-sentence motions following following his his sentencing sentencing in in which which he he argued argued that that the the jury's jury’s verdict verdict was was

against the against the weight of the weight of the evidence. evidence. After After aa review review of of the testimony and the testimony evidence presented and evidence at presented at

trial, this trial, this Court denied Appellant's Court denied Appellant’s post-sentence post-sentence motions motions without without aa hearing. hearing.

In denying In Appellant’s post-sentence denying Appellant's post-sentence motions, motions, this this Court Court properly properly concluded concluded that that the the

jury’s verdict jury's verdict did did not not shock shock the the judicial conscience and judicial conscience and was adequately supported was adequately supported by by the the weight weight

of the of the evidence. evidence. As As this this Court Court has has explained and Appellant explained and Appellant now now concedes concedes in in challenging challenging the the

weight of the weight of the evidence, evidence, there there was sufficient evidence was sufficient evidence for for the the jury jury to to convict convict Appellant Appellant of of Murder Murder

of the of the Third Third Degree Degree and and related offenses. Furthermore, related offenses. Furthermore, despite Appellant’s contentions despite Appellant's contentions

otherwise, the otherwise, the Commonwealth Commonwealth presented presented compelling testimony and compelling testimony and evidence evidence supporting supporting

Appellant’s guilt. Accordingly, Appellant's guilt. Accordingly, the the testimony and evidence testimony and evidence presented presented at at trial trial was not so was not so

“tenuous, vague “tenuous, vague and and uncertain” uncertain” such such that that the the jury’s verdict shocked jury's verdict shocked the the conscience of this conscience of this Court. Court.

Appellant contends Appellant contends that that the only evidence the only evidence implicating implicating him him in in the the murder murder of of R.B. and the RB. and the

shooting ofK.B. shooting of K.B. and and Q.B. Q.B. came came from from Nyseem Nyseem Smith, Smith, aa member member of of the the 31st 31st Street Street gang gang who who

agreed to agreed to cooperate cooperate with with police police in in exchange exchange for for aa favorable favorable prison prison sentence. sentence. Smith, Smith, who who had had

been arrested been arrested in in connection connection with with aa triple shooting that triple shooting that occurred occurred in in August August 2018 20 1 8 on on the the 1600 1600

block of block of Marston Marston Street, Street, ultimately decided to ultimately decided cooperate with to cooperate with police police and and gave gave aa series series of of

statements to statements to police police in in which which he revealed details he revealed details of of shootings shootings that that the the 331st Street gang 1st Street was gang was

involved in. involved in. N.T. N.T. 6/14/2023, 6/14/2023, at at 31-35, 95-96, 104-118. 31-35, 95-96, 104-1 18.

Smith gave Smith gave aa statement regarding the statement regarding the murder murder of of R.B. Smith Smith told told police police that that he he was at his was at his

cousin’s house cousin's house when when the the gas gas station station shooting shooting occurred occurred but but that that Appellant, Appellant, Yameen Yameen Mofield, Mofield,

Khalid Harrison, Khalid Harrison, and Markell Davis and Markell Davis came came to to the the house house after after the the shooting. shooting. Appellant, Appellant, Mofield, Mofield,

and Harrison and Harrison told told Smith and others Smith and present that others present that somebody somebody had been shot had been shot and and killed killed at at the the gas gas

station. Mofield station. Mofield told told those those present present that that he he and the others and the others were riding through were riding through Wilson Wilson Park Park and and

32 32 that that they they started started shooting shooting when when they they saw saw some some people people from from Wilson, Wilson, and and that that he he had had chased chased and and

shot shot one one of of the the people people there. there. In In his his statement, statement, Smith Smith said said that that Harrison Harrison had had aa PPX9 PPX9 handgun, handgun,

Mofield Mofield had had aa .9 .9 Taurus Taurus pistol, pistol, and and Appellant Appellant had had aa .38 .38 revolver. revolver. Smith Smith also also identified identified Mofield Mofield

as as the the individual individual seen seen in in video video footage footage of ofthe the shooting shooting exiting exiting the the vehicle vehicle and and running running after after

someone. someone. Id. Id. at at 39-64. 39-64.

Before Before closing closing instructions instructions were were given given to to the the jury, jury, this this Court Court and and Appellant’s Appellant's counsel counsel

discussed discussed what jury instruction whatjury instruction would would be be appropriate appropriate to to explain explain to to the the jury jury how how itit should should

consider consider Smith’s Smith's testimony. testimony. N.T. N.T. 6/20/2023, 6/20/2023, at at 5-12. 5-12. This This Court Court and and Appellant’s Appellant's counsel counsel

ultimately ultimately agreed agreed that that Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Suggested Suggested Standard Standard Criminal Criminal Jury Jury Instruction Instruction 4.06 4.06 would would be be

given given along along with with aa modified modified version version of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Suggested Suggested Standard Standard Criminal Criminal Jury Jury

Instruction Instruction 4.01 4.01 with with the the term term “accomplice” “accomplice” removed. removed. Id. Id. at at 11-12. 11-12. The The latter latter instruction instruction informs informs

the the jury jury that that aa particular particular witness witness is is “a "a corrupt corrupt and and polluted polluted source source whose whose testimony testimony should should be be

viewed viewed with with great great caution.” caution." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.». Wholaver, Wholaver, 177 177 A.3d A.3d 136, 136, 165 165 (Pa. (Pa. 2018) 2018) (quoting (quoting

Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Smith, Smith, 17 17 A.2d A.2d 873, 906 (Pa. 873,906 (Pa. 2011). 2011 ). The The instruction instruction is is designed designed to to specifically specifically

address address situations situations where where aa witness witness testifies testifies to to obtain obtain favorable favorable treatment. treatment. Smith, Smith, 17 17 A.3d A.3d at at 906. 906.

The The law law “presumes “presumes that that the the jury jury will will follow follow the the instructions instructions of ofthe the court.” court.” Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v.

Brown, Brown, 786 786 A.2d A.2d 961, 971 (Pa. 961,971 (Pa. 2001). 2001).

This This Court Court instructed instructed the the jury jury how how to to properly properly “consider “consider and and weigh” weigh” the the testimony testimony and and

evidence evidence which which had had been been presented presented and and offered offered several several factors factors to to be be used used in in that determination, that determination,

including including whether whether the the witness witness had had “any “any interest interest in in the the outcome outcome of of the the case.” case.” N.T. N.T. 6/20/2023, 6/20/2023, at at

181. 181. Subsequently, Subsequently, this this Court Court issued issued the the following following instruction instruction to to the the jury jury regarding regarding the the

testimony testimony of of Nyseem Nyseem Smith: Smith:

33 33  Now, Now, IIneed needtotogive giveyou you some somefurther furtherinstructions. instructions. And Andthisthis has hasto to do dowith withNyseem Nyseem Smith's Smith'stestimony. testimony.Nyseem Nyseem Smith Smithcooperated cooperatedwith withthe the Commonwealth Commonwealthin inreturn returnfor for resolving his criminal cases. Experience shows that a cooperator when caught on resolving his criminal cases. Experience shows that a cooperator when caught on other other criminal criminal matters matters may may often oftentry tryto toplace place the the blame blame falsely falsely onon someone someone else. else. In In other other words, words, aa cooperator cooperator may may be be aa perfectly perfectly truthful truthful witness. witness. TheThe special special rules rules II will willgive giveyou youare aremeant meanttotohelp helpyou youdistinguish distinguishbetween betweentruthful truthfulandandfalse falsetestimony testimony by a cooperating witness. These are special rules that apply. by a cooperating witness. These are special rules that apply.

First, First, you youshould shouldview viewthethetestimony testimony of ofaa cooperator cooperatorwith withdisfavor disfavorbecause because ititcomes comes from from aa corrupt corrupt and and polluted polluted source. source. Second, Second, youyou should should examine examine thethe testimony testimony of of a cooperator a cooperator closely and accept closely and accept it only with care and caution. Third, you it only with care and caution. Third, you should should consider consider whether whether the the testimony testimony ofofaa cooperator cooperator isis supported supported in in whole whole oror in in part part by by other other evidence. evidence. A A cooperator's cooperator's testimony testimony isis more more dependable dependable if if supported supported by by independent evidence. However, even if there is no independent independent evidence. However, even if there is no independent evidence evidence supporting supporting independent independent evidence, evidence, you you may may still still find find the the defendant defendant guilty guilty solely solely onon the the basis basis of ofthe the cooperator's cooperator's testimony testimony if ifafter after using using the the special special rules rules IIjust just told told you you about, about, you you are are satisfied satisfied beyond beyond aa reasonable reasonable doubt doubt thatthat the the cooperator cooperator testified testified truthfully and that the defendant is guilty. truthfully and that the defendant is guilty.

Id. Id. atat 211-212. 211-212.

As As the thejury jury isis presumed presumed to to have have followed followed this this Court’s Court's instructions, instructions, itit was was thus thus properly properly

instructed instructed to to view view Nyseem Nyseem Smith’s Smith's testimony testimony of ofFloyd Floyd with with disfavor, disfavor, care, care, and and caution caution because because

he he was was aa “corrupt “corrupt and and polluted polluted source” source” due due to to his his status status as as aa cooperator. cooperator. The The jury jury was was

specifically specifically instructed instructed to to consider consider whether whether Smith’s Smith's testimony testimony was was supported supported by by independent independent

evidence. evidence. The The jury jury was was advised advised that that itit was was permitted permitted to to convict convict Appellant Appellant solely solely based based on on

Smith’s Smith's testimony testimony if, if, even even after after utilizing utilizing these these instructions, instructions, itit was was satisfied satisfied beyond beyond aa reasonable reasonable

doubt doubt that that Smith Smith testified testified truthfully, truthfully, and and that that Appellant Appellant was was guilty. guilty. Accordingly, Accordingly, the the jury’s jury's

decision to convict convict Appellant Appellant of of Murder of the the Third Third Degree Degree and related related offenses would would have

been proper even if if it was made made solely on the basis of Smith’s Smith's testimony implicating implicating Appellant. Appellant.

Appellant Appellant argues argues that that Smith’s Smith's testimony testimony was was the the only only evidence evidence implicating implicating him him in in the the

murder of R.B. and the shooting ofR.B. shooting of K.B. and Q.B. but contends that forensic evidence was ofK.B.

incompatible with Smith’s Smith's version of events. Smith stated that Appellant Appellant used a .38 caliber

revolver revolver in in the the shooting, shooting, but but Appellant Appellant argues argues that that forensic forensic evidence evidence indicated indicated that that there there were were

34 34 only two only two (2) (2) shooters shooters who who used used separate 9mm handguns. separate 9mm handguns. Appellant Appellant contends contends that these two that these two (2) (2)

shooters were shooters were Yameen Yameen Mofield Mofield and Khalid Harrison. and Khalid Harrison. This This Court disagrees with Court disagrees with Appellant's Appellant’s

conclusions regarding conclusions regarding the the evidence presented at evidence presented at his his trial. trial.

Contrary to Appellant’s Contrary to assertion that Appellant's assertion that the the only only ballistic evidence recovered ballistic evidence recovered was was from from two two

(2) separate 9mm (2) separate 9mm handguns, the record handguns, the reflects that record reflects that at at least two (2) least two (2) pieces pieces of of ballistic ballistic evidence evidence

were determined were determined to to possibly possibly originate from aa .38 originate from .38 caliber caliber firearm, firearm, the the exact exact type of firearm type of firearm that that

Appellant was Appellant was carrying carrying according according to to Smith. Smith. N.T. N.T. 6/15/2023, 6/15/2023, at at 38-53. 38-53. Furthermore, Furthermore, the the video video

footage of footage of the the shooting shooting did did not specifically rule not specifically rule out out the the possibility possibility of of there there being being more more than than two two

(2) shooters. (2) shooters. No driver could No driver could be be seen in the seen in the video video footage, footage, yet yet it it can can be be inferred inferred from from the the

circumstances of circumstances of the the vehicle vehicle driving driving to to the the gas gas station station and and leaving leaving after after the the shooting shooting that that there there

was aa driver. was driver. Accordingly, Accordingly, it it is is reasonable reasonable to to conclude conclude that that there was aa third there was third shooter unseen in shooter unseen in

video footage video footage which which was was taken taken from from only only specific specific angles angles in in low low lighting lighting conditions. conditions. Regardless, Regardless,

even accepting even accepting Appellant's Appellant’s contentions, contentions, the the jury's jury’s verdict finding Appellant verdict finding Appellant guilty of Murder guilty of Murder of of

the Third the Third Degree Degree would not be would not be against against the weight of the weight of the the evidence evidence if if it determined that it determined that he he was was aa

co-conspirator with co-conspirator with the the two (2) shooters. two (2) shooters.

Additionally, the Additionally, the jury's jury’s verdict verdict was was not not against against the the weight weight of of the the evidence evidence because because the the

Commonwealth presented Commonwealth presented other other evidence evidence which which corroborated corroborated key key aspects aspects of of the the statement that statement that

Nyseem Smith Nyseem Smith gave to police gave to police regarding regarding the the homicide of R.B. Video homicide ofR.B. footage from Video footage from the the shooting shooting

showed an showed an individual individual exiting exiting the the shooting vehicle and shooting vehicle and chasing chasing after after one one of of the the shooting shooting victims. victims.

In his In his statement, statement, Smith Smith said he had said he had seen seen aa video video of of the the shooting shooting and and was was able able to identify this to identify this

individual as individual as Yameen Yameen Mofield. Mofield. Dean Fosque gave Dean Fosque gave aa statement statement to to police police in in December December 2018 2018 in in

which he said which he said that that Mofield Mofield had had committed committed aa murder murder at at aa gas gas station on Passyunk station on Passyunk a few months a few months

prior. Fosque prior. Fosque told told detectives that he detectives that he learned this from learned this Mofield himself, from Mofield himself, who who was was trying trying to to sell sell aa

35 35 stolen car stolen car so so that that he he could could have money to have money to leave leave town. town. Mofield Mofield told told Fosque Fosque that that he he was was the the

individual chasing individual chasing aa boy boy in in the the video video footage. footage. N.T. N.T. 6/12/2023, at 90-106, 6/12/2023, at 90-106, 109-113, 109-113, 120-124, 120-124, 134- 134-

137, 153-164; 137, 153-164; N.T. N.T. 6/13/2023, 6/13/2023, at at 7-12, 7-12, 30-46; 30-46; N.T. N.T. 6/14/2023, 6/14/2023, at at 45-64. 45-64.

On the On the day after the day after the shooting, shooting, while while police were executing police were executing aa search warrant at search warrant at Mofield's Mofield’s

residence on an residence on an unrelated unrelated matter, matter, Mofield's Mofield’s mother asked Mofield mother asked Mofield if he had ifhe had anything anything to to do do with with

what happened what happened at at the the gas gas station station the the day day before, before, suggesting that she suggesting that she suspected that Mofield suspected that Mofield may may

have been have been involved involved in in the the homicide of R.B. homicide of Smith told R.B. Smith told police that aa PPX9 police that PPX9 used used in the homicide in the homicide

had also been had also been used used in in aa triple triple shooting shooting at at Marston Marston Street Street just just aa couple months earlier. couple months earlier. A A ballistic ballistic

crosscheck was crosscheck was conducted conducted based based on on this this information and revealed information and revealed that fired cartridge that fired cartridge casings casings

recovered from recovered from the the gas gas station station matched matched those recovered from those recovered from Marston Marston Street. Street. N.T, 6/13/2023, at N.T. 6/13/2023, at

15-18, 61-88; 15-18, 61-88; N.T. N.T. 6/14/2023, 6/14/2023, at at 45-64; 45-64; N.T. N.T. 6/15/2023, 6/15/2023, at at 82-90. 82-90.

Smith told Smith told police police that that Appellant, Mofield, Khalid Appellant, Mofield, Khalid Harrison, Harrison, and and aa fourth fourth individual individual came came

to Smith's to Smith’s cousin's cousin’s house after the house after the homicide homicide and and shared shared details details with with those those present present about what about what

had occurred. had occurred. Smith Smith later later identified identified the fourth individual the fourth individual as as Markell Markell Grasty. Grasty. Police Police reviewed an reviewed an

extraction of Grasty's extraction of Grasty’ s cell cell phone phone and and found found videos videos in in which he and which he and Mofield were together. Mofield were together.

Police also Police also found found communications communications between between Grasty Grasty and and Mofield Mofield using using call call detail detail records for records for

Grasty ’s cell Grasty's cell phone phone and and determined determined that that Grasty Grasty followed followed both both Appellant Appellant and Harrison on and Harrison on

Instagram. Communications Instagram. Communications were also found were also found between between cell cell phones phones associated associated with Appellant, with Appellant,

Mofield, and Mofield, and Harrison, Harrison, who who were all identified were all as 31st identified as 31st Street Street gang gang members. members. N.T. N.T. 6/13/2023, 6/13/2023, 61- 61-

88; N.T. 88; N.T. 6/14/2023, at 39-64; 6/14/2023, at 39-64; N.T. N.T. 6/16/2023, 6/16/2023, at at 78-88. 78-88.

Call detail Call detail records records for for the the phones phones associated associated with with Appellant, Appellant, Mofield, Mofield, and and Harrison, Harrison,

showed that no showed that no calls calls were placed around were placed around the the time time the the shooting shooting at at the the gas gas station station occurred, occurred, but but

that all that all phones phones were were active both before active both before the the shooting shooting and afterward. Cell and afterward. Cell site analysis, which site analysis, which was was

36 36 only able only able to to be be conducted conducted on on the the phones phones belonging belonging to to Mofield Mofield and and Harrison, Harrison, showed that around showed that around

ten (10) ten (10) minutes minutes after after the the shooting, shooting, Mofield's Mofield’ s phone phone utilized utilized aa cell cell tower tower pointing pointing in in the the direction direction

of the of the shooting. shooting. Additionally, Additionally, Harrison's Harrison’s phone phone utilized utilized aa cell cell tower pointing in tower pointing in the the direction direction of of

the shooting the about thirty shooting about (30) minutes thirty (30) minutes prior prior to to the the shooting. shooting. On On the the morning morning of of the the shooting shooting

while he while he was was in South Philadelphia, in South Philadelphia, Harrison Harrison made made aa recorded recorded call call to to aa state state prison in which prison in which he he

stated that he stated that he was with his was with his “young “young killers” killers” Appellant Appellant and and Mofield. N.T. 6/16/2023, Mofield. N.T. 6/16/2023, 108-122. 108-122.

Smith told Smith told police police that that Mofield Mofield said to the said to the group group present present at at Smith's Smith’s cousin's cousin’s house house that that he he

had dropped had his phone dropped his phone at at the the scene scene of of the shooting. Tymeir the shooting. Shands, who Tymeir Shands, was part who was part of of that that group, group,

was was recorded on aa prison recorded on prison call call ten ten (10) days after (10) days after the the shooting shooting saying saying that Mofield was that Mofield on the was on the run run

because of because of his his involvement involvement in the gas in the gas station station shooting. Shands also shooting. Shands also said said in in this this call call that Mofield that Mofield

had said that had said that he dropped his he dropped his phone phone there. there. Police Police did not find did not find aa phone phone associated associated with Mofield at with Mofield at

the scene the and call scene and call detail detail records records for Mofield’s phone for Mofield's phone indicated indicated that that it was used it was used to to place place calls calls after after

the shooting. the Accordingly, even shooting. Accordingly, even though there was though there was no evidence that no evidence that Mofield Mofield actually actually dropped dropped his his

phone, both phone, Smith and both Smith Shands independently and Shands independently and consistently stated and consistently stated that that Mofield Mofield believed believed he he

had dropped had dropped aa phone phone after after committing committing the the shooting. shooting. There There was evidence, however, was evidence, that Mofield however, that Mofield

did go did go on on the the run run and and was was ultimately ultimately apprehended apprehended in Georgia. N.T. in Georgia. N.T. 6/14/2023, 6/14/2023, at 45-64; N.T. at 45-64; N.T.

6/15/2023, at 6/15/2023, at 90-102, 90-102, 111-113, 111-113, 126-127; 126-127; 6/16/2023, 6/16/2023, at at 130-138; 130-138; N.T. 6/20/2023, at N.T. 6/20/2023, at 17-23. 17-23.

Furthermore, the Furthermore, the Commonwealth Commonwealth presented presented evidence evidence which which corroborated corroborated other other

statements Nyseem statements Nyseem Smith Smith gave gave regarding regarding 31 st Street 31st Street gang-related gang-related shootings. shootings. Smith Smith gave gave aa

statement regarding statement an August regarding an August 2018 triple shooting 2018 triple shooting on Marston Street on Marston Street that that he was involved he was in. involved in.

Smith provided Smith provided details details which which were were previously previously unknown unknown to to police, police, including including the the involvement of aa involvement of

second vehicle second vehicle and and the the identities identities of of the the other other shooters. shooters. Police Police were able to were able to confirm confirm the the presence presence

of this of this second vehicle upon second vehicle upon reviewing video footage reviewing video footage from from the the incident incident and and were also able were also able to to use use

37 37 cell cell phone phone location location data datato to confirm confirmmovement movementconsistent consistentwith withthe the information informationSmith Smithprovided provided in in

his his statement. statement. N.T. N.T. 6/15/2023, 6/15/2023, atat 142-149. 142-149.

Accordingly, Accordingly, the the Commonwealth Commonwealthpresented presented evidence evidence which whichdemonstrated demonstrated that that Smith Smith had had

given given accurate accurate and and previously previously unknown unknown information information in in his his statements statements to to police police and and testified testified

truthfully truthfully in in compliance compliance with withhis his cooperation cooperation agreement. agreement. The The cumulative cumulative evidence evidence presented presented at at

trial trial indicated indicated that that Appellant Appellant was was involved involved in in the the murder murder of ofR.B. R.B. and and the the shooting shooting of K.B. and ofK.B. and

Q.B. Q.B. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth thus thus presented presented compelling compelling testimony testimony and and evidence evidence supporting supporting

Appellant’s Appellant's guilt, guilt, such such that that the thejury’s jury's verdicts verdicts finding finding Appellant Appellant guilty guilty of ofMurder Murder of ofthe the Third Third

Degree Degree and and related related charges charges were were adequately adequately supported supported by by the the weight weight of ofthe the evidence. evidence.

Appellant’s Appellant's weight weight of ofthe the evidence evidence challenge challenge isis therefore therefore without without merit merit and and no no relief relief isis due. due.

III. III. This This Court Court properly properly granted granted both both of ofthe the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's motions motions in in limine limine to to admit other acts evidence. admit other acts evidence.

Appellant’s Appellant's third third claim claim is is that that this this Court Court erred erred when when itit granted granted the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's

motions motions in in limine limine to to admit admit other other acts acts evidence evidence and and subsequently subsequently admitted admitted that that evidence evidence at at trial. trial.

Appellant Appellant specifically specifically challenges challenges the the admission admission of of evidence evidence relating relating to to aa shooting shooting on on August August 8, 8,

2018, 2018, and and evidence evidence that that the the firearm firearm used used in in that that shooting shooting was was recovered recovered from from Appellant. Appellant.

Appellant Appellant also also challenges challenges the the admission admission of of evidence evidence relating relating to to aa shooting shooting on on April April 22, 22, 2020, 2020, in in

which which Appellant Appellant was was shot shot and and three three (3) (3) firearms firearms were were ultimately ultimately recovered. recovered. Finally, Finally, Appellant Appellant

challenges challenges the the admission admission of of recorded recorded prison prison calls calls from from Markell Markell Davis Davis to to Khalid Khalid Harrison Harrison on on the the

morning morning of of the the homicide homicide in in which which Davis Davis referred referred to to Appellant Appellant and and Yameen Yameen Mofield, Mofield, as as “my "my

young young killers.” killers." Appellant’s Appellant's third third claim claim is is without without merit merit and, and, accordingly, accordingly, no no relief relief is is due. due.

The The “admission "admission of of evidence evidence is is solely solely within within the the discretion discretion of of the the trial trial court, court, and and aa trial trial

court's court's evidentiary evidentiary rulings rulings will will be be reversed reversed on on appeal appeal only only upon upon an an abuse abuse of of that that discretion.” discretion."

Commonwealth v. v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470, 493 (Pa. 470,493 (Pa. 2014). 2014). An abuse of discretion “is "is not merely merely an

38 38 error errorof ofjudgement,” judgement,“but butoccurs occurswhen when“the ”thelaw lawisisoverridden overriddenorormisapplied, misapplied,ororthe thejudgment judgment

exercised exercisedisismanifestly manifestlyunreasonable, unreasonable,ororthe theresult resultof ofpartiality, partiality,prejudice, prejudice,bias, bias,ororill-will, ill-will,asas

shown shownby bythe theevidence evidenceororthe therecord.” record."Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v.Jackson, Jackson,283 283A.3d A.3d814, 817 (Pa. 814,817 (Pa.Super. Super.

2022) 2022)(quoting (quotingCommonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Talley, Talley,236 236A.3d A.3d42, 42,55 55 (Pa. (Pa.Super. Super.2020)). 2020)).

To Tobe beadmissible admissibleatattrial, trial,evidence evidencemust mustbe berelevant. relevant.Pa.R.E. Pa.R.E.402. 402.Evidence Evidenceisisrelevant relevant

when whenitit“has "hasthe thetendency tendencytotomake makeaafact factmore moreor orless lessprobable probablethan thanititwould wouldbe bewithout withoutthe the

evidence,” evidence,“and andsaid saidfact fact“is ”isof ofconsequence consequenceinindetermining determiningthe theaction.” action."Jackson, Jackson,283 283A.3d A.3datat817 817

(citing (citingPa.R.E. Pa.R.E. 401(a)-(b)). 401(a)-(b)). Evidence Evidenceisisalso alsorelevant relevant“if "ifititlogically logicallytends tendstoto establish establishaamaterial material

fact factininthe thecase, case,tends tendstoto make make aafact factatatissue issuemore more or orless lessprobable, probable, or orsupports supportsaareasonable reasonable

inference inference or orpresumption presumptionregarding regarding aamaterial material fact.” fact." Id. Id. atat 817-818 817-818 (quoting (quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v.

Drumheller, Drumheller, 808 808 A.2d A.2d 893, 893, 904 904 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2002)). 2002)). AA court courtmay may exclude excluderelevant relevantevidence evidenceififits its

probative probative value value isis outweighed outweighed by by aa danger danger of ofunfair unfair prejudice. prejudice. Pa.R.E. Pa.R.E. 403. 403.

Evidence Evidence of of“any "any other other crime, crime, wrong, wrong, or or act act isis not not admissible admissible to to prove prove aaperson’s person's

character” character" to to show showthat thatthe the person person acted acted in in conformity conformity with with those those other other acts acts on on aaparticular particular

occasion occasion or or to to show show the the person’s person's propensity propensity to to commit commit crimes. crimes. Pa.R.E. Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1); 404(b)(l); see see also also

Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Melendez-Rodriguez, Melendez-Rodriguez, 856 856 A.2d A.2d 1278, 1278, 1283 1283 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2004). 2004). This This type type of of

evidence evidence may, may, however, however, “be "be admissible admissible for for another another purpose, purpose, such such as as proving proving motive, motive,

opportunity, opportunity, intent, intent, preparation, preparation, plan, plan, knowledge, knowledge, identity, identity, absence absence of ofmistake, mistake, or or lack lack of of

accident.” accident.“ Pa.R.E. Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2). 404(b)(2). Such Such evidence evidence may may also also be be admissible admissible under under the the “res ”res gestae” gestae" or or

“complete “complete story” story” exception exception where where the the evidence evidence is is “part "part of ofthe the chain chain or or sequence sequence of of events events which which

became became part part of of the the history history of ofthe the case case and and formed formed part part of ofthe the natural natural development development of ofthe the facts.” facts."

Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Lark, Lark, 543 543 A.2d A.2d 491, 491, 497 497 (Pa. (Pa. 1988). 1988).

39  Additionally, Additionally, in in aa criminal criminal case, case, other other acts acts evidence evidence offered offered for for aa permissible permissible purpose purpose isis

admissible admissible “only "only if ifthe the probative probative value value of ofthe the evidence evidence outweighs outweighs its its potential potential for for unfair unfair

prejudice.” prejudice." Id. Id. Unfair Unfair prejudice prejudice has has been been defined defined as as aa tendency tendency to to suggest suggest decision decision on on an an

improper improper basis basis or or to to divert divert the the jury’s jury's attention attention away away from from its its duty duty of ofweighing weighing the the evidence evidence

impartially.” impartially." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Tyson, Tyson, 119 119 A. 3d 353, A.3d 360 (Pa. 353,360 (Pa. Super. Super. 2015). 2015). Evidence Evidence will will not not

be be prohibited prohibited merely merely because because itit isis harmful harmful to to aa defendant defendant but but instead instead only only where where the the evidence evidence is is

“so "so prejudicial prejudicial that that itit would would inflame inflame the the jury jury to to make make aa decision decision based based on on something something other other than than

the the legal legal propositions propositions relevant relevant to to the the case.” case." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Talbert, Talbert, 129 129 A.3d A.3d 536, 536, 539 539 (Pa. (Pa.

Super. Super. 2015). 2015). A A trial trial court court is is “not "not required required to to sanitize sanitize the the trial trial to to eliminate eliminate all all unpleasant unpleasant facts facts

from from the the jury’s jury's consideration.” consideration." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Gad, Gad, 190 190 A.3d600, A.3d 600, 605 605 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2018) 2018)

(quoting (quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Hairston, Hairston, 84 84 A.3d A.3d 657, 657, 666 666 (Pa. (Pa. 2014)). 2014)). Atrial A trial court court may may

nonetheless nonetheless offer offer aa cautionary cautionary jury jury instruction instruction to to ameliorate ameliorate the the prejudicial prejudicial effect effect of of other other acts acts

evidence. evidence. See See Talbert, Talbert, 129 129 A.3d A.3d at at 539. 539.

On On March March 16, 16, 2023, 2023, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth filed filed aa motion motion in in limine limine to to admit admit other other acts, acts,

specifically specifically seeking seeking the the admission admission of of evidence evidence relating relating to to the the shootings shootings on on August August 8, 8, 2018, 2018, and and

April April 22, 22, 2020. 2020. On On March March 29, 29, 2023, 2023, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth filed filed aa second second motion motion in in limine limine to to admit admit

other other acts, acts, seeking seeking to to admit admit recorded recorded prison prison phone phone calls calls made made by by Markell Markell Davis. Davis. As As will will be be

explained explained below, below, this this Court Court properly properly granted granted both both of of the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's motions motions in in limine. limine.

a. a. This This Court Court properly properly exercised exercised its its discretion discretion in in granting granting the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's first first motion motion in in limine limine to to admit admit other other acts acts and and allowing allowing evidence evidence relating relating to to shootings shootings which which occurred occurred on on August August 8, 8, 2018, 2018, and and April April 22, 22, 2020, 2020, to to be be admitted admitted atat trial. trial.

Appellant Appellant contends contends that that this this Court Court erred erred when when it it granted granted the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's first first

motion motion in in limine limine to to admit admit other other acts acts evidence evidence relating relating to to shootings shootings which which occurred occurred on on August August 8, 8,

2018, 2018, and and April April 22, 22, 2020. 2020. This This Court Court allowed allowed this this evidence evidence based based on on aa finding finding that that itit was was

40 40 relevant relevantto toproving proving motive motive and andtelling telling aa complete complete story story of ofan an ongoing ongoingconspiracy conspiracy between betweenthe the

warring warring rival rival 27th 27th Street Street and and 31st 31st Street Street gangs. gangs. Furthermore, Furthermore, although althoughthis this Court Court found found that thatthe the

probative probative value value of ofthis this evidence evidence outweighed outweighed its itspotential potential for for unfair unfairprejudice, prejudice, cautionary cautionary

instructions instructions were were nonetheless nonetheless given given to to the thejury jury to to ameliorate ameliorate any any prejudicial prejudicial effects effects the the evidence evidence

of ofthese these shootings shootings might might have have had. had. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this Court Court properly properly exercised exercised its its discretion discretion in in

granting granting the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's first first motion motion in in limine limine and and no no relief reliefisis due due on on this this claim. claim.

On On March March 16, 16, 2023, 2023, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth filed filed aa motion motion in in limine limine to to admit admit other other acts acts in in

which which itit sought sought to to introduce introduce evidence evidence of of“continued "continued and and sustained sustained violence violence between between warring warring

gangs.” gangs." The The Commonwealth Commonwealth first first sought sought to to admit admit evidence evidence which which established established that that Appellant Appellant and and

Yarneen Yameen Mofield Mofield were were both both associated associated with with the the 31st Street 31st Street gang. gang. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth

additionally additionally sought sought to to admit admit two two (2) (2) shootings shootings which which itit contended contended showed showed aa “continued "continued and and

sustained sustained pattern pattern of ofgun gun violence” violence perpetrated perpetrated by by the the 31st 31st Street Street gang gang against against the the rival rival 27th 27th

Street Street gang gang leading leading up up to to the the murder murder of ofR.B. R.B. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth argued argued that that these these shootings shootings

were were relevant relevant to to proving proving the the motive, motive, intent, intent, plan, plan, absence absence of of mistake, mistake, and and natural natural development development of of

the the facts facts in in Appellant’s Appellant's case. case.

The The first first shooting, shooting, which which occurred occurred on on October October 18, 18, 2017, 2017, involved involved four four (4) (4) members members of of

the the 31st Street 31st Street gang gang who who jumped jumped from from behind behind parked parked vehicles vehicles and and shot shot J.W.H., J.W.H., aa known known member member

of of the the 27th 27th Street Street gang, gang, thirteen thirteen (13) (13) times times while while he he was was riding riding his his bicycle bicycle down down South South Etting Etling

Street. Street. Three Three (3) (3) days days later, later, police police observed observed Appellant Appellant throwing throwing aa firearm firearm under under aa vehicle, vehicle, which which

was was recovered recovered and and later later determined determined to to have have been been used used in in the the Etting Etling Street Street shooting. shooting. The The

Commonwealth Commonwealth clarified clarified that that Appellant Appellant was was not not personally personally involved involved in in this this shooting, shooting, but but that that

this this sequence sequence of of events events showed showed that that members members of of the the 31st Street 31st Street gang gang shared shared firearms firearms and and thus thus

provided provided an example example of the common scheme used by the gang.

41 41  The The second second shooting, shooting, which which occurred occurred on on April April 22, 22, 2020, 2020, at at 5300 5300 Greenway Greenway Avenue, Avenue,

involved involved Appellant Appellant and and three three (3) (3) other other individuals individuals who who were were sitting sitting in in aa stolen stolen Volkswagen Volkswagen when when

aa white white Jeep Jeep pulled pulled alongside alongside and and began began firing firing into into the the Volkswagen. Volkswagen. While While Appellant Appellant and and

another another individual individual exited exited through through the the rear rear driver driver side side passenger passenger door, door, aa black black handgun handgun fell fell to to the the

ground. ground. This This handgun, handgun, aa black black 9mm 9mm loaded loaded with with sixteen sixteen (16) (16) rounds rounds and and aa fired fired cartridge cartridge casing casing

in in the the chamber, chamber, was was later later recovered. recovered. Appellant Appellant was was shot shot but but managed managed to to hobble hobble into into aa nearby nearby

comer corner store. store. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth submitted submitted that that this this shooting shooting was was evidence evidence of of aa common common

scheme scheme or or plan plan utilized utilized by by both both the the 27th 27th and and 31st Street 31st Street gangs gangs in in “back "back and and forth forth shootings shootings

between between the the two two groups.” groups."

On On March March 23, 23, 2023, 2023, Appellant’s Appellant's counsel counsel submitted submitted aa memorandum memorandum of of law law in in opposition opposition

to to the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's motion motion in in limine. limine. Appellant Appellant argued argued that that under under the the holding holding of of

Commonwealth Commonwealth v.• Holt, Holt, 2T3 273 A.3d A.3d 514 514 (Pa. (Pa. 2022), 2022), evidence evidence that that Appellant Appellant possessed possessed aa firearm firearm on on

aa prior prior occasion occasion would would only only be be admissible admissible where where the the same same firearm fireann was was used used in in the the instant instant

offense. offense. Appellant Appellant asserted asserted that that both both the the firearm fireann recovered recovered from from Appellant Appellant on on October October 21, 21, 2017, 2017,

and and the the black black 9mm 9mm which which fell fell out out of of the the vehicle vehicle on on April April 22, 22, 2020, 2020, were were in in police police possession possession at at

the the time time of of R.B. R.B. was was killed killed and and therefore therefore could could not not have have been been used used in in the the commission commission of of the the

homicide. homicide. Appellant Appellant thus thus argued argued that that evidence evidence regarding regarding either either shooting shooting ought ought to to be be precluded precluded at at

trial. trial. Appellant Appellant also also objected objected to to allegations allegations regarding regarding his his association association with with the the 31st Street 31st Street gang. gang.

On On March March 24, 24, 2023, 2023, this this Court Court held held aa hearing hearing to to decide decide the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's motion motion in in

limine limine to to admit admit other other acts. acts. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth reiterated reiterated that that the the other other acts acts evidence evidence itit sought sought to to

introduce introduce would would explain explain the the common common plan plan and and scheme scheme utilized utilized by by the the 31st Street 31st Street gang gang and and the the

motive motive for for why why fifteen-year-old fifteen-year-old R.B. R.B. was was targeted targeted and and murdered murdered while while at at aa gas gas station. station. N.T. N.T.

3/24/2023, 3/24/2023, at at 6-8, 6-8, 12-13. 12-13. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth argued argued that that other other acts acts evidence evidence would would show show that that

42 42 R.B. R.B. had had appeared appeared in inrap rap videos video_s where where he hepromoted promoted27th 27th Street Street and andthat that Appellant Appellantand and Mofield Mofield

were were affiliated affiliatedwith withthe the rival rival 31st 31st Street Street gang. gang. Id. Id. atat 9-27. 9-27. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth stated statedthat thatthe the

evidence evidence showed showedthe the existence existence of ofan an ongoing ongoing conspiracy conspiracy by by members members of ofthe the 31st 31st Street Street gang gang to to

“shoot “shoot and and kill kill as as many many people people from from 27th 27th Street Street as as possible.” possible.” Id. Id. atat 18-20. 18-20. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth

argued argued that that introducing introducing other other acts acts evidence evidence regarding regarding gang gang activity, activity, connections connections within within the the gang, gang,

and and the the existence existence of ofan an ongoing ongoing conspiracy conspiracy was was thus thus necessary necessary to to allow allow the the trier trier of offact fact to to fully fully

understand understand the the context context of ofR.B.’s R.B.'s murder. murder. Id. Id. at at 21-28. 21-28.

In In response, response, counsel counsel for for Appellant Appellant first first argued argued that that information information regarding regarding Appellant’s Appellant's

affiliation affiliation with with aa gang gang was was “in “in and and of ofitself itselfprejudicial.” prejudicial.” Id. Id. at at 29-30. 29-30. Appellant’s Appellant's counsel counsel further further

argued argued that that evidence evidence of ofshootings shootings committed committed by by other other members members of ofthat that gang gang was was “extremely "extremely

prejudicial,” prejudicial," particularly particularly given given that that Appellant Appellant was was not not charged charged with with being being involved involved in in those those

shootings. shootings. Id. Id. at at 30-31. 30-31. Appellant’s Appellant's counsel counsel argued argued that that the the other other acts acts evidence evidence the the

Commonwealth Commonwealth sought sought to to admit admit was was propensity propensity evidence evidence in in that that itit would would imply imply to to aajury jury that that

Appellant Appellant was was someone someone who who goes goes out out shooting shooting based based solely solely on on his his association association with with aa gang gang that that

commits commits shootings. shootings. Id. Id. at at 31. 31.

Appellant’s Appellant's counsel counsel also also challenged challenged that that the the first first shooting shooting the the Commonwealth Commonwealth sought sought to to

admit admit evidence evidence of of occurred occurred nearly nearly aa year year before before the the homicide homicide of of R.B., R.B., while while the the second second shooting shooting

occurred occurred aa year-and-a-half year-and-a-half after after it. it. Id. Id. at at 31-34. 31-34. Appellant’s Appellant's counsel counsel noted noted that that neither neither of of these these

shootings shootings involved involved Appellant Appellant and and that that there there was was no no evidence evidence to to suggest suggest that that the the firearms firearms used used in in

those those shootings shootings were were used used in in the the homicide homicide of of R.B. R.B. Id. at at 31-35. 31-35. Accordingly, Accordingly, Appellant’s Appellant's counsel counsel

argued that these shootings were not relevant to the homicide and that evidence regarding the

firearms used in the shootings would be inadmissible. Id.

43 43  Counsel Counsel for for Mofield Mofield similarly similarly argued argued that that the the two two (2) (2) shootings shootings were were too too remote remote in in time time

relative relative to to the the murder murder of of R.B. R.B. Id. Id. at at 42-43. 42-43. Mofield’ Mofield'ss counsel counsel expressed expressed concern concern with with where where to to

“draw “draw the the line” line” given given the the number number of of incidents incidents which which had had been been attributed attributed to to the the 31st 31st Street Street gang gang

and and argued argued that that the the information information presented presented to to the the jury jury should should be be limited limited to to what what took took place place the the

day day of of R.B.’s R.B.'s homicide homicide as as much much as as possible. possible. Id. Id. at at 42-45. 42-45. Finally, Finally, Mofield’s Mofield's counsel counsel indicated indicated

that that he he would would not not be be opposed opposed to to the the use use of of aa curative curative instruction instruction to to establish establish the the history history between between

the the 27th 27th Street Street and and 31st 31st Street Street gangs. gangs. Id. Id. at at 45-46. 45-46.

The The Commonwealth Commonwealth argued argued in in response response to to counsel counsel for for Appellant Appellant and and Mofield Mofield that that itit was was

not not seeking seeking to to admit admit other other acts acts evidence evidence under under aa theory theory of of access access to to weapons, weapons, but but because because the the

evidence evidence stablished stablished aa common common plan, plan, scheme, scheme, and and design. design. Id. Id. at at 47-48. 47-48. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth then then

detailed detailed the the “signature “signature way” way” in in which which the the 31 st Street 31st Street gang gang commits commits murders murders demonstrated demonstrated by by the the

other other acts acts evidence: evidence: the the gang gang would would steal steal aa car, car, have have multiple multiple individuals individuals in in the the car, car, rotate rotate the the

weapons weapons used, used, go go into into possible possible 27th 27th Street Street gang gang territory, territory, commit commit shootings shootings from from either either outside outside

the the car car or or within within the the car, car, then then leave leave in in the the car. car. Id. Id. at at 48. 48. Finally, Finally, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth emphasized emphasized

that that the the other other acts acts evidence evidence was was not not too too remote remote in in time time and and was was instead instead part part of of aa series series of of

ongoing ongoing incidents incidents occurring occurring continuously continuously from from 2017 2017 to to 2020. 2020. Id. Id. at at 49.

On On March March 30, 30, 2023, 2023, this this Court Court issued issued its its ruling, ruling, stating stating that that Appellant’s Appellant's case case involved involved

two two warring warring gangs gangs and and that that evidence evidence of of gang gang association association would would explain explain the the motive motive behind behind the the

murder murder of of R.B. R.B. and and provide provide completeness completeness of of the the story story by by showing showing the the 31st 31st Street Street gang’s gang's “modus "modus

operandi operandi of of stealing stealing cars, cars, using using them them in in shootings, shootings, trading trading multiple multiple guns, guns, and and doing doing random random

shootings shootings essentially essentially when when they they see see people.” people." N.T. N.T. 3/30/2023, 3/30/2023, at at 10-1 1. Additionally, 10-11. Additionally, this this Court Court

found found that that the the evidence evidence the the Commonwealth Commonwealth sought sought to to admit admit was was indicative indicative of of an an ongoing ongoing

conspiracy conspiracy involving involving shooting shooting and and warring warring between between the the 27th 27th Street Street and and 31st 31st Street Street gangs gangs and and

44 44 that thatthe the evidence evidence would would establish establish Appellant Appellantand and Mofield’s Mofield' s connections connections to tothe the 31st 31st Street Street gang. gang.

Id. Id. at at 11-12. 11-12.

Accordingly, Accordingly,this this Court Courtheld held that thatthe the evidence evidence was was highly highly relevant relevant and and that that its its probative probative

value value outweighed outweighed its its prejudicial prejudicial effect. effect. Id. Id. atat 12. 12. In In support support of ofits its ruling, ruling, this this Court Court cited cited previous previous

Pennsylvania Pennsylvania cases cases which which upheld upheld the the admission admission of ofevidence evidence about aboutthe the operations operations of ofthe the Junior Junior

Black Black Mafia Mafia and and the the associations associations of ofdifferent different individuals individuals with with that that gang. gang. Id. Id. at at 12-13. 12-13. This This Court Court

concluded concluded that that the the two two (2) (2) shootings shootings from from 2018 2018 and and 2020 2020 were were ongoing ongoing conduct conduct that that was was part part of of

the the conspiracy conspiracy by by 31st 31st Street Street gang gang members members to to attack attack 27th 27th Street Street gang gang members members and and vice vice versa. versa.

Id. Id. at at 14-15. 14-15. This This ongoing ongoing course course of ofconduct conduct eventually eventually resulted resulted in in the the killing killing of ofR.B. R.B. on on October October

4, 4, 2018. 2018. Id. Id. at at 15. 15. Finally, Finally, this this Court Court stated stated that that although although itit was was not not necessary necessary to to sanitize sanitize the the

evidence evidence of ofthe the shootings shootings for for the the jury, jury, itit would would nonetheless nonetheless issue issue cautionary cautionary instructions instructions to to

explain explain to to the thejury jury how how to to properly properly consider consider that that evidence. evidence. Id. Id at at 12, 12, 15. 15.

This This Court Court properly properly exercised exercised its its discretion discretion in in granting granting the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's motion motion in in

limine limine to to admit admit other other acts acts and and allowing allowing evidence evidence relating relating to to two two (2) (2) shootings shootings which which occurred occurred on on

August August 8, 8, 2018, 2018, and and April April 22, 22, 2020, 2020, to to be be admitted admitted at at Appellant’s Appellant's trial. trial. As As aa threshold threshold matter, matter,

evidence evidence regarding regarding these these two two (2) (2) shootings shootings was was relevant. relevant. The The first first shooting shooting involved involved members members of of

the the 31st 31st Street Street gang shooting shooting aa member member of of the the 27th 27th Street Street gang gang thirteen thirteen (13). (13). Appellant Appellant was was later later

found found in in possession of of the the firearm firearm used used in in that shooting, shooting, but but he he was was not alleged to to have have

participated participated in in the the shooting shooting himself. himself. The The second second shooting shooting involved involved members members of of the the 31st 31st Street Street

gang, gang, including including Appellant, Appellant, getting getting shot shot at at while while sitting sitting in in aa stolen stolen vehicle vehicle by by members members of of the the

27th Street gang. Appellant, who was affiliated with the 31st Street gang, gang, was charged with

murder and related offenses for his alleged involvement in the homicide of R.B., who was

affiliated with the 27th Street gang. Accordingly, the evidence the Commonwealth sought sought to

45 45 admit admitregarding regarding an anongoing ongoing war warbetween betweenthe the 31 st Street 31st Streetand and27th 27th Street Streetgangs gangs was was extremely extremely

relevant relevantto to R.B.’s R.B. 's homicide homicide in inthat that ititprovided provided important important context context for for why why R.B. R.B. was wastargeted. targeted.

Additionally, Additionally, the the evidence evidence regarding regardingthese these two two (2) (2) shootings shootings was was not not offered offeredby by the the

Commonwealth Commonwealthto to show showAppellant’s Appellant's access access to to firearms firearms or or his his propensity propensity to to commit commit crimes. crimes.

Although Although Appellant Appellant was was found found in in possession possession of ofaa firearm firearm used used in in the the first first shooting, shooting, the the

Commonwealth Commonwealth specifically specifically noted noted that that Appellant Appellant was was not not personally personally involved involved in in the the shooting shooting

itself. itself. Furthermore, Furthermore, Appellant Appellant was was aa victim victim of ofthe the second second shooting, shooting, which which was was perpetrated perpetrated by by

members members of ofthe the 27th 27th Street Street gang. gang. While While aa handgun handgun fell fell from from the the Volkswagen Volkswagen that that Appellant Appellant was was

in in during during the the shooting, shooting, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth did did not not attempt attempt to to prove prove that that this this was was Appellant’s Appellant's

handgun. handgun. Accordingly, Accordingly, as as Appellant’s Appellant's counsel counsel stated, stated, there there was was no no evidence evidence to to suggest suggest that that

firearms firearms used used in in either either shooting shooting was was used used to to commit commit the the murder murder of ofR.B. R.B.

The The evidence evidence of ofthe the two two (2) (2) shootings shootings was was instead instead relevant relevant to to proving proving the the motive motive for for why why

R.B. R.B. was was targeted targeted and and killed. killed. This This evidence evidence illustrated illustrated that that there there was was an an ongoing ongoing conspiracy conspiracy by by

members members of ofthe the 27th 27th Street Street and and 31st Street 31st Street gangs gangs to to continuously continuously shoot shoot at at and and war war with with each each

other. other. Within Within its its motion motion in in limine, limine, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth also also detailed detailed evidence evidence itit sought sought to to admit admit

establishing establishing Appellant Appellant and and Mofield’s Mofield' s associations associations with with the the 31st Street 31st Street gang. gang. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth

also also argued argued at at the the motion motion hearing hearing before before this this Court Court that that there there was was evidence evidence to to show show that that R.B. R.B. had had

appeared appeared in in rap rap videos where where he he promoted promoted the the rival rival 27th 27th Street gang. gang. Accordingly, Accordingly, the evidence

of the two two (2) (2) shootings was was relevant relevant to proving proving that that Appellant Appellant and Mofield, who were were both both

connected connected to to the the 31st 31st Street Street gang, gang, had had aa motive motive to to shoot shoot and and kill kill R.B. R.B. based based on on his his connection connection to to

the rival 27th Street gang.

Additionally, the evidence of the two (2) shootings provided provided the complete story of the

sequence sequence of of events events both both leading leading up up to to and and following following R.B.’s R.B.'s homicide. homicide. As As this this Court Court explained explained

46 when when granting granting the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's motion motion in in limine, limine, the the other other acts acts evidence evidence provided provided fuller fuller

background background on on the the modus modus operand! operandi used used by by the the 31 st Street 31st Street gang. gang. The The evidence evidence of ofthe the two two (2) (2)

shootings shootings demonstrated demonstrated how how the the gang gang had had an an established established pattern pattern of of stealing stealing cars, cars, using using them them in in

shootings, shootings, trading trading guns, guns, and and using using those those guns guns for for shootings shootings upon upon randomly randomly encountering encountering

members members of ofthe the 27th 27th Street Street gang. gang. As As the the circumstances circumstances of of R.B.’s R.B.'s murder murder closely closely matched matched the the

modus modus operandi operandi of of the the 31st 31st Street Street gang, gang, the the other other acts acts evidence evidence of ofthe the two two (2) (2) shootings shootings was was part part

of of aa greater greater sequence sequence of of events events between between the the warring warring 27th 27th Street Street and and 31st Street 31st Street gangs gangs that that R.B.’s R.B.'s

murder murder was was intrinsically intrinsically linked linked to. to.

In In reaching reaching its its ruling ruling on on the the admissibility admissibility of ofthe the other other acts acts of ofthe the two two (2) (2) shootings, shootings, this this

Court Court looked looked to to two two (2) (2) Supreme Supreme Court Court of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania court court involving involving the the Junior Junior Black Black Mafia Mafia

for for support. support. In In Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Jones, Jones, the the Supreme Supreme Court Court upheld upheld aa trial trial court’s court's decision decision to to

allow allow evidence evidence concerning concerning the the Junior Junior Black Black Mafia’s Mafia's structure structure and and activities activities and and the the defendant’s defendant's

involvement involvement and and relationship relationship with with the the Junior Junior Black Black Mafia Mafia on on the the basis basis that that this this evidence evidence was was

admissible admissible to to prove prove the the motive motive for for the the victim’s victim's murder murder and and the the existence existence of of aa criminal criminal

conspiracy. conspiracy. 668 668 A.2d A.2d 491, 502 (Pa. 491,502 (Pa. 1995). 1995). In In Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Reid, Reid, the the Supreme Supreme Court Court upheld upheld

aa trial trial court’s court's decision decision to to allow allow testimony testimony regarding regarding the the defendant’s defendant's connection connection with with the the Junior Junior

Black Black Mafia Mafia because because it it was was evidence evidence that that was was admissible admissible to to prove prove motive motive and and conspiracy conspiracy and and its its

probative probative value value outweighed outweighed any any implication implication of of prior prior criminal criminal activity. activity. 642 642 A.2d A.2d 453, 461 (Pa. 453,461 (Pa.

1994). 1994). This This Court Court properly properly found found these these cases cases to to be be analogous analogous to to Appellant’s Appellant's case, case, as as evidence evidence of of

Appellant’s Appellant's connection connection to to the the 31st Street 31st Street gang gang was was admissible admissible to to prove prove the the motive motive to to kill kill R.B. R.B. as as

well well as as the the complete complete story story of of the the ongoing ongoing conspiracy conspiracy between between the the warring warring rival rival 27th 27th Street Street and and

31st 31st Street Street gangs. gangs.

47 47  The The evidence evidence of ofthe the two two (2) (2) shootings shootings was was undoubtedly undoubtedly prejudicial prejudicialto to Appellant Appellant inin

establishing establishing his his connection connectionto to the the 31st 31st Street Street gang gang and andhis his participation participation in in gang-related gang-related activities. activities.

Nonetheless, Nonetheless, the the probative probative value value of ofthe the evidence evidence in in establishing establishing motive motive and andproviding providingthe the

complete complete story story forming forming the the events events surrounding RE BHs surrounding RH Bl s murder murder outweighed outweighed its its potential potential

for for unfair unfair prejudice. prejudice. Moreover, Moreover, this this Court Court was was not not required required to to sanitize sanitize unpleasant unpleasant facts facts about about

Appellant Appellant from from the thejury’s jury's consideration. consideration. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, to to prevent prevent the thejury jury from from potentially potentially

analyzing analyzing this this evidence evidence in in an an unduly unduly prejudicial prejudicial manner, manner, this this Court Court stated stated after after granting granting the the

Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's motion motion that that itit would would be be willing willing to to offer offer aa curative curative instruction instruction to to the thejury. jury.

During During closing closing instructions instructions to to the thejury jury at at Appellant’ Appellant'ss trial, trial, this this Court Court instructed instructed the thejury jury

as as follows: follows:

You You have have heard heard testimony testimony about about what what wewe call call Other Other Acts, Acts, sometimes sometimes Prior Prior Bad Bad Acts. Acts. You You are are not not to to consider consider that that testimony testimony forfor showing showing any any criminal criminal tendencies tendencies by by the the defendants defendants but but only only for for the the purpose purpose of of showing showing motive motive in in this this case. case. So So you you are are to to consider consider itit only only for for that that very very limited limited purpose. purpose.

N.T. N.T. 6/20/2023, 6/20/2023, at at 220. 220. This This instruction instruction was was sufficient sufficient to to ameliorate ameliorate any any prejudicial prejudicial effects effects

of of the the other other acts acts evidence evidence introduced introduced by by the the Commonwealth. Commonwealth. Accordingly, Accordingly, this this Court Court

properly properly exercised exercised its its discretion discretion in in granting granting the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's first first motion motion in in limine limine to to

admit admit other other acts acts evidence evidence and and no no relief relief is is due. due.

b. b. This This Court Court properly properly exercised exercised its its discretion discretion in in granting granting the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's second second motion motion in in limine limine to to admit admit other other acts acts and and allowing allowing the the admission admission of of aa recorded recorded prison prison that took took place place on the the morning of the murder of R.B.

Appellant Appellant also also contends contends that that this this Court Court erred erred when when itit granted granted the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's

second motion in limine to admit other acts evidence of a recorded prison prison call between Markell

Davis and Khalid Harrison. In this call, made on the morning of the murder of R.B., Harrison

stated stated that that he he was was with with Appellant Appellant and and Yarneen Yameen Mofield Mofield and and referred referred to to them them as as his his “young "young

killers.” killers." This Court allowed this evidence because it was relevant to proving Appellant’s Appellant's identity

48 48 and andthe theintent intentof ofthe the31st 31stStreet Streetgang’s gang'sintent intenttotoshoot shootand andwar warwith withthe therival rival27th 27thStreet Streetgang gangasas

part partof ofan anongoing ongoingconspiracy. conspiracy.Accordingly, Accordingly,this thisCourt Courtproperly properlyexercised exercisedits itsdiscretion discretioninin

granting grantingthe theCommonwealth’s Commonwealth'ssecond secondmotion motionininlimine limineand andno norelief reliefisisdue dueon onthis thisclaim. claim.

On OnMarch March29, 29,2023, 2023,the theCommonwealth Commonwealthfiled filedaasecond secondmotion motionininlimine liminetotoadmit admitother other

acts. acts.In Inits itsmotion, motion,the theCommonwealth Commonwealthsought soughtthe theadmission admissionof oftwo two(2) (2)recorded recordedprison prisonphone phone

calls callsmade madeby byMarkell MarkellDavis Daviswhile whilehe hewas wasincarcerated incarceratedatatSCI SCISmithfield. Smithfield.This ThisCourt Courtaddressed addressed

the theCommonwealth’s Commonwealth'ssecond secondmotion motionininlimine limineatataamotion motionhearing hearingheld heldon onMarch March30, 30,2023. 2023.At At

this thishearing, hearing,the the Commonwealth Commonwealthstated statedthat thatthe thefirst firstphone phonecall call ititsought soughttoto admit admitwas was

placed placedon onOctober October4,4, 2018, 2018,totoKhalid KhalidHarrison, Harrison,who whopled pledguilty guiltytotohis his involvement involvement ininthe themurder murder

of ofR.B. R.B. N.T. N.T. 3/30/2023, 3/30/2023, atat22. 22. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth additionally additionally stated statedthat thatthe the second secondcall call itit

sought soughtto to admit admitwas wasplaced placed on on October October 14, 14, 2018, 2018, to to Tymier Tymier Shands, Shands, who who was was with withNaseem Naseem

Smith Smith at atthe thetime time that that Appellant, Appellant, Yameen Y ameenMofield, Mofield, and and others others discussed discussed details details of ofthe the murder murderof of

R.B. R.B. Id. Id. atat 22-24. 22-24.

In In the the first first recorded recorded call, call, which which was was placed placed atat 1 111:42 :42 a.m. a.m. on on October October 4, 4, 201 8, the 2018, the day dayof of

the the murder, murder, the the following following exchange exchange between between Harrison Harrison (“H”) ("H“) and and Davis Davis (“D”) (”D") occurred: occurred:

D: D: Where Where you you at at now now yo? yo? H: Out Tasker. H: Out Tasker. D: D: The The fuck fuck is is you you doing doing out out there there its its 1 111 something something in inthe the morning, morning, itit itit itit ain’t ain'teven even 12 12 o’clock 0'clock the the fuck fuck you you out out there there for? for?

D: D: Not Not that j awn. Who thatjawn. Who you you with? with? H: I’m with my young killers, nah H: I'm with my young killers, nah sike sike my my young young gorillas, gorillas, my my young young savages. savages.

H: H: I’m I'm with with my my youngings though, though, I’m I'm with with Susu Susu and and Nunu, Nunu, ain’t ain't that that some some shit? shit? D: No you’re not. D: No you're not. H: H: Yes Yes II am am

D: Crazy man damn damn that shit is is crazy, they growing up right before before my my eyes eyes man. man.

49  H: H:Mmmm Mmmmthey theyare areout outhere heredoing doingbig bigthings. things.

Comm. Comm.Exhibit Exhibit173. 173.

The TheCommonwealth Commonwealthclarified clarifiedatatthe themotion motionhearing hearingthat thatthe thenickname nickname“Susu” “Susu”referred referredtoto

Mofield Mofieldand andthat thatthe thenickname nickname“Nunu” “Nunu”referred referredtotoAppellant. Appellant.N.T. N.T.3/30/2023, 3/30/2023,atat23. 23.The The

Commonwealth Commonwealthargued arguedthat thatititwould wouldpresent presentcell cellphone phoneevidence evidencethat thatMofield Mofieldwas waswith withHarrison Harrison

atatthe thetime timeof ofthis thiscall, call,and andthat thatthe thecall callwas wasrelevant relevantbecause becauseititwas wasevidence evidencethat thatplaced placedthem them

together togetherhours hoursbefore beforethe themurder murderof ofR^H Bl.Id.Id The RE]B|HH. TheCommonwealth Commonwealthalso alsoargued arguedthat thatthe the

content contentof ofthe thephone phone call, call, including includingthe thereference referenceto to “young “youngkillers,” killers,”further furthersupported supportedthe thenotion notion

that thatthere therewas was an anongoing ongoingconspiracy conspiracyfor formembers members of ofthe the 31 st Street 31st StreetGang Gangtotobe belooking lookingfor for27th 27th

Street StreetGang Gangmembers. members. Id. Id. Appellant’s Appellant's counsel counsel opposed opposedthe the admission admission of ofthis this call, call, arguing arguingthat thatitit

was was not notmade made in infurtherance furtherance of ofany any conspiracy. conspiracy. Id. Id. atat 42-45. 42-45. This This Court Courtheld held its its decision decisionunder under

advisement advisementuntil until itithad had an an opportunity opportunity to to carefully carefully review reviewthe the transcripts transcripts of ofthe the call. call. Id. Id. atat45. 45.

On On June June 16, 16, 2023, 2023, while while Appellant’s Appellant's trial trial was was ongoing, ongoing, Appellant’s Appellant's counsel counsel renewed renewedhis his

objection objection to to the the admission admission of ofthe the recorded recorded prison prison call, call, arguing arguing that that itit was was questionable questionable itit was was

made made in in the the course course of ofor or in in furtherance furtherance of ofaa conspiracy. conspiracy. N.T. N.T. 6/16/2023, 6/16/2023, at at 39. 39. Appellant’s Appellant's

counsel counsel also also objected objected on on the the basis basis that that the the call call was was extremely extremely prejudicial prejudicial and and that that there there would would be be

no no opportunity opportunity to to cross-examine cross-examine anyone anyone speaking speaking and and no no one one to to identify identify who who was was speaking speaking on on

the the call. call. Id. Id. In In response, response, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth argued argued that that the the call call was was made made by by aa co-conspirator, co-conspirator,

Harrison, Harrison, in in the the course course of ofaa conspiracy conspiracy and and that that itit had had an an analyst analyst who who could could testify testify that that the the phone phone

number number used used was was associated associated with with Harrison. Harrison. Id. Id. at at 39-40. 39-40.

Thereafter, Thereafter, this this Court Court held held that that itit would would allow allow the the call call to to be be admitted admitted and and played played for for the the

jury, jury, but but only only on the the condition condition that that it was was verified by by someone someone who who could could acknowledge acknowledge and and

recognize recognize voices on on the call. Id. at 41. 41. The The Commonwealth explained explained that that itit had had an an analyst analyst who who

50 could couldrecognize recognizethe the voices voices based based on onhours hours of oflistening listeningto to recoded recodedcalls. calls. Id. Id. Amanda AmandaMcCourtie, McCourtie,

who who was was qualified qualified as as an an expert expertin in cell cell site site analysis, analysis, cell cell phone phone extraction extraction and and analysis, analysis, and and social social

media media extraction extraction and and analysis, analysis, testified testifiedthat that she she was was the the one one who who discovered discovered the the first first recorded recorded

prison prison call, call, which which was was made made by by Khalid Khalid Harrison Harrisonto to Markell Markell Davis, Davis, an an inmate inmate at at aa state state prison. prison.

Ms. Ms. McCourtie McCourtie was was able able to to recognize recognize Harrison’s Harrison's voice voice on on the the recorded recorded call, call, which which was was then then

played played for for the thejury. jury. Id. Id atat 122-127. 122-127.

This This Court Court properly properly exercised exercised its its discretion discretion in in granting granting the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's motion motion in in

limine limine to to admit admit other other acts acts and and allowing allowing the the recorded recorded prison prison phone phone call call between between Markell Markell Davis Davis

and and Khalid Khalid Harrison Harrison to to be be admitted admitted into into evidence. evidence. This This call call was was relevant relevant to to the the murder murder of R.B., ofR.B.,

as as itit was was made made mere mere hours hours before before the the murder murder occurred occurred and and involved involved Harrison, Harrison, who who pled pied guilty guilty to to

his his involvement involvement in in the the murder. murder. In In the the call, call, Harrison Harrison stated stated that that he he was was Appellant Appellant and and Yameen Yameen

Mofield, Mofield, placing placing the the three three (3) (3) of ofthem them together together on on the the day day of ofthe the murder. murder. The The phone phone call call was was thus thus

highly highly relevant relevant to to proving proving Appellant’s Appellant's connection connection to to Harrison Harrison and and Mofield Mofield and and his his involvement involvement

in in the the murder murder of of R.B. R.B.

As As this this Court Court previously previously stated, stated, the the evidence evidence presented presented by by the the Commonwealth Commonwealth in in its its first first

motion motion in in limine limine to to admit admit other other acts acts established established that that there there was was an an ongoing ongoing conspiracy conspiracy by by

members members of ofthe the 27th 27th Street Street and and 31st 31st Street Street gangs gangs to to continuously continuously shoot shoot at at and and war war with with each each

other. other. The The recorded recorded prison prison call call constituted constituted further further evidence evidence relevant relevant to to proving proving Appellant’s Appellant's

identity identity as as aa member member of of the the 31 st Street 31st Street gang gang and and the the intent intent of of the the 31 st Street 31st Street gang. gang. In In the the call, call,

Harrison Harrison stated stated that that he he was was out out on on Tasker Tasker Street Street with with Appellant Appellant and and Mofield, Mofield, indicating indicating they they

were were in in 31st Street 31st Street gang gang territory. territory. Harrison Harrison also also stated stated that that Appellant Appellant and and Mofield Mofield were were “out "out here here

doing doing big big things,” things," establishing establishing their their connection connection to to the the activities activities of of the the 31 st Street 31st Street gang. gang. Harrison Harrison

51 51 references references31st 31stStreet Streetgang’s gang'sintent intenttotoshoot shootand andwar warwith withthe therival rival27th 27thStreet Streetgang gangby byreferring referring

totoAppellant Appellantand andMofield Mofieldasashis his“young “youngkillers” killers”and and“young “youngsavages.” savages.”

Furthermore, Furthermore,the therecorded recordedprison prisoncall callhelped helpedprovide provideaacomplete completestory storyof ofthe thehours hours

leading leadingup uptotothe themurder murderof ofR.B. R.B.Cell Cellphone phonelocation locationdata dataand andInstagram Instagrammessages, messages,both bothof of

which whichwere wereultimately ultimatelypresented presentedatatAppellant’s Appellant'strial, trial,verified verifiedHarrison’s Harrison'sstatement statementon onthe thephone phone

call callthat thathe hewas wasininthe thearea areaof ofTasker TaskerStreet Streetwith withAppellant Appellantand andMofield Mofieldon onthe themorning morningof ofthe the

murder. murder.The Therecorded recordedprison prisoncall callwas wasthus thuspart partof ofthe thesequence sequenceof ofevents eventswhich whichbecame becamepart partof of

the thehistory historyof ofthe thecase caseand andformed formedpart partof ofthe thenatural natural development developmentof ofthe thefacts. facts. The Theprejudicial prejudicial

effects effects of ofthe thecall, call, including including its itsreference referenceto toAppellant Appellantasas one oneof ofHarrison’s Harrison's“young “youngkillers,” killers,”were were

outweighed outweighedby byits its probative probative value valuein inestablishing establishingidentity identity and andintent intentand andproviding providingthe thecomplete complete

story story of ofthe the sequence sequenceof ofevents events leading leadingup upto to the themurder murderof ofR.B. R.B. Accordingly, Accordingly,this thisCourt Courtproperly properly

exercised exercised its its discretion discretionin ingranting granting the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's second secondmotion motion in in limine limine to to admit admitother other

acts acts evidence evidence and and no no relief reliefisis due. due.

IV. IV. This This Court Court properly properly denied denied Appellant’s Appellant's motion motion for for aa mistrial mistrial following followingKhalid Khalid Harrison’s Harrison's refusal refusal to to answer answer the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's questions. questions.

Appellant’s Appellant's final final claim claim isis that that this this Court Court erred erred by by not not granting granting aa mistrial mistrial after after the the

Commonwealth Commonwealth called called Khalid Khalid Harrison Harrison to to testify testify and and he he refused refused to to answer answer any any questions questions put put to to

him. him. Appellant Appellant represents represents that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth improperly improperly read read directly directly from from Harrison’s Harrison's

statement statement in in which which he he allegedly allegedly inculpated inculpated Appellant Appellant in in the the shooting shooting of of Q.B. Q.B. A A mistrial mistrial was was not not

warranted warranted under under the the circumstances circumstances where where the the Commonwealth Commonwealth permissibly permissibly asked asked Harrison Harrison

leading leading questions questions because because he he was was aa hostile hostile witness. witness. Furthermore, Furthermore, although although the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's

questions questions did did not not constitute constitute evidence, evidence, this this Court Court nonetheless nonetheless mitigated any any prejudicial prejudicial effects effects of of

those questions by by striking striking Harrison’s Harrison's appearance and testimony testimony from the record record and and issuing issuing

52 curative curativeinstructions instructionstotothe thejury. jury.Accordingly, Accordingly,Appellant’s Appellant'sfinal finalclaim claimisisalso alsowithout withoutmerit meritand and

norelief no reliefisisdue. due.

ItItisiswell-settled well-settledthat thatthe thereview reviewofofaatrial trialcourt’s court'sdenial denialof ofaamotion motionfor foraamistrial mistrialisis

“limited “limitedtotodetermining determiningwhether whetherthe thetrial trialcourt courtabused abuseditsitsdiscretion.” discretion.”Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v.

Chamberlain, Chamberlain,30 30A.3d A.3d381, 422 (Pa. 381,422 (Pa.201 1). An 2011). Anabuse abuseof ofdiscretion discretionisisnot notmerely merelyan anerror errorofof

judgment, judgment,“but "butififininreaching reachingaaconclusion conclusionthe thelaw lawisisoverridden overriddenorormisapplied, misapplied,ororthe thejudgment judgment

exercised exercisedisismanifestly manifestlyunreasonable, unreasonable,ororthe theresult resultof ofpartiality, partiality,prejudice, prejudice,bias biasororill-will ill-will... ...

discretion discretionisisabused.” abused."Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Brooker, Brooker, 103 103A.3d A.3d325, 325,332 332(Pa. (Pa.Super. Super.2014). 2014).ItItisis

“within "withinthe thetrial trialcourt's court'sdiscretion discretiontotodetermine determinewhether whetheraadefendant defendantwas wasprejudiced prejudicedby bythe the

incident incidentthat thatisisthe thebasis basisof ofaamotion motionfor foraamistrial.” mistrial."Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Leap, Leap,222 222A.3d A.3d386, 386,391- 391--

392 392(Pa. (Pa. Super. Super.2019) 2019) (quoting ( quotingCommonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Caldwell, Caldwell, 117 117A.3d A.3d763, 763, 774 774 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super.

2015)). 2015)). The Thetrial trial court courtisis“in "inthe thebest bestposition positiontotogauge gaugepotential potential bias bias and anddeference deferenceisisdue duethe the

trial trialcourt courtwhen whenthe the grounds grounds for forthe the mistrial mistrial relate relate to tojury jury prejudice” prejudice“ because because itithas has “had ”hadthe the

opportunity opportunityto to observe observethe thejurors, jurors, the thewitnesses, witnesses, and and the the attorneys attorneys and and evaluate evaluatethe the scope scope of ofthe the

prejudice.” Commonwealth v.». Walker, prejudice. Commonwealth Walker, 954 954 A.2d A.2d 1249, 1249, 1256 1256 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2008). 2008).

“A "A mistrial mistrial isis an an extreme extreme remedy remedy that that isis appropriate appropriate only only where wherethe the incident incidentupon upon which which

the the motion motion isis based based isis of ofsuch such aa nature nature that thatits its unavoidable unavoidable effect effect isis to to deprive deprive the the defendant defendant of ofaa

fair fair trial trial by by preventing preventing the thejury jury from from weighing weighing and and rendering rendering aa true true verdict.” verdict." Leap, Leap, 222 222 A.3d A.3d at at

392 392 (quoting (quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Bryant, Bryant, 67 67 A.3d A.3d 716, 716, 728 728 (Pa. (Pa. 2013)). 2013)). Pursuant Pursuant to to Pennsylvania Pennsylvania

Rule Rule of of Criminal Criminal Procedure Procedure 605(B), 605(B), aa trial trial court court “may "may declare declare aa mistrial mistrial only only for for reasons reasons of of

manifest manifest necessity.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 605(B). necessity.“ Pa.R.Crim.P. 605(B). A A trial trial court’s court's “failure ”failure to to consider consider if ifthere there are are less less

drastic drastic alternatives alternatives to to aa mistrial mistrial creates creates doubt doubt about about the the propriety propriety of ofthe the exercise exercise of of the the trial trial

judge’s judge's discretion” discretion“ because because “it ”it indicates indicates that that the the court court failed failed to to properly properly consider consider the the defendant's defendant's

53 53 significant significant interest interestin inwhether whether or ornot notto totake takethe the case case from fromthe thejury.” jury." Walker, Walker, 954 954 A.2d A.2d atat 1254- 1254-

1255 1255 (quoting (quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Kelly, Kelly, 797 797 A.2d A.2d 925, 925, 936-937 936-937 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2002)). 2002)).

Prosecutorial Prosecutorial misconduct misconduct includes includes actions actions “intentionally "intentionally designed designedto to provoke provoke the the

defendant defendant into into moving moving for for aamistrial mistrial or or conduct conduct by by the the prosecution prosecution intentionally intentionally undertaken undertaken to to

prejudice prejudice the the defendant defendant to to the the point pointwhere where he he has has been been denied denied aa fair fair trial.” trial." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v.

Chmiel, Chmiel, 777 777 A.2d A.2d 459, 459, 464 464 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2001). 2001). Prosecutorial Prosecutorial misconduct misconduct isis not not grounds grounds for for aa

mistrial mistrial unless unless the the “unavoidable “unavoidable effect” effect” of ofthe the prosecutor's prosecutor's actions actions was was to to “prejudice "prejudice the thejury, jury,

forming forming in in their their minds minds aa fixed fixed bias bias and and hostility hostility toward toward the the defendant defendant so so that that they they could could not not

weigh weigh the the evidence evidence objectively objectively and and render render aa true true verdict.” verdict." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. LaCava, LaCava, 666 666 A.2d A.2d

221,231 221, 231 (Pa. (Pa. 1995). 1995). ·,

ItIt is is “well "well settled settled in in the the law law that that attorneys’ attorneys' statements statements or or questions questions at at trial trial are are not not

evidence.” evidence." Id. Id. (quoting (quoting Commonwealth Commonwealth v.• Green, Green, 581 581 A.2d A.2d 544, 562 (Pa. 544,562 (Pa. 1990)). 1990)). Generally, Generally,

“(l]eading "[l]eading questions questions should should not not be be used used on on the the direct direct or or redirect redirect examination examination of of aa witness witness except except

as as may may be be necessary necessary to to develop develop the the witness’ witness' testimony.” testimony." Pa.R.E. Pa.R.E. 61 1(c). When 611(0). When aa party party calls calls aa

hostile hostile witness, witness, however, however, interrogation interrogation may may be be conducted conducted using using leading leading questions. questions. Id. Id. A A witness witness

may may be be treated treated as as hostile hostile by by the the party party calling calling him him “where "where the the testimony testimony of of the the witness witness is is

unexpected, unexpected, contradictory contradictory to to earlier earlier statements, statements, and and harmful hannful to to the the party party calling calling the the witness, witness, and and

where where an an injustice injustice would would result result if if the the request request to to treat treat the the witness witness as as hostile hostile is is denied.” denied."

Commonwealth Commonwealth v. Bibbs, Bibbs, 970 970 A.2d A.2d 440, 440, 453 (Pa. Super. Super. 2009).

When When aa trial trial court court gives gives adequate adequate cautionary cautionary instructions instructions to to the the jury jury it it is is not not necessary necessary for for

the the judge judge to to declare declare aa mistrial. mistrial. Leap, Leap, 222 222 A.3d A.3d at at 392. 392. The The law law “presumes "presumes that that the the jury jury will will

follow follow the the instructions instructions of of the the court.” court." Commonwealth v. v. Brown, 786 786 A.2d A.2d 961, 961, 971 971 (Pa. (Pa. 2001). 2001).

54 54  The TheCommonwealth Commonwealthcalled calledKhalid KhalidHarrison Harrisontototestify testifyon onthe thefifth fifthday dayofofAppellant Appellantand and

Yameen Y ameenMofield’s Mofield' sjury jurytrial. trial.Prior Priortotobeing beingsworn swornin, in,Harrison Harrisonstated stated“I"Iain’t ain'tparticipating participatingininthis. this.

I Idon’t don'tknow knowwhy whyI’m I'mhere. here.I Igot gotmy mydeal, deal,I Idon’t don'tknow knowwhy WhyI’m I'mhere.” here."N.T. N.T.6/1 6/2023, atat4-5. 6/16/2023, 4-5.

After Afterbeing beingsworn swornin, in,the theCommonwealth Commonwealthasked askedHarrison Harrisonaaseries seriesof ofquestions questionsininwhich whichhehe

responded respondedonly onlyby bysaying saying“non “noncontent.” content.”Id. Id.atat5-6. 5-6.This ThisCourt Courtthen thenconfirmed con.firmedwith withHamson Harrisonthat that

he hehad hadspoken spokenwith withan anattorney attorneyprior priortotobeing beingcalled calledtototestify. testify.Id. Id.atat6.6.Harrison Harrisonexplained explainedagain again

that thathe hedidn’t didn'twant wanttotobe bethere, there,stating stating“it’s "it'snot notmy mychoice; choice;I Igo gomy mydeal, deal,I’m I'mdoing doingmy mytime. time.I’m I'm

not nothere herefor forthat.” that."Id. Id.The TheCommonwealth Commonwealthasked askedHarrison Harrisonififhe he got gothis hisdeal dealfor forthe themurder murderof of

R.B. R.B.and andififhe he had hadmurdered murderedR.B. R.B.with withAppellant Appellantand andYameen YameenMofield. Mofield.After AfterHarrison Harrisonrefused refusedtoto

answer answerany anyof ofthese thesequestions, questions;this thisCourt Courtexcused excusedthe thejury juryfrom fromthe thecourtroom. courtroom.Id. Id. atat7.7.

After Afteraasidebar sidebardiscussion discussionheld heldoff offthe therecord, record,this thisCourt Courtallowed allowedthe thejury jurytotoreturn returntotothe the

courtroom courtroomand andpermitted permittedthe theCommonwealth Commonwealthtoto continue continueits itsdirect directexamination examinationof ofHarrison. Harrison.Id. Id.

atat 15-16. 15-16. Harrison Harrisoncontinued continuedtoto only only say say “non “noncontent” content” in inresponse responseto to the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's

questions, questions, although althoughthe the Commonwealth Commonwealthnoted noted on onthe the record record atatseveral several points points that thatHarrison Harrisonhad had

raised raised his his eyebrows eyebrows or or smiled. smiled. Id. Id. at at 16-18. 16-18. This This Court Courtthen then granted grantedthe the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's

request requestto to show showHarrison Harrison aacopy copy of ofaa statement statement he he had had given given to to police police in in March March 2018. 2018. Id. Id. at at 18- 18-

19. 19. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth asked asked Harrison Harrison ififitit was was right right that that he he had had given given aa statement statement to to police police

“talking "talking all all about about 31st 31st Street Street and and 27th 27th Street.” Street.'' Id. Id. at at 19. 19. After After Harrison Harrison.failed failed to to answer answer the the

question, question, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth announced announced its its intention intention to to read read aa question question from from the the statement statement itself. itself.

Id. Id. This This Court Court overruled overruled Appellant’s Appellant's counsel’s counsel's objection. objection. Id. Id. at at 20. 20.

The The Commonwealth Commonwealth subsequently subsequently read read out out the the following following portion portion of ofHarrison’s Harrison's statement statement

on the on the record: record:

Q: Q: Why Why do do you think you you think you were were set set up? up? A: There are three hoods that I’m beefing with. A: There are three hoods that I'm beefing with. Well Well not not just just me, me, but but my my hood. hood.

55 55  Q: Q: What Whathoodhood isisyours? yours? A: 31st and Tasker. A: 31st and Tasker. Q: Q: What Whatare arethe the hoods hoods that thatyou’re you're having having trouble trouble with? with? A: Wilson Projects, 23rd and Croskey, and 27th and Tasker. A: Wilson Projects, 23rd and Croskey, and 27th and Tasker. Q: Q: IsIsthere there any any reason reason why why specifically specifically you you would would be betargeted? targeted? A: A: There There isis five fiveof ofus us in in our our main main little little crew crew ... ... so so Mar Mar and and my my face face out out there. there.

Id. Id. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth then then asked asked Harrison Harrison ififititwas was correct correctthat that he he had had already already told told the the police police

about about 31st and 31st and Tasker Tasker in inthat that statement statement from from March March 2018. 2018. Id. Id. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth then then moved moved

on on and and asked asked Harrison Harrison about about the the circumstances circumstances that that led led him him to to take take aa plea plea deal deal for for his his

involvement involvement in in R.B.’s R.B. 's homicide. homicide. Id. Id. at at 21. 21. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth asked asked Harrison Harrison about about aa prison prison

call call he he had had made made in in which which he he “called "called Omar Omar Davis Davis and and told told him him that that [he] [he] was was driving driving around, around, out out

in in Tasker Tasker with with Nu-Nu Nu-Nu and and Su-Su.” Su-Su." Id. Id at at 21-22. 21-22. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth also also asked asked Harrison Harrison about about

how how he he had had called called Nu-Nu Nu-Nu and and Su-Su, Su-Su, referring referring to to Appellant Appellant and and Yameen Yameen Mofield, Mofield, his his “young "young

killers,” killers,“ “young ”young gorillas,” gorillas,“ and and “young ”young savages” savages“ who who were were “out ”out there there doing doing big big things.” things." Id. Id. at at 22. 22.

Harrison Harrison did did not not verbally verbally reply reply to to any any of ofthe the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's questions questions regarding regarding the the

statement statement or or prison prison call. call. Id. Id. at at 19-22. 19-22. Thereafter, Thereafter, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth asked asked this this Court Court to to declare declare

Harrison Harrison aa hostile hostile witness. witness. Id. Id. at at 22. 22. This This Court Court did did so, so, stating stating there there was was “no "no question question about about

that.” that." Counsel Counsel for for Appellant Appellant and and Mofield Mofield next next objected objected to to the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's request request to to play play

an an exhibit exhibit for for Harrison. Harrison. Id. Id. at at 23. 23. Following Following another another sidebar sidebar conversation conversation held held off off the the record, record, this

Court Court asked asked Harrison Harrison if he was ifhe was refusing refusing to to answer answer any any of of the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's questions. questions. After After

Harrison Harrison answered answered affirmatively, affirmatively, stating stating “I’m “I'm not not answering answering no no questions,” questions,” the the jury jury was was again again

excused excused from the courtroom. Id. at 23-24. 23-24. This Court then advised Harrison that he he could be held held

in criminal contempt contempt for his refusal to testify and explained the potential potential consequences consequences were he

to to be be found found in in contempt. contempt. Id. at at 24-26. 24-26. Harrison Harrison confirmed confirmed that that he he understood understood but but was was still still

refusing to testify. Id. at 26.

56 56  The TheCommonwealth Commonwealthsubsequently subsequentlymoved movedfor forAppellant Appellanttotobebeheld heldinincontempt. contempt.Id.Id.atat26. 26.

This ThisCourt Courtfound foundHarrison Harrisoninindirect directcriminal criminalcontempt contemptfor forhis hisrepeated repeatedrefusal refusaltototestify. testify.Id.Idatat

27. 27.This ThisCourt Courtheld heldaabrief briefsentencing sentencinghearing hearingand andultimately ultimatelysentenced sentencedHarrison Harrisontotoaaterm termofofsix six

(6) (6)tototwelve twelve(12) (12)months monthsofofconfinement, confinement,totobebeserved servedconsecutively consecutivelytotohis hiscurrent currentterm termofof

incarceration. Id.atat27-29. incarceration.Id. 27-29.

Appellant’s Appellant'scounsel counselmade madeaamotion motionfor foraamistrial mistrialbased basedon onwhat whathad hadoccurred occurredduring during

Harrison’s Harrison'stestimony. testimony.Id. Id. atat32. 32.Counsel Counselspecifically specificallyobjected objectednot nottotohis hisfailure failuretotoanswer answer

questions questionsbut butthe theCommonwealth’s Commonwealth'sdecision decisiontotoread readportions portionsof ofHarrison’s Harrison'sstatement statementinto intothe the

record. record.Id. Id. Appellant’s Appellant'scounsel counselexplained explainedthat thatHarrison Harrisonnever neveracknowledged acknowledgedthat thatititwas washis his

statement statementand andthat thatititwas wasimproper improperfor forhim himtotobe beconfronted confrontedwith withan an“alleged "allegedinconsistent inconsistent

statement.” statement."Id. Id. Appellant’s Appellant'scounsel counselalso alsotook tookspecific specificissue issuewith withhow howthe theCommonwealth Commonwealthasked asked

Harrison Harrisonififhe hepled piedguilty guiltyto tothe themurder murderof ofR.B. R.B. with withAppellant Appellantand andYameen YameenMofield. Mofield.

Appellant’s Appellant'scounsel counsel suggested suggestedthat, that, atataaminimum, minimum, Harrison’s Harrison's testimony testimonybe be struck struckfrom fromthe the

record recordbut butexpressed expressed concern concernwith withthe thejury’s jury's ability ability to to “put “putout out of of[its] [its] head” head” what what itithad hadheard heard

from fromthe the Commonwealth Commonwealthwhile while Harrison Harrison was was on on the the witness witness stand. stand. Id. Id. atat 33. 33.

In In response, response, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth argued argued that that itit was was permitted permitted to to ask ask Harrison Harrison leading leading

questions questions because because he he had had been been declared declared aa hostile hostile witness. witness. Id. Id. at at 34. 34. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth also also

asserted asserted that that itit was was entitled entitled to to ask ask Harrison Harrison about about his his guilty guilty plea plea for for his his involvement involvement in in the the

murder murder of ofR.B. R.B. since since he he mentioned mentioned it. it. Id. Id. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth clarified clarified that that the the statement statement itit

confronted confronted Harrison Harrison with with was was taken taken from from an an incident incident unrelated unrelated to to the the murder murder of of R.B. R.B. and and that that itit

moved moved onto onto another another subject subject when when itit was was clear clear that that Harrison Harrison was was unwilling unwilling to to answer answer any any of ofthe the

Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's questions. questions. Id. Id. at at 34-35. 34-35. Finally, Finally, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth argued argued that that its its questions questions

did did not not constitute constitute evidence evidence and and that that the the jury jury had had already already been been instructed instructed as as such. such. Id. Id. at at 35. 35.

57 57  This ThisCourt Courtheld heldthat thatititwas wasgoing goingtotostrike strikeallallofofHarrison’s Harrison'stestimony testimonyfrom fromthe therecord, record,

including includingboth bothquestions questionsand andany anytype typeofofanswer answerthat thatHarrison Harrisonprovided. provided.Id. Id.This ThisCourt Court

additionally additionallystated stateditsitsintention intentiontotorepeat repeatcertain certainjury juryinstructions instructionsgiven givenatatthe thebeginning beginningatatthe the

trial, trial,which whichwould wouldremind remindthe thejury jurythat thatstatements statementsmade madeby bycounsel counseland andquestions questionsput puttoto

witnesses witnessesby bycounsel counselare arenot notevidence. evidence.Id. Id.atat35-36. 35-36.This ThisCourt Courtstated statedthat thatititwould wouldalso alsogive givefinal final

instructions instructionstotothe thejury juryinstructing instructingthem themtotofollow followthis thisCourt’s Court'sinstructions instructionsand andtotonot notconsider consider

“the “thetestimony testimonyororanything anythingconnected connectedtotoNyheem NyheemKhalid KhalidHarrison’s Harrison'sappearance appearanceinincourt.” court.”Id. Id. atat

36-37. 36-37.Accordingly, Accordingly,this thisCourt Courtdenied deniedAppellant’s Appellant'scounsel’s counsel'smotion motionfor foraamistrial, mistrial,concluded concluded

that thatthese theseproposed proposedremedies remedieswould wouldbe besufficient sufficienttotocure cureany anyprejudicial prejudicialeffects effectsof ofHarrison’s Harrison's

testimony testimonyand andthat thataamistrial mistrialwas wastherefore thereforenot notwarranted. warranted.Id. Id. atat37-38. 37-38.

After Afteraasecond secondCommonwealth Commonwealthwitness, witness, Tymeir TymeirShands, Shands, similarly similarlyrefused refusedtototestify, testify,this this

Courtsubsequently Court subsequentlyinstructed instructedthe thejury asfollows: juryas follows:

Ladies Ladies and andgentlemen, gentlemen, I’m I'm going going toto give giveyou you certain certain instructions, instructions, and andyou you need needto to follow those instructions like I told you before in the beginning and will tell you in follow those instructions like I told you before in the beginning and will tell you in the end. the end.

The The testimony testimony oror the the appearance appearance --- I'm I'm going going to to put put itit this this way, way, the the appearance appearance of of Nyheem Khalid Harrison; anything that was asked of him and any kind of response Nyheem Khalid Harrison; anything that was asked of him and any kind of response he he gave gave isis going going to to be be stricken stricken from from the the record. record. Y ou are You are notnot to to consider considerthat that at at all. all.

And And II amam just just going going to to remind remind you you of of what what II told told you you before, before, that that it’s it's my my responsibility to decide all questions of law during the trial, and you must follow responsibility to decide all questions of law during the trial, and you must follow my my rulings rulings and and instructions instructions onon the the matters matters of of law law whether whether or or not not you you agree agree with with [them]. ... [them]. ...

II also also gave gave youyou another another instruction instruction before before we we started started that that statements made made byby counsel counsel are are not not evidence, evidence, the the questions questions that that counsel counsel puts puts to to the the witnesses witnesses are are not not evidence. evidence. ItIt isis the the answers answers toto those those questions by by the the witness witness that that provide provide the the evidence for you. evidence for you. You should not speculate or guess that a fact may fact may be true true merely

58 58  because becauseone oneof ofthe thelawyers lawyersasked askedthe thequestion questionwhich whichassumes assumesororsuggests suggeststhat thataafact fact is true. is true.

So SoI’m I'mreminding remindingyouyouof ofwhat whatIIsaid saidbefore, before,and andI Iagain againwill willmention mentionininmy myclosing closing instructions: The questions put to Mr. Harrison and whatever answers were gleaned instructions: The questions put to Mr. Harrison and whatever answers were gleaned are arenot nottotobe beconsidered consideredininany anyway. way.

Id. Id. atat49-50. 49-50.

Additionally, Additionally,ininits itsclosing closinginstructions instructionstotothe thejury, jury,this thisCourt Courtstated: stated:

There There were were twotwo witnesses; witnesses; Nyheem Nyheem Khalid Khalid Harrison Harrison and and Tymier Tymier Shands, Shands, whowho refused refused toto testify. testify. II told told you youpreviously previously to to completely completely disregard disregard anyany questions questions oror answers. answers.AndAndIIam amagain againinstructing instructingyou youtotocompletely completelydisregard disregardany anyquestions questionsand and any responses given by these witnesses. I remind you, as I've said before, that any responses given by these witnesses. I remind you, as I've said before, that questions questions asked asked byby counsel counsel areare not not evidence. evidence. ItItisis only only the the answers answersby by the the witness witness that that provides provides thethe evidence evidence for for you. you. You You are are toto disregard disregard their their testimony testimony asas II told told you before. you before.

N.T. N.T. 6/20/2023, 6/20/2023, atat213-214. 213-214.

Appellant Appellant claims claimsthat thatthis this Court Courterred erred by by not not granting granting aamistrial mistrial following following Khalid Khalid

Harrison’s Harrison's refusal refusal to to answer answerthe the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's questions, questions, specifically specifically challenging challenging the the

Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's decision decisionto to read read directly directly from from aa statement statement that that Harrison Harrison gave gave to to police. police.

Appellant Appellant inaccurately inaccurately contends contends that that Harrison Harrison inculpated inculpated Appellant Appellant in in the the shooting shooting of ofQ.B. Q.B. in in

this this statement. statement. The The statement statement that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth quoted quoted when when questioning questioning Harrison Harrisonwas was

taken taken in in March March 2018, 2018, whereas whereas the the murder murder of R.B. and ofR.B. and shooting shooting of ofQ.B. Q.B. took took place place several several

months months later later in in October October 2018. 2018. In In the the March March 2018 2018 statement, statement, which which was was taken taken after after Harrison Harrison had had

been been shot shot in in the the foot, foot, Harrison Harrison explained explained that that he he was was from from 31st and 31st and Tasker Tasker and and that that he he was was

having having trouble trouble with with other other neighborhoods, neighborhoods, including including Wilson Wilson Projects, Projects, 23rd 23rd and and Croskey, Croskey, and and 27th 27th

and and Tasker. Tasker. Nowhere Nowhere in in this this statement statement did did Harrison Harrison mention mention Appellant, Appellant, nor nor was was this this statement statement

connected connected to to the the shooting shooting of of Q.B. Q.B.

The record record reflects reflects that the Commonwealth did, did, however, however, ask Harrison Harrison about about aa plea plea deal deal

he took took for for his involvement in the murder of R.B. and ofR.B. and that the Commonwealth Commonwealth asked asked if he ifhe

59 murdered murderedR.B. R.B.with withAppellant Appellantand andYameen YameenMofield. Mofield.N.T. N.T.6/16/2023, 6/16/2023,atat6-7. 6-7.Additionally, Additionally,the the

Commonwealth Commonwealthasked askedHarrison Harrisonififhehetook tookaaplea pleadeal dealbecause becauseof ofananincriminating incriminatingcall callhehemade madetoto

aaprison. prison.Id. Idatat21. 21.The TheCommonwealth Commonwealthasked askedHarrison Harrisonififhe hecalled calledOmar OmarDavis Davisand andtold toldhim himthat that

he hewas wasdriving drivingaround aroundon onTasker Taskerwith withAppellant Appellantand andMofield, Mofield,and andififhe hereferred referredtotoAppellant Appellantand and

Mofield Mofieldasashis his“young “youngkillers,” killers,”“young “younggorillas,” gorillas,”and and“young “youngsavages” savages”who who“were "wereout outthere there

doing doingbig bigthings” things"on onthat thatcall. call.Id. Id.atat22. 22.While Whilequestioning questioningHarrison Harrisonabout aboutthe thecontents contentsof ofthe the

call, call,the theCommonwealth Commonwealthnotably notablydid didnot notmention mentionthat thatthe thecall callwas wasmade madeon onthe thedate datethat thatR.B. R.B.

wasmurdered was murderedand andQ.B. wasshot. Q.B.was shot.

Accordingly, Accordingly,the theCommonwealth’s Commonwealth'squestions questionsdid didnot notreveal revealtotothe thejury jurythe thefull fullcontext contextof of

either eitherthe thestatement statementHarrison Harrisongave gavetotopolice policeininMarch March2018, 2018,or orthe theincriminating incriminatingcall callHarrison Harrison

made madeon onthe theday dayof ofthe themurder. murder. The Thequestions questionswere were offered offeredininresponse responseto toHarrison’s Harrison's admission admission

on onthe thewitness witnessstand standthat thathe hehad hadtaken takenaaplea pleadeal deal and andwas wasserving servinghis histime timeon onthat thatcase. case. As As

Harrison Harrisonwas wasunwilling unwillingtoto answer answer any anyof ofthe the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's questions questionsto tothe the extent extentthat thathe he

was wasfound foundguilty guilty by bythis this Court Court of ofcriminal criminal contempt, contempt, this this Court Courtappropriately appropriately allowed allowedthe the

Commonwealth Commonwealthto to treat treat Harrison Harrison as as aahostile hostile witness. witness. Accordingly, Accordingly, the the Commonwealth Commonwealthwas was

permitted permitted to to ask ask leading leading questions questions based based on on Harrison’s Harrison's plea plea deal, deal, March March 2018 2018 statement, statement, and and

phone phone call call to to Davis Davis during during its its direct direct examination. examination, Although Although the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's questions questions were were

based based on on evidence, evidence, itit isis well well settled settled that that the the questions questions themselves themselves do do not not constitute constitute evidence. evidence.

Nevertheless, Nevertheless, this this Court Court took took appropriate appropriate actions actions to to mitigate mitigate any any prejudicial prejudicial effects effects of ofthe the

nature nature of ofthe the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's questions. questions. This This Court Court struck struck the the entirety entirety of ofHarrison’s Harrison's

appearance appearance during during the the trial trial from from the the record, record, including including both both the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's questions questions to to

him him and and his his verbal verbal and and non-verbal non-verbal responses. responses. Following Following Harrison’s Harrison's dismissal dismissal from from the the witness witness

stand, stand, this this Court Court instructed instructed the the jury jury that that itit was was not not to to consider consider anything anything that that transpired while while

60 60 Harrison Harrisonwas wason onthe thestand. stand.This ThisCourt Courtalso alsoinstructed instructedthe thejury, jury,asasitithad haddone doneatatthe thebeginning beginningof of

Appellant’s Appellant'strial, trial,that thatstatements statementsand andquestions questionsmade madeby bycounsel counselare arenot notevidence evidenceand andthat thatitit

should shouldnot notassume assumeaafact facttotobe betrue truebecause becauseaalawyer lawyerasked askedaaquestion questionwhich whichassumed assumedoror

suggested suggestedthat thatfact factwas wastrue. true.During Duringclosing closinginstructions, instructions,this thisCourt Courtagain againinstructed instructedthe thejury jurythat that

ititwas wastoto“completely “completelydisregard” disregard”any anyquestions questionsor oranswers answersgiven givenduring duringHarrison’s Harrison'srefusal refusaltoto

testify testifyand andthat thatquestions questionsasked askedby bycounsel counselwere werenot notevidence. evidence.

As Asjuries juriesare arepresumed presumedtotofollow followinstructions instructions given givenby bythis thisCourt, Court,ititmay maybe bepresumed presumed

that thatthe thejury jury disregarded disregarded anything anythingthat thathappened happenedwhile while Harrison Harrisonwas wason onthe thewitness witness stand standand and

that thatititdid didnot notimproperly improperly find findany anyevidentiary evidentiary value value in inthe the content contentof ofany any of ofthe the

Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's questions questions to to Harrison. Harrison. Accordingly, Accordingly, by by striking striking Harrison’s Harrison's refusal refusalto to testify testify

from from the the record record and and issuing issuing curative curativeinstructions instructionsto tothe thejury, jury, this this Court Courtobviated obviated the theneed needto to

declare declare aamistrial. mistrial. Such Such an anextreme extreme remedy remedy was was inappropriate inappropriate where wherethe thejury jury was was properly properly

instructed instructed on onhow howto to weigh weigh evidence evidence fairly fairly and and no no actions actions were were undertaken undertaken by by the the

Commonwealth Commonwealth that that prejudiced prejudiced Appellant Appellant to to the the point point of ofdenying denying him himaa fair fair trial. trial. Despite Despite

Appellant’s Appellant's contentions contentions otherwise, otherwise, this this Court Court thus thus properly properly denied denied Appellant’s Appellant's motion motion for for aa

mistrial. mistrial. Appellant’s Appellant's final final claim claim isis therefore therefore without without merit merit and and no no relief reliefisis due. due.

Conclusion Conclusion

In In summary, summary, this this Court Court has has carefully carefully reviewed reviewed the the entire entire record record and and finds finds no no harmful, harmful,

prejudicial, prejudicial, or or reversible reversible error error and and nothing nothing to to justify justify the the granting granting of ofAppellant’s Appellant's request request for for

relief. relief. For For the the reasons reasons set set forth forth above, above, the the judgment judgment of ofthe the trial trial court court should should be be affirmed. affirmed.

By By the the Court: Court:

(4-.@.2K Date HONORABLE HONORABLE CHARLES CHARLES A. A. EHRLICH EHRLICH

61 61