Com. v. Perez-Rodriguez, R.

J-S24032-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : RAPHAEL E. PEREZ-RODRIGUEZ : : Appellant : No. 1381 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 22, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0002261-2020

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: JULY 31, 2023

Appellant, Raphael E. Perez-Rodriguez, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County following his conviction by a jury on the charges of first-degree murder, burglary, robbery, aggravated assault, two counts of receiving stolen property, and two counts of firearms not to be carried without a license.1 After a careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: The charges in the instant matter stem from a traffic stop of Appellant, which then led to an investigation and the arrest of Appellant for the murder of Dennis Fink (“the ____________________________________________

• • Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

118 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 3502(a)(1)(i), 3701(a)(1)(i), 2702(a)(1), 3925, and 6106, respectively.

J-S24032-23

Victim”), who had been stabbed to death, as well as the burglary of the Victim’s residence.

On December 11, 2020, Appellant filed a counseled omnibus pre-trial suppression motion wherein he sought the suppression of all evidence seized from the Victim’s house, which is located on Tully Lane in Reading, Pennsylvania. Appellant averred the police improperly entered and conducted an unconstitutional warrantless search of the Victim’s house. The Commonwealth, in response, averred Appellant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Victim’s home. Further, the Commonwealth asserted the police properly entered and conducted a warrantless search of the Victim’s residence due to exigent circumstances.

On January 25, 2021, Appellant proceeded to a suppression hearing at the commencement of which the Commonwealth moved for the transcript from Appellant’s preliminary hearing to be marked as an exhibit, and Appellant indicated he had no objection. N.T., 1/25/21, suppression hearing, at 4. The Commonwealth then offered the testimony of Vincent Caruso, who is the system administrator for the inmate telephone system at the Berks County jail, and Berks County Detective Ivan. R. Martinez. The suppression court, indicating it adopted the testimony and evidence from the preliminary hearing, as well as the suppression hearing, aptly summarized the relevant evidence as follows:

At approximately 7:40 p.m., in the evening on July 16, 2020, Officer Eric Koller of the City of Reading Police Department

-2-

J-S24032-23

was on patrol in the 500 block of Washington Street in the City of Reading when he observed a black Honda CRV (“the Vehicle”) with a Minnesota license plate that appeared to be altered. N.T., 8/26/20, preliminary hearing, at 4-5. Having noticed the allegedly altered license plate, Officer Koller checked the registration information electronically, which returned a result that the Vehicle was reported stolen. Id. at 5. Officer Koller continued to follow the Vehicle, but before he could initiate a traffic stop, the Vehicle parked in the 100 block of North 3rd Street, whereupon the driver, later identified as [Appellant], exited the Vehicle. Id. at 5-6. Backup [officers] arrived shortly thereafter, and [Appellant] was detained in handcuffs until the patrol wagon arrived, and [Appellant] was placed therein. Id. at 7. Loud music continued to play from a wireless speaker inside the Vehicle, and Officer Koller reapproached the Vehicle to turn off the music. Id. As Officer Koller reached into the Vehicle to turn the speaker off, he noticed a small, blue, Ziplock bag containing a white, powdery substance located in the handhold of the driver’s side door. Id. Officer Koller recovered the bag and continued to search the rest of the Vehicle. Id. Under the driver’s seat, Officer Koller found two loaded handguns—a semi-automatic and a revolver. Id. at 8. Two knives were found between the driver’s seat and the door jamb. Id. In the cargo area, police found a rifle and semi-automatic shotgun, as well as a bubble envelope addressed to the Victim containing CO2 cartridges for a BB gun and several bank cards in the Victim’s name. Id. Officer Koller later performed a NARK-2 field test on the suspected drugs from the vehicle, which indicated a positive result for cocaine. Id. at 9. A [records] check also indicated that [Appellant] did not have a valid license to carry the firearms. Id. When [Appellant] was arrested, he was found in possession of several personal items belonging to the Victim, including a high school ring, an Air Force Academy graduation ring, several wedding bands, and a tie bar. Id. at 15. Officer Koller informed Eric Sweitzer, a criminal investigator with the Reading Police Department (“C.I. Sweitzer”), about the stolen Vehicle investigation and notified C.I. Sweitzer about items found in the stolen Vehicle belonging to the Victim. Id. at 16. C.I. Sweitzer researched the Victim’s name and found an individual who was listed as living at the property located at ** Tully Lane in Reading, Pennsylvania (“the Property”). Id. C.I. Sweitzer visited the Property, observed that some exterior and interior lights were on, and then attempted to make contact with

-3-

J-S24032-23

the owner. Id. at 17. However, C.I. Sweitzer was unsuccessful and left his business card in the door. Id. at 18. C.I. Sweitzer returned to the Property the next day and noticed that the Property looked to be in exactly the same condition as the night before, including his business card still stuck in the door. Id. C.I. Sweitzer, along with Criminal Investigator Scott Errington, then walked to the rear of the residence to attempt contact, but they were unsuccessful. Id. at 19. C.I. Sweitzer then contacted the local police department and requested an officer onsite so that a welfare check could be performed. Id. at 20. After the local officer arrived, C.I. Sweitzer entered the Property through an unlocked door of the kitchen/dining room. Id. Once inside, C.I. Sweitzer announced himself, but he found no one was inside; however, he found a small, black dog in a cage, alive and barking. Id. at 21. C.I. Sweitzer observed that the cabinet doors in the kitchen were open, and the house seemed unkempt. Id. at 21-22. Making their way through the home looking for the Victim or anyone else, the investigators noticed that closets were left open with lights on, and the house looked like it had been ransacked. Id. at 22. Likewise, the garage and basement lights were left on, and a blue Tesla vehicle was still in the garage. Id. Sensing that something was not right, C.I. Sweitzer was leaving the Property to contact possible family members when he noticed a duffle bag, in which he could see, without manipulation, a baseball cap and a glass jar containing suspected marijuana. Id. at 22-23. C.I. Sweitzer was unable to garner further information on the Victim’s whereabouts from family members, so he applied for a search warrant for the Property to retrieve the suspected marijuana, which was then approved. Id. During the search, [the Victim’s] decomposing body was found in the wooded area abutting the Property. Id. at 24-25. *** On July 16, 2020, [before the traffic stop involving Appellant], Jeffrey Neubauer, an individual living in the same neighborhood as the Victim, noticed a young girl with a lost dog outside of his home. Id. at 37-38. Mr. Neubauer took the dog, called the phone numbers on the dog’s tags, and found out the address listed for the dog was ** Tully Lane. Id. at 38. Mr. Neubauer and his girlfriend then traveled to the Property to return the dog. Id. When Mr. Neubauer and his girlfriend approached the Property, they noticed it appeared unkempt. Id. at 39. Upon

-4-

J-S24032-23

ringing the doorbell twice and knocking on the door, a man, whom Mr. Neubauer identified as [Appellant], answered the door wearing cargo shorts, a muscle t-shirt, and a red-brimmed cap[.] Id. at 39-40. [Appellant] only opened the door halfway. Id. Mr. Neubauer did not remember whether [Appellant] answered in the affirmative when asked whether the lost dog was his, but he recalled [Appellant] grabbed the dog. Id. at 40. When Mr. Neubauer’s girlfriend asked [Appellant] if he was “Dennis,” [Appellant] responded with “Yes.” Id. at 61. Mr. Neubauer noted that the interaction seemed odd because [Appellant] did not appear to be happy to have his dog returned. Id. at 42. Mr. Neubauer checked on Facebook and found that the Victim, Dennis Fink, was actually an older white male. Id. The next day, Mr. Neubauer was presented with a photo lineup whereupon he identified [Appellant] as the individual he saw at the Property the day prior. Id. On July 17, 2020, Detective Ivan Martinez (“Detective Martinez”), who was with the Berks County District Attorney’s Office, was called to the Property for a body that had been found. Id. at 46-47. Detective Martinez arrived at the Property and proceeded to the wooded area adjacent to the rear where there was a body lying face down and covered in brush. Id. at 47. The body was later identified as the Victim, who was the owner the Property. Id. at 48. The next day, after preparing a search warrant that was approved, Detective Martinez participated in the search of the Property, during which he observed that the home appeared to have been ransacked. Id. at 48-49. A bag, that did not appear to be the Victim’s, was found containing a gun, money, and coins. Id. at 49. Also seized was the baseball cap and suspected marijuana. Id. at 51-52. On July 20, 2020, Detective Martinez, along with Detective Sergeant Brett Forry, met with [Appellant] at the Berks County Jail System for an interview. Id. at 52-53. During the interview, [Appellant] told Detective Martinez that he came from New Jersey to Reading because of his business, [which involved] buying and reselling guns, coins, and other odds and ends. Id. at 53. Initially, when Detective Martinez showed a photograph of the Property to [Appellant], [Appellant] acted as if he did not recognize the house. Id. at 54. When Detective Martinez mentioned that someone could place [Appellant] at the Property, [Appellant] admitted that he had been to the Property, but he specified that he stopped at a yard sale and was led inside the home by a black male, named “Bu,” and that the house looked

-5-

J-S24032-23

ransacked when he entered. Id. at 54-55, 58. [Appellant] described the Property with detail, including the presence and situation of objects in the garage area. Id. at 55. [Appellant] indicated that he had been driving around the neighborhood looking for yard sales because he knew that rich people lived in the area. Id. at 54. [Appellant] further told the detectives that the items found in the Vehicle did come from the Property, but he insisted that he had purchased the items from “Bu” for $1,500.00. Id. at 56. [Appellant] also admitted that he had told Mr. Neubauer’s girlfriend that he was the Victim when the dog was returned. Id. at 57. However, [Appellant] denied ever seeing the Victim. Id. Detective Martinez testified at the preliminary hearing that he had reviewed a phone call that [Appellant] placed from the Berks County Jail on July 31, 2020, in which [Appellant] relayed a different story regarding his involvement in the Victim’s death. Id. at 60-62. In the phone call, [Appellant] told his mother and sister that the Victim, who [Appellant] claimed was a marijuana customer of [Appellant’s], owed [Appellant] money, and owed a Mexican cartel money in relation to human trafficking of prostitutes. Id. at 62. [Appellant] continued that the Mexican cartel ordered him to kill the Victim or [Appellant] himself would be killed. Id. *** Vincent Caruso, the system administrator of the inmate telephone system at the Berks County Jail System,…explained that prior to an inmate making a phone call from the prison, a message is played informing both parties that the phone call is being recorded. N.T., 1/25/21, suppression hearing, at 8-9. Mr. Caroso likewise stated that upon booking, prisoners are provided with an Inmate Telephone ID Release Form (“T.I.D. Form”), containing the prisoner’s personal identification number for phone calls, as well as a provision indicating that phone calls are monitored and recorded, which the prisoner then signs. Id. The Commonwealth introduced [Appellant’s] signed T.I.D. Form, which was printed in both English and Spanish, that [Appellant] had signed. Id. at 9-11.

Suppression Court Opinion, filed 3/29/21, at 2-6.

-6-

J-S24032-23

By order entered on March 29, 2021, the suppression court denied Appellant’s omnibus pre-trial suppression motion. Thereafter, on April 18, 2022, Appellant, who was represented by counsel, proceeded to a jury trial.

The trial court has summarized at length the testimony and evidence offered at the jury trial. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 2/27/23, at 2-25. The trial court has provided citations to the record for each finding, and we conclude the findings are supported by the record. Accordingly, we adopt and rely on the trial court’s summary.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Appellant of the offenses indicated supra, and on April 22, 2022, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of life in prison. On May 2, 2022, Appellant filed a timely counseled post-sentence motion seeking a judgment of acquittal on the basis the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, as well as a new trial on the basis the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

By order entered on August 26, 2022, the trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion, and this timely counseled appeal followed on September 23, 2022. The trial court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, Appellant timely complied, and the trial court filed a responsive opinion on February 27, 2023.

On appeal, Appellant sets forth the following issues in his “Statement of Questions Presented” (verbatim):

A. Whether the evidence adduced at Suppression was insufficient to establish that [Appellant] lacked an expectation of privacy

-7-

J-S24032-23

at the residence searched, whether an exigency existed sufficient to justify the warrantless search subsequently conducted, and whether the subsequently obtained Search Warrant was obtained with probable cause based, in part, from things observed during said warrantless search that was illegally obtained? B. Whether the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed a premeditated, willful and deliberate killing, or an aggravated assault, or a robbery where there was no evidence that [Appellant] had at any time come into contact with the victim, other than conjecture that [Appellant’s] mere presence at the victim’s home [sic] he must have killed the victim? C. Whether the Court erred by not granting a new trial on the basis that the verdict of guilt for murder of the first degree was contrary to the weight of the evidence, where there was literally no physical or circumstantial evidence produced at trial?

Appellant’s Brief at 10 (suggested answers omitted).

Initially, we address Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim.2 Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and robbery. Specifically, Appellant does not dispute that someone committed these crimes against the Victim; however, he contends there is no evidence that he was the perpetrator of the crimes. ____________________________________________ 2 For the ease of discussion, we address Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence

and weight of the evidence claims before addressing his suppression claim since, if Appellant should succeed on one of these claims, we need not address his suppression claim. Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 412 (Pa.Super. 2001).

-8-

J-S24032-23

Initially, we note this Court’s standard of review when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence requires us to look at the evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner, and determine whether the evidence presented, actual and/or circumstantial, was sufficient to enable a fact-finder to find every element of the crime charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 939 A.2d 912 (Pa.Super. 2007).

In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and the circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances.

Id. at 913–914 (quotation omitted). The jury, as the finder of fact, is free to believe all, some, or none of the evidence presented and is free to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Commonwealth v. Dailey, 828 A.2d 356 (Pa.Super. 2003). In conducting review, the appellate court may not weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the fact-finder. Commonwealth v. Baumgartner, 206 A.3d 11, 14-15 (Pa.Super. 2019).

As indicated supra, Appellant's argument is specific in nature. Rather than challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support any of the applicable elements of the offenses, Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was the person who robbed the Victim and stabbed the Victim

-9-

J-S24032-23

to death before dumping his body in the woods behind his home.3 As such, we need not conduct a thorough review of the evidence to determine whether it can support a finding that all of the elements of the offenses have been met.4 Rather, we will focus on the specific sufficiency issue raised by Appellant: whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Appellant was ____________________________________________ 3 Appellant presents no argument challenging his convictions for burglary or

two counts of firearms not to be carried without a license. Appellant suggests his conviction for receiving stolen property is insufficient on the basis the Commonwealth allegedly failed to adduce evidence as to valuation. See Appellant’s Brief at 44. However, Appellant’s one-paragraph argument presents bald assertions without any citation to relevant authority. See id. at 44-45. Since Appellant has not properly developed this claim, we conclude it has been waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119. Alternatively, the trial court has aptly addressed and rejected Appellant’s sufficiency challenge to his conviction for receiving stolen property, and we find no error. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 2/27/23, at 32-33.

4 The relevant criminal statutes provide:

§ 2502. Murder (a) Murder of the first degree.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2505(a) (bold in original). § 3701. Robbery (a) Offense defined.-- (1) A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he: (i) inflicts serious bodily injury upon another[.] 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(i) (bold in original). § 2702. Aggravated assault (a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: (1) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life[.] 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1) (bold in original).

- 10 -

J-S24032-23

the perpetrator of the robbery, aggravated assault, and first-degree murder of the Victim.

This Court has recognized that:

[E]vidence of identification need not be positive and certain to sustain a conviction. Commonwealth v. Jones, 954 A.2d 1194, 1197 (Pa.Super. 2008)[.] Although common items of clothing and general physical characteristics are usually insufficient to support a conviction, such evidence can be used as other circumstances to establish the identity of a perpetrator. Commonwealth v. Minnis, 458 A.2d 231, 233–34 (Pa.Super. 1983). Out-of-court identifications are relevant to our review of sufficiency of the evidence claims, particularly when they are given without hesitation shortly after the crime while memories were fresh. Id. at 234. Given additional evidentiary circumstances, “any indefiniteness and uncertainty in the identification testimony goes to its weight.” Id. at 233.

Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868, 874 (Pa.Super. 2011) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted).

Here, in addressing and rejecting Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim, the trial court relevantly indicated the following:

Appellant claims that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence that Appellant was ever at the [Tully Lane] residence at the same time as the Victim to present such an opportunity to commit the crimes, or that he was ever in a position to threaten or touch the Victim personally. Appellant further claims that no evidence or testimony eliminated the possibility of another perpetrator having committed the crimes and that law enforcement only investigated Appellant to the exclusion of other possible suspects. *** When initially stopped [in the Honda], Appellant was found in possession of multiple items belonging to the Victim, including the Victim’s Tesla car fob, graduation rings, laptop, wallet, identification cards, and various credit and debit cards. After finding these items, law enforcement proceeded to the residence,

- 11 -

J-S24032-23

and when unable to make initial contact, made various attempts to reach the Victim. Upon entering the residence, officers found the rooms, drawers, and closets disheveled as if they had been ransacked. Alarm panels were found ripped off of the wall and on the floor. When they returned with a search warrant for the residence, they discovered the Victim deceased in the [woods at the] rear of the residence. Dr. Hoffman concluded that the Victim died from exsanguination and internal bleeding caused by multiple stab wounds to the Victim’s neck and chest. Dr. Hoffman testified that the nature and varying direction of the injuries indicated that the bodies were in close contact and in motion, signaling a struggle occurred during the infliction of the wounds. Further, while Dr. Hoffman suggested that the maggot activity he observed w[as] indicative that the Victim’s time of death was approximately thirty to forty-hours prior to discovery, he noted that information provided by law enforcement allowed him to narrow that period to between 8:45 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on July 16, 2020. During his interview with detectives, [Appellant initially denied recognizing the residence; however,] Appellant [then] admitted that he had been to and was able to describe the residence in detail. In a phone call with his sister and mother, Appellant admitted being involved in the murder of the Victim but claimed that the Victim purchased drugs from him[,] the Victim was involved in human trafficking[,] and the Victim’s murder was directed by a Mexican cartel. Cell phone records tracked Appellant’s movements from Paterson, New Jersey and arriving in the area of the residence around the time of the Victim’s murder and remaining until the afternoon. Several people observed an individual matching Appellant’s description and clothing at or around the residence, including several people who returned the Victim’s wandering dog and found the individual’s response as odd or apathetic. Jeffrey Neubauer identified Appellant as the individual he saw at the residence when [he] was presented with a photographic array, and he told law enforcement officers that he noticed the individual at the residence was wearing the same branded underwear as was later recovered from Appellant. While no evidence was found regarding the actual murder weapon, there was genetic evidence linked to the Victim found on Appellant’s shoes, which were found at the residence. Additionally, the Victim’s DNA was found on Appellant’s shirt.

- 12 -

J-S24032-23

Viewing the evidence presented at trial in totality, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to place Appellant at the residence at the time of the Victim’s murder, including cell phone records and eyewitnesses who either identified Appellant or described an individual matching Appellant’s description as being present at the residence on the date of the Victim’s death and even posing as the Victim himself. Blood and DNA evidence was found on Appellant’s shoes and clothing. Appellant confessed to being at the residence to law enforcement and admitted to his sister and mother of, at least, being involved in the Victim’s murder. Again, Dr. Hoffman’s testimony concluded that the Victim died as a result of the stab wounds and noted that the direction and severity of the wounds indicated a struggle. Moreover, the location of the stab wounds to the neck and chest evinces both malice and an intent to kill. Given the reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence presented, [the trial court] find[s] that Appellant’s challenge[s] to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction[s] for first-degree murder[, aggravated assault, and robbery] lack merit.

Trial Court Opinion, filed 2/27/23, at 28-30.

We agree with the trial court’s sound reasoning. As indicated supra, “[e]vidence of identification need not be positive and certain to sustain a conviction.” Commonwealth v. Ovalles, 144 A.3d 957, 969 (Pa.Super. 2016) (citation omitted). As our Supreme Court has held, “circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction so long as the combination of the evidence links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 528 Pa. 558, 599 A.2d 630, 635 (1991) (quotation and quotation marks omitted).

In the case sub judice, the jury, as the finder of fact, heard the testimony of all witnesses, was free to make credibility determinations, and determined the evidence linked Appellant to the crimes beyond a reasonable

- 13 -

J-S24032-23

doubt. Given our standard of review, we find no error in this regard and conclude there is no merit to Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim. See Baumgartner, supra (setting forth this Court’s standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims).

We next address Appellant’s claim that the jury’s verdicts for first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and robbery were against the weight of the evidence. Specifically, Appellant contends there is no credible evidence that Appellant was the perpetrator of the crimes. He avers the jury’s conclusion he was the perpetrator is based on mere speculation and conjecture. Thus, he avers the jury’s verdict shocks one’s sense of justice such that the trial court erred in failing to order a new trial.5

When considering challenges to the weight of the evidence, we apply the following precepts. “The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is free to believe all, none[,] or some of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Talbert, ____________________________________________ 5 Appellant adequately preserved his weight of the evidence claim as to his

first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and robbery convictions in the lower court and in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant presents in his appellate brief an undeveloped weight of the evidence claim, without citation to authority, regarding the jury’s verdict for receiving stolen property. See Appellant’s Brief at 47. He suggests the evidence regarding the value of the stolen items was incredible. See id. We dispose of this claim simply by noting the jury was free to accept the Commonwealth’s evidence regarding the value of the stolen property. Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 917 (Pa.Super. 2000). Appellant has presented no weight of the evidence challenge to his convictions for burglary and firearms not to be carried without a license.

- 14 -

J-S24032-23

129 A.3d 536, 545 (Pa.Super. 2015) (quotation marks and quotation omitted). Resolving contradictory testimony and questions of credibility are matters for the finder of fact. Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 917 (Pa.Super. 2000). It is well-settled that we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. Talbert, supra.

Moreover, appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the trial court’s exercise of discretion in denying the weight challenge raised in the post-sentence motion; this Court does not review the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. See id.

Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is the lower court’s conviction that the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should be granted in the interest of justice.

Id. at 546 (quotation omitted). Furthermore, “[i]n order for a defendant to prevail on a challenge to the weight of the evidence, the evidence must be so tenuous, vague and uncertain that the verdict shocks the conscience of the court.” Id. (quotation marks and quotation omitted).

Here, in rejecting Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim, the trial court relevantly stated the following:

At trial, the jury heard all of the testimony and was presented [with] the evidence. The Commonwealth presented evidence that Appellant was stopped in a stolen vehicle with a substantial amount of the Victim’s valuables and belongings on his

- 15 -

J-S24032-23

person and in the vehicle. The jury heard evidence tracking Appellant’s location from Paterson, New Jersey, where the vehicle had been stolen, and to the area of the [Tully Lane] residence. When law enforcement arrived at and later searched the residence, they found the home ransacked and the alarm panels ripped from the walls. The Victim’s Tesla vehicle, to which Appellant had the fob on his person, was still in the garage. Dr. Hoffman testified the Victim’s time of death was between 8:45 a.m. and noon on July 16, 2020, which was around the same time that Appellant arrived and remained in the area of the residence. Several eyewitnesses place Appellant, or at least an individual resembling Appellant, at the residence on July 16, 2020, and even identifying himself as the Victim. Dr. Hoffman further testified as to the extent of the Victim’s injuries and the conclusions drawn from both bruising and abrasions observed on the Victim, and from the direction and severity of the stab wounds. The Commonwealth also presented blood and DNA evidence from the Victim found on Appellant’s sneaker and shirt. Despite Appellant’s contention otherwise, the phone call to his mother and sister, at a minimum, implicated Appellant in the Victim’s murder, regardless of his various justifications or suggestion of other unnamed individuals. Based on all of the evidence presented, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s post-sentence challenge to the weight of the evidence. The jury’s verdict indicates that they lent credibility to the Commonwealth’s witnesses and did not choose to accept the Defense witness’ dispute of the blood and DNA evidence. The verdicts rendered by the jury were not against the weight of the evidence. Further, Appellant’s attack on the deliberation period of the jury as somehow demonstrative of a lack of diligence on the party of the jury is absurd. The jury spent four days observing the testimony and evidence and was properly charged by the court in its analysis of the evidence. [The trial court] draw[s] no inference from the fact that the jury was able to come to a decision in what Appellant deemed a relatively short amount of time. Therefore, [the trial court] find[s] Appellant’s claim that the court abused its discretion as to the weight of the evidence to be without merit.

Trial Court Opinion, filed 2/27/23, at 37.

- 16 -

J-S24032-23

We agree with the trial court’s sound reasoning, and we find no abuse of discretion in this regard. Talbert, supra. Simply put, the jury considered the evidence linking Appellant to the burglary and stabbing death of the Victim. The jury found the Commonwealth’s witnesses credible while rejecting Appellant’s witnesses and defense theories. To the extent Appellant requests that we re-weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses presented at trial, we decline to do so as it is a task that is beyond our scope of review. See Commonwealth v. Collins, 70 A.3d 1245, 1251 (Pa.Super. 2013) (stating that “[a]n appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact”). Thus, we find no merit to Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim.

We next address Appellant’s suppression issue. Appellant contends the Commonwealth bore the burden of demonstrating Appellant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the Victim’s residence and, since “[t]he Commonwealth at [the] suppression [hearing] offered no additional evidence or testimony regarding the defendant’s expectation of privacy, other than admitting the transcript of the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing[, the Commonwealth did not meet its burden].” Appellant’s Brief at 16.

In reviewing Appellant’s suppression claim, we are mindful that:

Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court’s denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. We are bound by the suppression court’s factual findings so long as they are supported by the record; our standard of review on

- 17 -

J-S24032-23

questions of law is de novo. Where, as here, the defendant is appealing the ruling of the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the Commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted. Our scope of review of suppression rulings includes only the suppression hearing record and excludes evidence elicited at trial.

Commonwealth v. Yandamuri, 639 Pa. 100, 159 A.3d 503, 516 (2017) (citations omitted).

Both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution “guarantee individuals freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Commonwealth v. Bostick, 958 A.2d 543, 550 (Pa.Super. 2008) (citation omitted). In Pennsylvania, a defendant charged with a possessory offense has “automatic standing” to pursue a suppression motion under Rule 581.6 Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428, 435 (Pa.Super. 2009) (en banc). Nevertheless, “in order to prevail, the defendant…must show that he had a privacy interest in the area searched.” Id. at 434.

Our Supreme court has clarified that challenges to a defendant’s expectation of privacy involve shifting burdens of proof. Commonwealth v. Enimpah, 630 Pa. 357, 106 A.3d 695, 700-01 (2014). The Commonwealth has the initial burden to “present evidence that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not infringed.” Id. at 701. If the Commonwealth presents evidence which shows the defendant “lacked a privacy interest, the burden ____________________________________________ 6 Here, Appellant was charged with possessory offenses.

- 18 -

J-S24032-23

shifts to the defendant to demonstrate he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched.” Id. Thereafter, it is incumbent on the suppression court to consider all of the evidence to determine whether the Commonwealth met its burden of production, and, if so, whether the defendant met his burden of persuasion that he possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched by the police.7 See id.

“The expectation of privacy is an inquiry into the validity of the search or seizure itself; if the defendant has no protected privacy interest, neither the Fourth Amendment nor Article I, § 8 is implicated.” Id. at 699.

An expectation of privacy will be found to exist when the individual exhibits an actual or subjective expectation of privacy and that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. In determining whether a person’s expectation of privacy is legitimate or reasonable, the totality of the circumstances must be considered and the determination will ultimately rest upon a balancing of the societal interests involved. The constitutional legitimacy of an expectation of privacy is not dependent on the subjective intent of the individual asserting the right but on whether the expectation is reasonable in light of all the surrounding circumstances.

____________________________________________ 7 If the Commonwealth’s evidence conclusively establishes that the defendant

had no expectation of privacy in the area searched, then the Commonwealth has met its burden of proving that the evidence was properly obtained, and the suppression motion challenging the search must be denied. See Enimpah, supra, 106 A.3d at 702 (noting that the Commonwealth’s burden is “to give the [suppression] court evidence allowing” the court to conclude a defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy); Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(H) (providing that “[t]he Commonwealth shall have the burden of going forward with the evidence and of establishing that the challenged evidence was not obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights”).

- 19 -

J-S24032-23

Commonwealth v. Viall, 890 A.2d 419, 422 (Pa.Super. 2005) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

“[T]he Fourth Amendment does not shield only those who have title to the searched premises.” Bostick, 958 A.2d at 552 (quotation and quotation marks omitted). Rather, “a defendant must establish a possessory interest, a legitimate presence, or some factor from which a reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy could be deduced to prove that this subjective expectation of privacy is legitimate.” Id. (quotation and quotation marks omitted). Thus, even if not an owner or lessee of the premises, “a defendant who is more than a casual visitor to the...dwelling [searched by police] has the right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution...to challenge the search [of the dwelling] and seizure of [evidence therefrom].” Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 679 A.2d 1320, 1325 (Pa.Super. 1996) (citation omitted).

Relevantly,

In Commonwealth v. Govens, 632 A.2d 1316 (Pa.Super. 1993) (en banc), this Court reiterated that…an occupant other than the owner or lessee of a [residence] [must] demonstrate a significant and current interest in the searched premises in order to establish an expectation of privacy. Govens, 632 A.2d at 1319[.] We further stated that, [f]actors to be considered in determining whether a defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in another person’s home include: (1) possession of a key to the premises; (2) having unlimited access to the premises; (3) storing of clothing or other possessions on the premises; (4) involvement in

- 20 -

J-S24032-23

illegal activities conducted on the premises; (5) ability to exclude other persons from the premises; and (6) expression of a subjective expectation of privacy in the premises.

Bostick, 958 A.2d at 553 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Initially, Appellant contends the Commonwealth conceded and/or did not challenge whether he had an expectation of privacy in the Victim’s home such that his burden to rebut was never triggered. While Appellant is correct that the Commonwealth may concede the defendant has an expectation of privacy, or otherwise not challenge the expectation of privacy such that it waives any objection/challenge thereto for appellate review, such did not occur in the case sub judice. Commonwealth v. Skipper, 277 A.3d 617, 620 (Pa.Super. 2022). Rather, here, in both its response to Appellant’s pre-trial suppression motion, as well as during the suppression hearing, the Commonwealth specifically argued Appellant did not have an expectation of privacy in the Victim’s home on Tully Lane. See Commonwealth Response, filed 1/14/21, at 8-9; N.T., 1/25/21, suppression hearing, at 7.

Appellant next suggests the Commonwealth did not present any evidence demonstrating he lacked an expectation of privacy in the home on Tully Lane, and thus, the burden never shifted to Appellant to persuade the suppression court he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched premises.

In rejecting Appellant’s claim, the suppression court indicated the following:

- 21 -

J-S24032-23

[Appellant] argues that the Commonwealth has failed to fulfill its burden of production in demonstrating that he lacked an expectation of privacy in the [premises searched on Tully Lane]. [Appellant] notes that the Commonwealth failed to present any further testimony or evidence, other than that which was presented at the preliminary hearing,[8] in support of its burden....[Appellant] concludes that his failure to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy is inconsequential because the Commonwealth was unsuccessful in its initial burden of production. We disagree. When [Appellant] was stopped in a stolen vehicle with bank cards and an envelope displaying the Victim’s name, C.I. Sweitzer researched the Victim’s name and found that he lived at the Property [on Tully Lane]. After a first unsuccessful attempt to contact the Victim, C.I. Sweitzer returned the next day and, after the arrival of local law enforcement, entered the Property in order to perform a welfare check on the Victim. [Appellant] was not present at the Property when law enforcement entered the premises. Once inside, C.I. Sweitzer [noticed] the Property [was] disheveled and appeared as if he had been ransacked. Likewise, law enforcement observed that a blue Tesla was still parked in the ____________________________________________

8 To the extent Appellant contends the Commonwealth was not permitted to

introduce the notes of testimony from the preliminary hearing in establishing that Appellant lacked a privacy interest in the Victim’s home, we note Appellant has waived this claim. During the suppression hearing, the following relevant exchange occurred: [ADA]: Your Honor, as a preliminary matter, I have marked the transcript from the Preliminary Hearing as Commonwealth’s Exhibit number 1, and I would move for its admission. THE COURT: [Defense Counsel,] do you have a position with regard to that exhibit? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: [Defense Counsel,] is that the same document that is attached to your motion? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: It is, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Commonwealth’s [Exhibit] 1 is admitted. N.T., 1/25/21, suppression hearing, at 4-5 (bold added). Based on this exchange, Appellant has waived the issue of whether the preliminary hearing transcript was properly admitted during the suppression hearing for purposes of establishing Appellant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the Victim’s home. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

- 22 -

J-S24032-23

garage of the Property….After contacting relatives of the Victim, who could provide no further information on the Victim’s whereabouts, and based on his observation of suspected marijuana [in the Property], C.I. Sweitzer applied for a search warrant that was thereafter approved. Jeffery Neubauer testified that he and his girlfriend returned [a] lost dog to the Property [at or around the time of the Victim’s death, and Appellant] answered the door and took the dog. When asked by Mr. Neubauer’s girlfriend if he was “Dennis,” [Appellant] replied that he was. During a post-arrest interview with Detective Martinez, [when Appellant was shown a photograph of the Property,] [Appellant] initially responded that he did not recognize the Property, but [he] eventually relented, admitting that he had been to the Property, but stating that he was there for a yard sale because he conducts a business where he buys and resells guns, coins, and other odds and ends. [Appellant] claimed to investigators that he was granted access to the Property by an unidentified black male going by “Bu,” who then sold [Appellant] the items later found in the stolen vehicle. Based on the evidence and testimony provided at the preliminary hearing [and] the pre-trial suppression hearing[,] [the court] finds that the Commonwealth did fulfill its burden. C.I. Sweitzer’s research indicated that the Victim resided at the Property. There was no evidence that [Appellant] leased or that he was licensed to occupy any portion of the Property. [Appellant] was not found in possession of a key to the Property. When asked about the Property, [Appellant] initially denied recognition and then only admitted that he had been to the Property [looking for a yard sale] to conduct limited business in purchasing items for resale. While one may [view] [Appellant’s] actions and behavior when Mr. Neubauer and his girlfriend returned the lost dog to the Property as suggestive of some ability to exclude [others] from the premises, his affirmative answer to whether he was the Victim is a clear manifestation that any such ability was solely premised on a falsehood. Finally, Detective Martinez testified that [Appellant] had left a duffle bag with some shoes and a hat at the Property, but this could hardly be construed as [Appellant] storing clothing or other possession at the Property, but mere incidental of the crime alleged. The expectation of privacy must be more than simply subjective but must be reasonable and legitimate. As the [United

- 23 -

J-S24032-23

States Supreme Court] noted in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421 (1978), “[a] burglar plying his trade in a summer cabin during the off season may have a thoroughly justified subjective expectation of privacy, but it is not one which the law recognizes as ‘legitimate.’” Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143 n.12, 99 S.Ct. at 430 n.12. The resolution of this issue depends upon the totality of the circumstances and ultimately rests upon a balancing of the societal interests involved. Having found that the Commonwealth sufficiently satisfied its burden, we now must assess whether [Appellant] has presented any evidence to rebut the lack of an expectation of privacy in the Property. As noted, [Appellant] relies [primarily] on an argument that the Commonwealth failed its burden and acknowledges that he has provided nothing to support his own expectation of privacy in the Property. [Appellant] states…that his “motion must be granted, regardless of whether he could ultimately establish a reasonable expectation of privacy.” [Appellant’s Suppression] Memo at 9. [The trial court] finds this to be unconvincing. Based upon the totality of the circumstances and balancing, as [the trial court] must, the societal interests involved, the [trial] court finds no evidence to demonstrate [Appellant’s] reasonable expectation of privacy in the Property.

Suppression Court Opinion, filed 3/29/21, at 13-15 (footnote added) (some quotation marks and quotations omitted).

We conclude the suppression court’s factual findings are supported by the record, and we find no error in its legal analysis. Yandamuri, supra. The suppression court properly found the Commonwealth produced evidence demonstrating that Appellant lacked a privacy interest in the Victim’s Tully Lane home, and Appellant did not rebut this evidence. For example, the Commonwealth produced evidence the Victim resided in the Tully Lane home, and Appellant had no “significant and current interest” in the home. Govens, 632 A.2d at 1319. As the suppression court determined, Appellant’s

- 24 -

J-S24032-23

connection to the home was in furtherance of committing the crimes at issue, including the burglary and first-degree killing of the Victim. Certainly, any privacy interest Appellant subjectively demonstrated in the Tully Lane home for the purposes of burglarizing the home and killing the homeowner is not an “expectation…that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.” Viall, 890 A.2d at 422. Accordingly, we find the suppression court properly denied Appellant’s suppression motion on the basis he did not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched premises.9

For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence. We direct the parties to attach the trial court’s February 27, 2023, opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.

Affirmed. ____________________________________________

9 Appellant also contends the warrantless search of the Victim’s home was unconstitutional, and all evidence flowing therefrom is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” including evidence later seized upon execution of a search warrant. However, we decline to review these issues. See Enimpah, supra, 106 A.3d at 701-02 (indicating if the evidence of the Commonwealth, the party with the burden of production, shows the defendant lacked a privacy interest, the Commonwealth need prove no more).

- 25 -

J-S24032-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 07/31/2023

- 26 -

Circulated 07/18/2023 11:21 AM

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS BERMS COUNTY : PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA

V. CRIMINAL DIVISION NO. CP-06-CR-0002261-2020

RAPHAEL PEREZ-RODRIGUEZ, : M. THERESA JOHNSON, Appellant. Appellant. :; PRESIDENT JUDGE

1925(a) OPINION 1925() OPINION February 27, 2023

Appellant's Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal. For the Before the court are Appellant's that reasons set forth herein, we find that all alleged errors lack lack merit. merit

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Raphael Perez-Rodriguez Raphael Perez-Rodriguez ("Appellant") (Appellant") was charged with Murder of the First Degree', Degree,

Degree'-,Murder of the Third Degree', Murder of the Second Degree', Degree 3,Burglary', Burglary4,Robbery', Robbery 5,Aggravated

Assault Assault,6,two counts of Receiving Property, Receiving Stolen Property, two counts of Firearms Not to be be Carried

Without aaLicense, License s,Altered, Forged or Counterfeit Documents and Plates, Plates", Abuse of Corpse", Corpse °,

Possession_ of aa Controlled Possession_of Controlled_ Substance!', Substance ) , and and aa summary charge of Drivers Required to 1 to be

Licensed' Licensed!-.The charges charges stemmed from an initial traffic traffic .stop stop of Appellant, which then led to an investigation of the )murder investigation murder of Dennis Fink ("the ("the Victim") and the burglary of the Victim's residence.

Appellant, through Appellant, through Adam Bompadre, Bompadre, Esq. Esq. ("Defense ("Defense Counsel"), filed an omnibus pretrial seeking dismissal of the criminal information and suppression of evidence. A motion seeking A hearing on

January 25, the motion was held on January 25, 2021, and on March 29, 2021, this court denied the motion.

Prior to trial, the Commonwealth moved to withdraw the counts of Altered, Forged or Counterfeit Documents and Plates, Abuse of Corpse, Possession of aaControlled Substance, and Drivers Required to be Licensed. The court granted the dismissal.

The matter proceeded to trial on April 18, 2022. The Commonwealth first called the Victim's son, Michael Fink, who testified that his father was aatwenty-year veteran of the United

States Air Force who lived at 88Tully Lane, in Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Notes of Testimony o£ April Testimony of April 18-20, 2022, Trial Trial "Trial NT." N.T." at 105-06. Mr. Fink further noted that his

father owned aablack Porneranian Pomeranian dog named named "Sophie" and that he drove aaTesla Model SSelectric N.T. at 106-07. Mr. Fink also identified various exhibits, including an Air Force vehicle. Trial N.T, Academy graduation Academy graduation ring, ring, aahigh high school graduation ring, aawedding band, and aaturquoise belt, as

well as insurance documentation for the rings. Id. at 109-10.

Mr. Fink continued that the Victim was active on social media, especially as to the subjects of nutrition and health, including Id. at including on Facebook. Id, at 111-12. Mr. Fink then identified aapost that

the Victim made on July 16, 2020, at 8:37 a.m. Id. at 112.

Eric Koller, an eight-year veteran of the Reading The Commonwealth next called Officer Erie Police Department, Department, who testified that on July 16, 2020, at approximately 7:40 p.m., he was on duty . - - in aamarked patrol patrol vehicle when he observed a ablack Honda CR-V with what what. appeared to be an

altered Minnesota license plate. altered plate. Id. at 118. Officer Koller then initiated aatraffic stop on the Honda

after running running the registration and learning that it was reported stolen out of New Jersey. Id. at 118- later identified as Appellant, exited the vehicle, Officer 19. After the driver of the Honda CR-V, later Koller Koller ordered him to the ground and waited for backup to arrive. Id. at 119. Officer Koller reached reached inside the Honda to turn tuns off the stereo system, which was playing very loud music and when he

did so, he observed aasmall, blue Ziploc bag in awhite powdery in the driver's side door containing a

substance and two knives located between the seat and the door]jamb. doorjamb. Id. at 120.

The officers on scene proceeded to search the Honda. Id. proceeded to Id. Under the driver's seat, they found two loaded handguns handguns--- - aa9mm and aa .38 12.1. in .38 revolver. Id. at 121. In the cargo area of the Honda,

officers found aaRemington model 742 30-06 30-06 rifle, aaWinchester 1400 semiautomatic shotgun, aa

crossbow, asword, CO2 cartridges in an envelope with the Victim's name on the label, and various crossbow,a debit and credit cards in the Victim's name. Id. at 122-23. Appellant was taken into custody and the Honda was towed to the Department's sally port. Id. at 121-23.

Criminal Investigator Eric Sweitzer Investigator Erie Sweitzer ("C.I. (C.I. Sweitzer") of the Reading Police Department next testified that next testified that on July July 16, 2020, Offic 16, 2020, Officer er Koller Koller informed him him tthat during aatraffic stop, hat during stop, several

C.I. Sweitzer performed some items with the Victim's name had been located. Id. at 129-30. C.I research research and found found an individual by by the name of Dennis Fink who lived just outside the City of Reading, in Reading, in Bern Township. Id. at Ber Township. at 130. CI. C.T. Sweitzer and and another criminal investigator, David

Lehman, then traveled to tthe Lehman, he Victim's residence, at 88Tully Lane, Reading, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania ("the ("the Residence") in an attempt to make contact. Id. Id, at 130-31.

As As the investigators investigators pulled pulled into the driveway of the Residence, C.I. Sweitzer noticed that the recycling recycling can was located at the end of the the driveway and that the exterior lights of the Residence were Id. at 132. Upon were on. Id. Upon arriving arriving at at the Residence, CI. C.I. Sweitzer rang the doorbell and and knocked

on the front door several times with no response. Id. 131. After several minutes with no Id, at 13. response, CI. response, C.I. Sweitzer left his business -card in the door in the hopes that someone would contact

him. Id. at 132.

day, after receiving no contact from anyone regarding the Residence, C.I The next day, C.I.

Sweitzer returned retumed to the Residence, with Criminal Investigator Errington and found that his business business card was still stuck in the door, the recycling can was still at the edge of the driveway, the same the same exterior lights lights were on, on, and aapackage package had been delivered. Id. at 133. C.I. Sweitzer also

garage door was slightly ajar, and he could see that there was aavehicle inside observed that the garage garage. Id. the garage. Id. at 133. C.I. Sweitzer knocked on the front door several times, with no response, 133, CL and then moved to the rear of the Residence and knocked on the rear doors, but no one answered. 134. CL. Id. at 134. C.I. Sweitzer then began checking the the doors and windows and found an unlocked door through aascreened-in porch through porch but did not proceed proceed into the house. Id. at 135. 13 5. Instead, C.I. Sweitzer

contacted the contacted the Bera Bern Township Township Police Police Department Department ("Bern P.D."), in (Ber P.D."), in whose whose jurisdiction jurisdiction the the

Residence was located. Id. at 135.

Once aapatrolman Once patrolman from from the Bern P.D. arrived, C.I. Sweitzer, along with the patrolman and C.I. Errington, C.I. Errington, proceeded proceeded to open the door to open door slightly and announced their presence. Id, Id. at 1353)6. 135-36. Hearing response, C.I. Hearing no response, C.I. Sweitzer entered the Residence through the kitchen and observed aasmall

black dog black dog in in aacage cage with aabowl of water and acting acting alert and normal. C.I. Sweitzer normal. Id. at 136. CI. described the Residence as being described being unkept, unkept, with mess and clutter, clutter, but also noted that items looked

out of place. place. Id. C.I. Sweitzer noted that several cabinet doors in the kitchen were left open, and

lights were on in the closets throughout the Residence, and it appeared as if both that the lights both the

had been gone cabinets and the closets had gone tthrough removed. Id. at 136-37. The investigators hrough and items removed. moved into the garage and observed that the lights were on and aablue Tesla was parked in the

garage. Id. at garage. at 137. CL. C.I. Sweitzer testified that he decided to leave and try to to locate a a family member of the Victim, of Victim, but as he was leaving leaving the Residence, he noticed aaduffle bag with aaflat brim brim hat that had aamarijuana marijuana leave embroidered on the hat. Id. at 137, 144. CI. C.I. Sweitzer said that that the hat

caught his caught his eye eye because because it did not fit fit in with the d~cor decor of the Residence and was not something he be would anticipate the Victim having would anticipate having in his his possession. possession. Id. Apart Apart from the hat, hat, CI. C.I. Sweitzer Sweitzer could

glass jars containing suspected marijuana. Id. at 18 also see glass 138.

C.I. Sweitzer then made attempts CL attempts to contact family members of the Victim. Id. However,

none of the family family members he contacted had any information on the Victim's whereabouts. Id. C.I. Sweitzer asked that a a further search of the Honda Honda be be performed and began preparing aasearch began preparing

warrant for the duffle bag at the Residence. Id.

C.I. Sweitzer CI Sweitzer returned later that evening with personnel from the Berks County District

Attorney's Office, Attorney's Office, and before before entering the Residence, he could detect the smell of decomposition

emanating from emanating from. the wooded area behind the Residence. Id. at 139. Sergeant Schade, who who had accompanied C.I. Sweitzer, then accompanied then located the Victim's Victim's decomposing body Id.

Julie Patton next testified that in the summer of 2020, she was living with her partner, Mike Gamber, at Gamber, at 4 4Allison Road in Reading, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, which is to Tully Lane, and that is located next to

she knew the Victim from the neighborhood. neighborhood. Id. at 147-48. Ms. Patton also knew that the Victim

had aasmall, black Schipperke dog. dog. Id. at 148-49.

On the moraing On morning of o£ July July 16, 2020, Ms. Patton noticed the Victim's dog running loose in the 16, 2020,Ms. neighborhood and decided to return the dog with Mr. Gamber. Id. at 149. Arriving at the Residence neighborhood at approximately 9:30 at approximately 9:30 a.m., Ms. Ms. Patton observed that the screens were open and so she began to to

yell yell the the Victim's Victim's name through through the open open windows. Id. Id. at at 149-50. 149-50. Ms. Patton rang the doorbell and knocked on knocked on the door, but the door, response, and she assumed that the but there was no response, the Victim was out looking

for the dog. Id. the dog. Id, at 150. Ms. Patton farther further noticed aadark SUV, SW, that she did not recognize, parked

in the driveway in driveway of the Residence. Id. With no answer, Ms. Patton then took took the dog to her sister, Marilyn Marilyn James' house with instructions to to see if the Victim was.home was home later. Id. at 150-51. Ms.

the Patton noted that she did not notice any yard sales occurring on the morning of July 16, 2020, and

did not see any items on the lawn of the Residence. Id. at 151 151.

Marilyn James, Ms. Marilya James, Ms. Patton's sister and neighbor, knew the Victim from from the neighborhood

and knew that he had aasmall, black Schipperke Schipperke dog. Id. at 153. On July 16, 2020, while at sa

friend's house, house, Ms. James heard from Ms. Patton regarding finding the Victim's dog and her unsuccessful efforts to contact the Victim. Id. at 154. On her way home at at approximately 10:00 10:90

a.m., Ms. a.m., Ms. ,Tames stopped at the Residence to check on the Victim, but when she knocked on the James stopped door, an individual --— aaHispanic male with dark brown hair door, hair - that was not the Victim answered the door. Id. at 154-55. Ms. James described the individual as wearing aat-shirt, aamask, shorts, and either barefooted or wearing wearing flip flip flops. flops. Id. at 156. Ms. James further noted that she knew the

been aafoster parent Victim had been teenagers, so she did not think that the individual was parent to several teenagers, supposed to be at the Residence. Id. She noticed that aadark SUV was parked on the side of not supposed the Residence. Id. at 155.

Ms. James asked the individual if the Victim's dog was missing, and the individual

answered in the affirmative. affinnative. Id. Ms. James then retrieved the dog from her home and returned to

the Residence with the dog, dog, and the individual took the dog from her. Id. She noted that the

eeined "`a dog"seemed exchange when she returned the dog "a little bit weird," weird," as the individual individual only opened the door about forty-five return of the dog. Id. at forty-five degrees and did not seem excited or relieved at the return 157. 157. Ms. James likewise confirmed that she did not see any items on the lawn of the Residence Resdi ence or any yard that any yard sales were occurring in the neighborhood. Id. Id.

Jeffrey Neubauer testified that in July of2020, Jeffrey of 2020, he lived with his partner, Chery! Cheryl Takach, at

1703 Road, in Bern Township, 1703 Golf Road, Township, which is about aablock and aahalf from the the Residence. Id. Id. at 159-60. On the morning 159-60. morning of July July 16, 16, 2020, 2020, Mr. Neubauer was painting painting his front porch porch when two young girls approached young girls approached him with aasmall, small, dark-colored dog and asked if it was his dog. Id. Id, at 160. Mr. Mr. Neubauer did not recognize recognize the dog but took the dog inside and began to figure out the owner dog based on information from the dog's of the dog dog's collar. Id. Id, at 160-61. 160-61. He He was able to find out that dog's owner lived at the Residence, and so he took the dog's took the dog to to the Residence. Id.

As As Mr. Neubauer and Ms. approached the Ms. Takach approached the Residence, Mr. Neubauer Neubauer described the the grass as overgrown grass overgrown with weeds and aaflower bed that looked unkempt. Id, at 161-62. When they

approached and knocked on the door, an individual who Mr. Neubauer described as being aatall, approached

Hispanic man wearing Hispanic wearing beige/white beige/white cargo cargo shorts, aatank top, top, no shoes, and aaball cap, answered the

door. Id. door. at 162. Id. at 162. Mr. Neubauer Neubauer further further noted noted that that the the individual's individual's feet feet appeared to to be be dirty dirty and that

the individual's undergarments undergarments were exposed, exposed, and he could see that the brand of his underwear

Tommy Hilfiger. was Tommy Hilfiger. Id. at 162-63. When the door opened, Mr. Neubauer Neubauer noticed soine items on noticed some the floor the floor including including aabow bow and and arrow arrow and and aacan can of of Mr. Mr. Bubbles Bubbles bathroom bathroom spray spray cleaner. cleaner. Id. at at 164. 164.

Ms. Takach asked the the individual dog was his and the individual individual if the dog individual answered in the the affirmative. Id. at affirmative. at 163. 163. Ms. Ms. Takach Takach then then asked the the individual if he individual if he was Dennis and was Dennis and he stated that he stated that

he was. Id. Id, at 163. Mr. Neubauer stated that he found the exchange odd as the individual did not

grateful to have seem grateful have the dog returned the dog retumed or even aware that the Id. at 164. The the dog was missing. Id, next day, next day, in speaking with in speaking with investigators, investigators, Mr. Mr. Neubauer Neubauer was was presented presented with with aaphoto array lineup photo array lineup

and indicated on aaphotograph photograph of Appellant. Appellant. Id. at 165; Comm.'s Ex. IH. 11.

Timothy Koch testified that in the summer of 2020, he lived at 7 Timothy 7 Allison Road in Bern Ber Township, which Township, which was was next door to next door to the Residence, Residence, and and that he knew that he the Victim, knew the Victim, but not that well. but not well. Id. at 170-71. 170.71. Mr. Koch was not aware that the Victim owned aadog but noticed noticed, aasmall black

animal in his back yard yard on the evening evening of July July 16, 2020.Id. Id. at 171. The next morning, Mr. Koch Koch

saw the same saw same dog dog loose in the neighborhood loose in neighborhood and and nearly nearly ran the dog over the dog over with with his his car. Id. Id.

early evening In the early evening of July July 16, 16, 2020, 2020, Mr. Koch observed someone walking around the

garage of the Residence that he did not recognize. Id. at 172. Mr. Koch described the individual garage as aamale wearing aalight male wearing light blue shirt. Id. Id. Mr. Koch Koch further stated that that he did not not see any items strewn on the lawn as if aayard yard sale were occurring on that day. Id. at 173.

Commonwealth next The Commonwealth next called called Officer Officer Katelyn Katelyn Super Super ("Officer Super"), a (OfSeer Super"), athree-year three-year

veteran veteran of the Reading Police Department, the Reading Department, who testified that on July 16, 2020, at approximately testified that p.m., she was on duty 7:40 p.m., duty when when she responded responded to aatraffic stop stop on aapossible stolen vehicle. Id. at at

175-76. 175-76. When she When she arrived arrived on on scene, scene, Officer Officer Super Super observed observed aablack black Honda Honda CR-V CR-V with with aa

Minnesota license Minnesota license plate plate that that had had aanumber number that had had been Id. at been altered. Id, at 176. 176. Officer Officer Super Super was was tasked with tasked photographing the with photographing the Honda Honda while she and while she and Officer Officer Koller Koller began to search the began to the vehicle. vehicle. Id.

at 177. at 177. The Commonwealth The Commonwealth introduced introduced photographs taken during photographs taken during the the search search into evidence into evidence depicting items depicting items found, including including aabaggie baggie containing containing suspected narcotics, narcotics, aaknife, aacell phone, aa loaded Heckler loaded and Koch Heckler and 9mm handgun, Koch 9mm handgun, aaloaded loaded ..38 38 Special Special revolver, revolver, aabusiness business card card with with the the

Remington rifle, aaWinchester shotgun, aabox containing empty casings and Victim's name on it, aaRemington

shotgun rounds, shotgun rounds, aabag containing containing various boxes of ammunition, aabow and arrow, and aabusiness

card from aaT-Mobile card T-Mobile store in in Paterson, Paterson, New Jersey, Jersey. Id. at at 182.85. 182-85. The evidence evidence was was left left in the the Honda and the vehicle vehicle was then towed to the sally sally port at at City Hall with with an officer escort to ensure Id. at 185. chain of custody. Id,

Ryan Solecki ("Officer Officer Ryan Solecki"), a ("Officer Solecki"), a five-year five-year veteran of the Reading Police Department testified that July Department July 16, 2020, at approximately 8.00 8:00 p.m., he was on duty when he was

dispatched to aatraffic stop dispatched stop in progress. progress. Id. at I88-89, 188-89. Arriving Arriving on scene, Officer Solecki observed

aaHonda Honda CR-V CR-V that that was was being searched by by officers officers on on scene, scene, and and he saw that that the the driver driver had had been

sitting on the sidewalk. Id. Officer Solecki described the inside of the vehicle removed and was sitting appearing as appearing as if someone had if someone had been living in been living in the vehicle, with the vehicle, with aalot tot of of objects, objects, and and he he specifically specifically

bags.. Id. at 189. After the search had been completed, Officer remembered two Army green duffel bags. Solecki was tasked Solecki tasked with with watching watching the Honda Honda as the towing company the towing company hitched hitched the the vehicle vehicle and then then

following as the vehicle was following was transported back sally port at City Hall, and back to the sally and then secured in the

garage. Id. at garage. at 189-90. 189-90.

Criminal, Investigator Criminal Investigator Steve Steve Valdez Valdez ("C.I. ("C.I Valdez"), eight-year veteran Valdez"), an eight-year of the veteran of Reading the Reading Police Department, Police testified that Department, testified that on on July July 17, 17, 2020, 2020, he he was was contacted contacted by C.T. Sweitzer by C.I. Sweitzer to to assist assist in in

investigation, and an investigation, and to accompany accompany Officer James Yeasted in the search of aablack black Honda Honda CR-V in the the garage garage at at City City Hall. Hal. Id. at 191-92. Id. at 191-92. During During this search, C.I. Valdez Valdez found several knives, found several knives, aa machete, machete, and several financial cards with the Victim's Victim's name on them. Id. at 194-95. 194-95,

The Commonwealth next called Dr. Neil Hoffman, M.D. M.D. ("Dr. ("Dr. Hoffman"), who was qualified as an expert qualified expert in the field of forensic pathology. pathology. Id. at 211-16. Dr. Hoffman performed an

autopsy on the Victim on July 19,2020, autopsy 19, 2020,- and produced aareport of the autopsy, which was submitted

Id., at 216-17; Comm.'s Ex. 116. Dr. Hoffman's autopsy report indicated that the into evidence. Id. Victim's death Victim's death was caused by was caused by exsanguination, exsanguination, or or bleeding outside of bleeding outside of the the body, internal body, and internal bleeding due to bleeding due multiple stab wounds, to multiple wounds, with contributory factors of with contributory of cardiomyopathy cardiornyopathy and and osteopenia. osteopenia.

Id. at 218-19. Id. at 218-19. Dr. Dr. Hoffman Hoffman explained explained that that cardiomyopathy cardiomyopathy is aadisease disease with with multiple in multiple causes, in which "the which heart muscle "the heart ceases to muscle ceases to function function normally and its normally and its contraction contraction are are not not as as efficient." efficient." Id. at at

219. Dr. Hoffman further noted that aacontributory contributory cause meant that the condition "didn't the condition didn't really start the cascade of causation in this case, in this case, but probably means that [the but probably [the Victim] was less able to defend himself from the person person who was wielding wielding the knife or wielding the weapon," and that the

Victim "was less able to withstand the effects of the of those injuries that were inflicted by the weapon." Id. Likewise, Dr. Hoffman described osteopenis weapon." osteopenia as aacondition in which which "the "the bones have protein, and where they become more easily fractured." Id. at 220. Dr. less calcium and less protein, Hoffman continued that the injuries injuries he observed included stab wounds that penetrated into bone,

which then tore into the pleural cavity on the right side of the Victim's chest. Id. This pleural cavity This "allowed

bleeding into the inside of the chest[,] which would [sic] bleeding [sic] made it it more immediately effective or to

disable and kill the man." Id.

Dr. Hoffman then explained explained that generally, generally, he will list the injuries to aavictim in order of

severity. Id. severity. injury was aaright I. The first injury right to left stab wound to the Victim's chest in the area above the collar the collar bone right side with "a bone on the right "awound path path that went into the the base base of the the neck and then then behind the collar bone and sternum," and into the topmost area of the chest. Id. at 221. This jab sliced one of the sliced largest arteries supplying the largest supplying blood to to both and brain and both the neck and and caused aacomplex complex:

fracture to to the collarbone and right right first first nib. rib. Id. The injury would also also result in blood from the cut

artery to artery cavity. Id. The next wound to the Victim was aastab wound to the left front to fill the chest cavity. side of the the neck neck that punctured the Victim's that punctured Victim's larynx and would would have have impeded his his ability to to breathe. Id. right. Id. at 223. The third Id, at 222-23. This wound was oriented left to right. third wound was aaslice to

the the Victim's cheek that "perforated the very that "perforated very thin bone of the the maxilla." maxilla." Id. Id, at 224. 224. The wound was was deep and oriented left to right. Id. deep

The fourth stab stab wound was to the back of the left side of the chest and was transversely

oriented, meaning oriented, meaning that it "went slightly it "went slightly from left to right but upward upward as well." Id. at 224-25. This wound wound fractured the Victim's tenth rib. Id. at 225. The fifth wound to the Victim was to to the area

below below the left collarbone. Id. at 225-26. The stab "proceeded approximately three inches down the left side of the the chest," and into the musculature of the chest. Id. at 226. The Victim's sixth wound was aastab wound to the lower chest area that moves from front to back. Id. The stab sliced between between the sixth and seventh rib and into the pleura that lines the chest cavity but did not go into the lung. lung. Id. Dr. Hoffman clarified that the direction of the different wounds --— that there are multiple angles multiple angles and positions positions -— is indicative of one or both bodies being in motion at the time of

infliction. Id. ld.

explained that the injuries he observed would have resulted in both external Dr. Hoffman explained bleeding. Id, and internal bleeding. Id, at 226-27. Dr. Hoffman Hoffman also noted that there there was blunt impact observed

resulting in resulting in aafracture to the left left forearm, forearm, which is most commonly caused by aaperson trying to break their break their fall to the ground. Id. at to the at 227. 227. Dr. Hoffman also noted Hoffman also noted that there were that there were abrasions abrasions to to the the

hands and hands and to the knees of the Victim. Id. M. at 227-28. While he could not determine conclusively

which abrasions to which to the Victim's hands may have hands may Hoffinan stated have been caused postmortem, Dr. Hoffman stated.that that. the the knee abrasions occurred before death and were consistent with the Victim moving his legs across aarough across rough surface surface as as aaresult of either result of either falling or being falling or being pushed or by pushed or having someone by having someone on on top top of of

him. Id, him. Id. at at 228-29. Dr. Hoffman also found abrasions on the Victim's chest that were consistent

with falling falling or being pushed and were large areas of irregularities that would result from bushes bushes,, branches, or rocks. Id. branches, or Icy. at at 229. 229. Dr. Hoffman continued that Hoffman continued that the the abrasions abrasions suggest suggest that the the Victim Victim

had both had both fallen and then was moving across aarough was moving rough surface. Id. at 230. The Victim also had

evidence of bruising chest .and bruising of the chest and fracturing fracturing of ribs that "were caused by heavyweight or an impact being impact being placed placed on the front of the chest or with aaheavyweight or impact impact on the back of the

being supported by the ground." Id, chest with the chest being Id. at 231.

Finally, Dr. Hoffman. Finally, Hoffman described that the Victim's body body was was in aa state of moderate decomposition and that there was extensive maggot decomposition activity in many of the wounds. Id. at 231-32. maggot activity Based on the maggot Based on activity, and other information maggot activity, regarding body and scene conditions, Dr. information regarding Hoffinan opined that the Victim's Hoffman opined death occurred approximately Victim's death approximately 30 30 to to 48 48 hours prior prior to the to the discovery of the body. discovery body. Id. at 233. Dr. Dr. Hoffman postulated, based in part on information provided postulated, base by law by law enforcement, enforcement, that the time of death of the Victim was between 845 8:45 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on 12.00p.m. July 16,2020.Id. July 16, 2020. Id. Moreover, Moreover, toxicology indicated "negative for various drugs or substances toxicology results indicated of abuse." Icl. Id. at 234.

Dr. Hoffman Dr. Hoffinan acknowledged acknowledged on cross-examination that he was was not provided any of the knives knives from from the Victim's' home to compare compare against against the stab wounds. Id. at 245. However, Dr.

Hoffman concluded that the stab wounds were caused by Hoffman by "a "a sharp-edged instrument like aaknife. It had It had aablade length on the order of three inches. blade length inches, The blade width was approximately one half

Id. at 246. inches long." Id, Sarah Kase, Sarah Kase, aaserologist serologist with with the Bethlehem Bethlehem Crime Crime Lab of of the Pennsylvania State the Pennsylvania State Police, Police, next testified that next testified that she "analyze[s] "analyze[s] items of evidence items of evidence in serology for in serology for the presence of the presence of body fluids; fluids; mainly bloods, mainly semen, saliva, bloods, semen, saliva, feces, and urine," and that she "prepare[s] probative samples for

DNA and have those sent to the DNA lab. Id. at 248. She also noted that she will examine hairs to determine whether they are animal or human. Id.

Ms. Kase then testified to the report that she authored regarding various items of evidence

that were collected and sent to her for testing and analysis. Id. at 249-50; Comm.'s Ex. 119. Ms. Kase first concluded that aaswab from from the basement sliding glass door of the Residence and aadried sample from blood sample from. the Victim were not processed for serology and were repackaged solely for

DNA DNA testing. at 253. testing. Id. at 253. Ms. Kase next concluded that chemical testing testing indicated the presence of blood on the Victim's left-hand fingernail. Id. at 254. On the Victim's Victim's right-hand fingernail sample, there was insufficient quantity sample, quantity of the sample to conduct testing as to the identification of

blood, blood, but debris. Id. at 257-58. but Ms. Kase did identify insect-like debris.

Ms. Kase concluded that a a black and orange face mask found at the Residence was tested and confirmed the presence presence of saliva on the mask. Id. at 258. Ms. Kase testified that there was an insufficient quantity insufficient quantity of of aasample sample on on aapair pair of of blue and black blue and black gloves gloves to to conduct confirmatory confirmatory testing testing

for blood and the sample was was packaged 25.9. There were blood stains identified packaged for return. Id. at 259. on the heel and bottom left side and shoelaces of aaleft foot Adidas Boost sneaker and samples samples. analysis. Id. at 259-60. No blood was detected on the blade or were swabbed and sent for DNA analysis. handle.of handle of aakitchen kitchen knife, aafolding another knife that were collected, but swabs were folding knife, and anoter made and forwarded for DNA analysis. Id. at 260-61. Chemical testing indicated the presence of blood was detected on the zipper zipper area, front leg area, and back right pocket of Appellant's shorts,

but there was an insufficient quantity quantity of the sample to conduct further testing for identification. Id.

at 261. Chemical testing testing on aablue Versace shirt shirt likewise indicated the presence of blood on the

outside front and inside left sleeve cuff, but the sample was insufficient for identification of blood. Id. at 262. Kase explained Ms. Kase explained that even where there was an insufficient sample for blood

identification, the samples identification, samples were repackaged repackaged and forwarded forwarded as DNA testing and analysis may still

be be performed performed on the sample. Id.

Officer James Yeasted, Yeasted, aaten-year ten-year veteran of the Reading Police Department Department testified testified that that he is detailed to the the crime scene unit, which which entails processing evidence and responding to major homicide and shootings homicide and shootings cases, cases. Id. at 273-74. On July 17, 2020, Officer Yeasted was was contacted by

C.I. Sweitzer CL Sweitzer regarding regarding an an ongoing ongoing investigation and requested investigation and Officer Yeasted requested Officer Yeasted to to assist assist in in

conducting aasearch of aaHonda CR-V. Id. conducting Id. at 274. Officer Yeasted and Criminal Investigator Steve

Valdez conducted the search search, of the Honda. Id. Officer Yeasted described the Ofieer the protocol of the search, including search, taking photographs including taking photographs of the exterior beginning at the driver's side and then proceeding and do proceeding counterclockwise around the vehicle and do the same thing thing again with the doors to the

vehicle opened. Id. Once photographs vehicle opened. photographs are taken, collection of evidence will begin. Id. at 275.

Officer Yeasted described the interior of the Honda as being very cluttered. Id. Id, The Commonwealth then introduced photographs Commonwealth photographs taken during the search of the Honda. Id, Id. at 277;

Exs. 39-103. Comm.'s Exs, 39-103. During During the search of the Office Yeasted testified that they found the Honda, Ofice one knife underneath the driver's side seat, seat, and another jammed in the side, aapurple Metro T-

Mobile Mobile bag bag in the rear driver's side, aagreen green military style bag in the passenger rear seat, aacell

phone phone in the center console area, aapicture of an Egyptian frame on the rear passenger floor. Id. at 278-79; 278-79; Comm.'s Exs. A metal Es. 41-47. A metal box was found on the front passenger seat, seat, which contained

various papers and coins. Id. Id, at 279; Comm.'s Exs. 49-50.

laptops were Boxes of ammunition and two laptops were found found on the rear rear seat, with laptops with one of the laptops having aasticker having sticker with the Victim's name name on it. Id, Id. at 280; Comm.'s Exs. 56.-60. 56-60. AA beige pouch was found found in in the interior of the driver's side door that contained aakey holder with the Victim's name on it. Id, on Id. at 281; 281; Comm.'s Exs. 63-64. In the same door pocket, Officer officer Yeasted located a a rifle cartridge and aaspent cartridge spent cartridge cartridge underneath the driver's side seat. Id, Id. at 281-82; Comm.'s Ex. 66,

68. Business 68. Business cards with the Victim's name and address on them were located in in the driver's side door as well. Id. at 282; Comet's. Exs. 69-70. 282; Comm's. 69-70. A A machete in aasheath was found on the floor of the

front driver's side area. Id.; Comm.'s Exs. 71-72.

In In the the rear hatch trunk of the Honda were found aanight stick with baton, aawooden model plane, plane, aadigital digital camera, camera, and aamanilla envelope envelope with the Victim's name printed on the side. Id. at at

282-83; Comm.'s Exs. 282-83; 73-78. Inside of the envelope were found three credit cards and aadebit Exs, 73.78. card with the Victim's name on them and CO2 cartridges. Id. at 283-84; Comm.'s Ex. 79-81. A card A

carpet knife, carpet knife, two arrows, aasword, and aacrossbow were also found in the trunk, trunk. Id. at 284-85; Comm.'s Exs. 83.89. 83-89. Two Two bags bags -— one red and one tan -— were found found in the trunk of the Honda. Id Id.

at 285-86; at 285-86; Comm.'s Exe. Exs. 92-92. 92-92. A A box box found was was- found in the rear rear passenger side that that contained contained

pistol magazines and shotgun cartridges. Id. at 286; Comm.'s Exs. 93-94. two pistol

I1

A notebook found in the front passenger A passenger glove box included the Victim's name inside. Id. at 286; 286; Comm.'s Exs. 95-96. On the floor of the front passenger area was aaBlue Cross'Blue Cross/Blue Shield

of Texas card with the the Victim's name on it. it. Id.; Comm.'s Ex$. Exs. 100-01.

Officer Yeasted testified that two days later, on July 19, 2020, he met with Detectives Martinez, Martinez, Shade, and Rentschler of the Berks County Detectives Office, and Bern Ber Township Sergeant Brett Forry Detective Sergeant Fony in the evidence section. Id. at 287-88. At that time, time, the three three knives found in the Honda were relinquished into the control of the detectives. Id.

On July 28, 2020, Officer Yeasted examined the the contents of the bags found in the Honda. Id. at 294. In the red bag, Officer Yeasted found aahatchet, first aid kit, cell phone, flip phone, binoculars, several wristwatches, and two compasses. compasses. Id. at 295; Comm.'s Ex. 105. Miscellaneous

items, including aatoy airplane, two straight-edge knives, and three folding knives, were found in the beige beige bag retrieved from the Honda. Id. Exs. 106-107. Id, at 295; Comm.'s EKs. 106-1 , 07. In the the green duffel bag bag with the Victim's last name on it were found various boxes of firearm ammunition, television remotes, and toy toy planes. Cormn.'s Exs. 108-110. On August 5, 2020, Officer Yeasted planes. Id. at 296; Comm.'s and his supervisor met with Detectives Martinez and Shade at the evidence section to transfer all items collected as evidence from the Honda. Id. at 297-98.

Officer Yeasted further described two cell phones phones that were found during the search of the

Honda. Id. at 299-300. The first was aagray LG cell phone that was found on the front dash of the phone tbat Id, at 299, 303; Comm.'s Ex. 236. The second was aablack cell phone with aagray cover Honda. Id. that was found on the two cup cup holders attached to the center console of the Honda. Id. at 300, 303;

Comm.'s Ex. 237.

Fasolka ("Sergeant Sergeant Andrew Fasolka Fasolka"), a ("Sergeant Fasolka"), asix-year veteran of the Berks County

Sheriffs Department, Sheriff's Department, testified that on July 16, 2020, he was working in the booking center of the Sherriff soffice when Appellant Sheriff's Appellant was processed through. Id, Id. at 307-09; Comm.'s Ex. 122. Sergeant

Fasolka continued that, that, as part part of the booking booking process, an inventory was taken of the personal

Appellant had items Appellant had on his person, person, which which included aabelt, aawatch, four rings, four necklaces, one hat, hat, one toilet cleaner pack, pack, one lighter, lighter, one MP3 player, one set set of keys, miscellaneous papers,

pin, and one tie pin, and $15.25 $ 15.25 in cash and coins. Id. at 309; Comm.'s Ex. 122.

Sergeant Gerardo Vega Sergeant Vega ("Sergeant ("Sergeant Vega"), Vega"), aathirty-year law enforcement veteran, and aa detective with County Detectives' Office testified that on July 17, 2020, he with the Berks County he responded

to to aacall at 88Tully Tully Lane in Bern. Ber Township, Berks County, where he was briefed as to attempts to ascertain items ascertain items in the stolen vehicle that Appellant Appellant was driving at the time of his arrest. Id. at 311- 12. Sergeant 12. Sergeant Vega Vega proceeded proceeded to to.the SherriffsOffice where he seized the clothing the Berks County Sheriffs that Appellant that Appellant was was wearing wearing at the the time of his arrest for evidence purposes. Id. at 312. At At the time, Sergeant Vega Sergeant Vega tools photographs depicting took photographs depicting Appellant in in the clothing that was later seized. Id. at

313-14; 240. The clothing 313-14; Comm.'s Ex. 240, clothing seized included aablack muscle shirt, aapair pair of tan/beige tan/beige shorts, aapair shorts, flip flops, pair of flip flops, and later, later, aapair light blue Tommy Hilfiger underwear. Id. at 313-18. pair of light

On August On August 11, 2020, after applying 11, 2020, applying for for and receiving aasearch warrant, Sergeant Vega

proceeded to the Berks County proceeded County Jail System System (`BCJS"), (BCJS"), where Appellant was being held, and seized the items that were collected upon the upon his arrest. Id. at 321. Sergeant Vega specified that one of the

rings seized was an Air Force graduation rings graduation ring ring and another was aahigh school graduation ring, along with aaU.S. Air Force hat. Id, Id. at 323-24. The set set of keys seized from Appellant included key fobs

for aaFord and aaTesla motor motor vehicle. at 326. Sergeant Vega further vehicle, Id. at further noted noted that that while while the device seized was listed as an MP3 player, seized player, it was actually aarecorder. Id. at 329. Sergeant Vega stated stated

that the Tesla key that key fob was transferred to Detective Martinez to determine whether the fob was

associated with the Tesla at the Victim's Residence. Id. at 331. Sergeant Vega observed that they did activate the Tesla at the Residence. Id.

lsam Al-Barghouthy testified that around July 14, 2020, he Isam A!-Barghouthy he lived lived at 14 River Road, Road,

Elmwood Park, New Jersey, and that he owned aa2011 Honda CR-V and aa2006 Toyota Camry. Id. 338-39. Mr. Id, at 338.-39. Mr. Al-Barghouthy A!-Barghouthy stated that he purchased the Honda approximately six to eight months months prior placed his prior in New York and that he placed his Minnesota Minnesota license license plates Id. at plates on the Honda. Id. at.

339. Mr. 339. Mr. A-Barghouthy Al-Barghouthy had had lived lived in in Minnesota for for seventeen years had planned on moving years and had back, so he registered back, registered the Honda in Minnesota. 339-40. On the evening of July 14, 2020, Minnesota, Id. at 339-40, Mr. Al-Barghouthy Mr. Al-Barghouthy came home late and parked parked the Honda, which his son had just cleaned, in his driveway. Id. at driveway. at 340. The next moming, morning, on July 15, 2020, he noticed that the Honda was gone and

immediately reported immediately reported it stolen. Id. at at 340-41. Mr. Al-Barghouthy Al-Barghouthy also testified that the license testified that plate plate that he had on the Honda ended in aa9. Id. Al-Barghouthy stated that when he Id, at 341. Mr. AF-Barghouthy last drove the Honda, Honda, there were no weapons, including firearms or knives, inside of the vehicle. Id. at 341-32.

of 2020, she resided in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Anne Traceski testified that in July of2020, with her husband, Thomas, and her son, son, Nathan. Id. at 344-45. Ms. Traceski stated that she was

unfamiliar with the Residence and did not know the Victim. Id. at 345. In October of 2021, the County Detectives' Office contacted Ms. Traceski regarding the faet Berks County fact that her Google

account had appeared in aasearch warrant. M. had appeared Id. at 344. Ms. Ms. Traceski testified that on July 16, 2020, walking the she had been walking the trails around the Reading Museum the Reading at 345-46. After Museum with her son. Id. at walking walking the trail, trail, Ms. Ms. Traceski and her son went her son eat at went to eat at Elevation Burger. Id, Elevation Burger. Id. at at 346. 346.

Sergeant Albert Schade Sergeant Schade ("Sergeant ("Sergeant Schade"), aatwenty-three-year veteran of the Berks Berks County Forensic Services Unit, County Unit, testified that on July 17, 2020, he he proceeded to the the Residence with regarding the investigation C.I. Sweitzer regarding investigation of recovered property. property. Id. at 349.50, 349-50. Upon arrival, they

proceeded door, where Sergeant proceeded to the back door, Sergeant Schade stated that he "smelled something

decomposing in decomposing the back." in the back." Id. at at 350. 350. As As aaresult result.of detecting the of detecting the odor, odor, Sergeant Sergeant Schade Schade and and C.I C.I.

Sweitzer started Sweitzer started down down aafoot trail in the back trail in back yard yard that that led led toward the river. toward the at 351. river. Id. at 351. They They located located

along the left side of the trail situated approximately ten feet from the property the Victim's body along and about line and about ninety-six ninety-six feet from from the Residence. Residence. Id, Id. at at 351-52. 351-52. Once Once the the Victim's Victim's body was was

located, Sergeant located, Sergeant Schade Schade called called Lieutenant Lieutenant Shenk Shenk and and had had the the Reading Police contact Reading Police contact the Berks Berks Coroner. Id. County Coroner. Id. at 352. at 352.

Sergeant Schade described the body Sergeant body as being by bamboo and indicated that there being covered by had been had been significant significant insect insect damage damage to to the the face and chest. Id. To face and To identify identify the the body, they they took took aa print of the Victim's right print right thumb that was later verified through aafingerprint card from the

Victim's military military service. Id. at 351-52. The Victim's body was then removed from the Residence. Id. at 352.

Sergeant Schade Sergeant Schade retumed returned to to the the Residence Residence on on July July 18, 18, 2020, 2020, for processing of for processing of the the scene. scene.

Id. at Id. at 357. 357. Sergeant Sergeant Schade Schade described described the Residence Residence to be unkempt unkempt and stated that that it it looked as if if

it had not been cleaned in aawhile. Id. Further, Sergeant Sergeant Schade noted that the Residence appeared to to have been ransacked have been ransacked with dresser drawers with dresser drawers pulled out and pulled out and items items thrown on the thrown on the floor floor in in the the

bedrooms. Id. at 357.58. bedrooms. Id, 357-58. Sergeant Sergeant Schade testified that while processing the while processing the scene, he he did not find find blood evidence blood evidence inside inside of of the the Residence. Id. at at 358-59. While outside 358-59. While outside of of the the Residence, Sergeant Residence, Sergeant Schade observed that aagarden garden hose on the steps steps that was leaking. Id, Id. at 361. During Sergeant

testimony, the Commonwealth presented Schade's testimony, presented photographs that he he took during his processing

scene while Sergeant of the scene Sergeant Schade narrated the descriptions of the the descriptions the photographs. photographs. Id. at 359-73; Comi- n.'s Exs. 150-234, Comm.'s 150-234. When asked what he was specifically specifically looking looking f for ro during his walkthrough, Sergeant Schade responded: Sergeant responded: "I I was was looking looking for anything broken, furniture that was for anything was out of place, place, or IIwas looking for was looking for blood. So IIdidn't didn't know if he was shot or whatever, whatever, So IIwas looking looking for casings, I casings, I was looking looking for anything anything that would have given given me aasign sign of where the homicide actually

happened." Id. happened." Sergeant Schade continued that he had not found anything of interest. Id, at 373-74. Sergeant 374. Id. at 374,

Sergeant Schade testified that he collected aapair Sergeant pair of Adidas Boost shoes and the black and orange facemask orange faceinask from the Residence. 375-77. After learning Residence. Id. at 375.-77, learning of the autopsy results, Sergeant

Schade returned to the the Residence to search for possible knives, but no weapons were found at the Residence. Id. at 379-81, 379-81. Furthermore, no indicia of blood was found at the Residence. Id. at 381.

Sergeant Schade also met with Officer Yeasted Sergeant YYeasted and collected collected the evidence retrieved from the

379-80. search of the Honda. Id. at 379.80.

July 23, 2020, Sergeant On July Sergeant Schade, along along with Detective Rentschler, conducted aasearch of the Honda at the forensics lab garage. garage. Id. Id, at 383-84. During.the During the search of the Honda, they collected aablue Versace shirt, which Sergeant Sergeant Schade believed might might had blood evidence on it, aa bag containing Metro T-Mobile bag containing various items belonging belonging to the registered owner of the Honda, and the registered aapaper paper receipt receipt for Appellant Appellant for an LG Aristo Aristo_4 phone activated on July 15, 2020. Id. at 385- 4 cell phone 86.

Kyle Rentschler ("Detective Detective Kyle (Detective Rentschler"), aatwo-year veteran of the Berks Berks County Detective's Officer who has been in law enforcement for twenty-two years, testified that County July 17, on July 2020, he was called to the Residence by 17, 2020, Sergeant Schade to process the crime scene. by Sergeant at 399. Id. at Detective Rentschler 399. Detective Rentschler took took photographs photographs at at the the Residence along with Residence along Sergeant Schade. with Sergeant Schade.

Id. at 401-02. Detective Rentschler also assisted in sealing sealing the Victim's body in in the body bag and

noted that the Victim's left wrist was either dislocated or broken. Id. at 404.

The next The next day, day, on on July July 18, 2020, Detective 18, 2020, Detective Rentschler Rentschler returned returned to the Residence to the Residence with with Sergeant Schade and took further photographs Sergeant photographs of the Residence. Id. at 404-07. Included therein were photographs panel and door chime that were ripped photographs of the alarm panel ripped off of the wall and laying

on the floor. Id. at 406-07; Comm.'s Exs. 261-265. While at the Residence, Detective Rentschler noted that noted that the the garage garage doors doors were were unlatched unlatched so so that that the the doors doors could could be be opened opened freely, freely. Id. at at 408-09. 408-09.

Detective Rentschler further observed tthat hat the Residence appeared very messy and dirty and that it looked like items had been rummaged it rummaged through, that closets and drawers drawers were opened, and clothes

409. Detective Rentschler also pulled aapartial palmprint and swabbed were strewn about. Id at 409, DNA from aasliding sliding glass glass door in the the basement. Id. at 410 410.

July 19, On July 19, 2020, 2020, Detective Rentschler returned to the Residence with Sergeant Schade to

search for blood or other related evidence. Id. Id. at 411. However, they found no such evidence. Id. Id. Detective Rentschler also Detective Rentschler also participated participated in in the the search search of of the the Honda Honda during during which which he collected the he collected blue Versace shirt with suspected blood on it. Id. at 412-13.

On July On July 21, 2020, Detective Rentschler, along with Sergeant Schade, reviewed and took

farther photographs further photographs of the collected evidence .form the Residence and the Honda at the forensic science unit. Id. at 414. A Baylor 414. A Baylor college college of medicine bag was recovered from the kitchen at at the

Residence that contained aapair pair of Adidas sneakers, aapiece of scuba gear, binoculars, aasock, aacell

phone, phone, aaCrown Royal Royal bag, bag, a a possible possible hard drive, and aabottle of suspected marijuana. Id. at 415- 16: Detective Rentschler took aacloser photograph 16. photograph of of suspected blood blood on the heel heel of the Adidas sneaker. Id. sneaker. at 415; Id. at 415; Comm.'s Comm.'s Ex. Ex.. 273. 273. A red and A red and black black hat hat with with aadepiction depiction of of aamarijuana leaf marijuana leaf was also in the bag. Id. at 417-18. A bag. Id, A wallet was found and photographed, which included aadebit card, aacredit card, card, card, blank checks, aavehicle vehicle registration card, aaMedicare insurance card, card, and aa

USAA vehicle insurance card for aa2017 Tesla all in the Victim's name. Id. at 416-17; Comm.'s Exs. photographing the evidence, Detective Rentschler testified that he secured Exes. 276-281. After photographing the evidence in proper proper packaging packaging as per protocol. Id. 417-19. Id. at 417-19

On cross-examination, Detective Rentschler admitted that examined the alarm panel for fingerprints but fingerprints but found no latent prints. prints. Id. Id. at 422. Detective Rentschler further reiterated that after testing throughout testing throughout the Residence, both inside and and outside, there were no signs of blood found. Id.

at 423-24.

Taylor Richart, Taylor Richart, a DNA scientist with the Pennsylvania State Police, who was a forensic DNA' 13

qualified as an expert qualified expert in DNA profiling, first explained the process of extracting DNA from from bodily

fluids. Id. at 432-36. Ms. Richart produced aalab lab report based on her analysis of samples provided, including aadried blood sample including sample from the Victim, aabuccal swab from Appellant, two swabs from

'peox 13 yribonucleic Acid Deoxyribonucleic Acid.

16.

the basement sliding sliding glass glass door, left- and right-hand right-hand fingernail fingernail clippings from the Victim, aapiece orange and black mask, aaswab from of the orange from the heel of the Adidas sneaker, two swabs from inside tongue of the Adidas sneaker, swabs from the blade and handle of the kitchen knife heel and tongue collected, swabs from the blade and handle collected, handle of another knife collected, swabs from the the blade and handle of handle of the the folding knife collected, folding krife collected, aapiece piece of of the the zipper zipper area area from from the the shorts shorts Appellant Appellant was was wearing, and wearing, and aapiece cut from piece cut from the the blue Versace shirt. blue Versace shirt. Id. at 439-42, Id. at 439-42.

Ms. Richart Ms. Richart first first noted noted that that the the swabs swabs received from the received from the blade of the blade of the kitchen kitchen knife, the

blade of the blade of the second second knife, knife, the the blade and handle blade and of the handle of the folding folding knife, and the knife, and the basement basement sliding sliding glass glass

provided an insufficient quantity door provided quantity of DNA. Id. at 444-45. Therefore, she was not able to

provide provide an interpretable profile based on the samples provided. interpretable profile provided. Id.

Ms. Richart continued that the nail clippings clippings from both the left and right hand of the Victim

were matched to the DNA profile profile of the Victim. Id. at 445. This confirmed that the samples were

provided from provided from the same person. the same person. Id.

Next, Ms. Richart concluded that the sample Nert, sample from the black and orange mask provided aa

DNA DNA profile profile consistent with aamixture of two individuals. Id, Id. at 44546. 445-46. Moreover, Appellant

could not be excluded as aapotential could indicating that it is potential contributor indicating is 130 octillion" octillion more likely that 14

it originated it originated from from Appellant and another Appellant and another unknown unknown individual individual than from two unknown than from unknown persons. persons. Id. Plainly, Ms. Richart at 446. Plainly, Richart indicated that that his meant meant that it was was highly likely that Appellant was one of one of the contributors to the contributors to the DNA DNA profile. profile. Id. at at 447. 447. It It was further determined was further determined that that the the Victim Victim could not be included as aacontributor. Id.

Next, the swab from the heel and left side of the left Adidas sneaker yielded aaresult that Next, Appellant nor the Victim could be excluded as contributors to the profile. Id. It was neither Appellant determined that the Victim was 110 octillion more times likely aacontributor and Appellant was 1.5 million times 1.5million times more more likely likely aacontributor contributor than than either either individual individual against against two two unknown individuals. unknown individuals. Id. at Id, at 447.48. 447-48. Likewise, Likewise, there there were results consistent were results consistent with with aaprofile profile from from four four individuals individuals derived derived

samples from the inside heel and tongue from the samples tongue of the the Adidas sneaker and both both Appellant and the Victim the could not Victim could not be excluded as be excluded as contributors. contributors. Id, Id. at at 449. 449. The The profile profile was 60 billion was 60 billion times times more more

Ms. Richart explained that an octillion is a number followed by twenty-seven zeros. 14 Ms. Richart explained that an octillion is anumber followed by twenty-seven zeros.

likely to have originated likely originated from the Victim and 20 octillion times more likely to have originated

from Appellant from Appellant than from either contributor with three other unknow individuals. Id.

The swab The swab from from the handle of the kitchen knife knife yielded aaDNA prolife consistent with three

Id. at 450. Appellant individuals. Id, Appellant was determined to be 26 sextillion' sextillion more times likely aa t5

contributor, to the profile contributor profile than against three unknown individuals. than against The Victim could individuals. Id. The could not be not be included as aacontributor. Id. Id. A sample from the second knife A sample knife was consistent with aaDNA profile

consistent with two individuals. Id. Id, at 450-51. Appellant could not be excluded as aacontributor with aafactor of 68 billion more times likely he was aacontributor than against two unknown individuals. Id. at 450. The Victim could not be included as aacontributor. Id. at 451. Also included sample swab was an additional allele, but Ms. Richart stated that there was insufficient DNA in the sample material to to interpret interpret results. Id. at 450-51 450-51.

sample from the pair The cut sample pair of shorts yielded aaDNA profile profile consistent with aamixture of three individuals. Id. Both Appellant three Appellant and the Victim could not be excluded as contributors. Id. at

Richart noted that the analysis of the shorts sample was distinct because Appellant was 451. Ms. Richart in possession of the shorts when they in possession they, were collected, so so he was assumed assumed as aacontributor to the

Id. at 451-52. DNA profile. Id,

sample from the blue Versace polo The sample tested and aaDNA profile consistent with polo shirt was tested aamixture of two individuals was obtained. Id. at 452. Appellant and the Victim could not not be

as contributors. Id. The profile indicated that it excluded as it was 85 octillion times times more likely to have originated originated from the Victim and an unknown individual, and 4.9 million more times likely to to

originated from Appellant have originated Appellant and an unknown individual than as against against two unknown

individuals. Id.

Jennifer Bracamontes, aaDNA analyst with Cybergenetics, aaPittsburgh-based technology company that specializes company specializes in in computer DNA analysis and probabilistic genotyping, who was

qualified as an expert qualified expert in DNA analysis, analysis, testified that Cybergenetics uses TrueAllele, which "a which is "a computer system computer system that takes DNA data from what is produced by laboratories that is from physical

evidence items. Id, evidence Id. at 477.83, 477-83. The system system then separates out DNA profiles from the evidence and

compares those profiles compares profiles to known standards to calculate match statistics. Id. at 483. TrueAllele

M.s Richart testified that aasextillion is aanumber followed by twenty-one zeros. I'Ls 15

had been tested in over forty validation studies with results likewise published and validated in peer-reviewed journals, peer-reviewed journals, and Ms. Bracamontes has analyzed over 2,500 different mixture items

using TrueAllele. Id.

analyze electronic data provided to Cybergenetics Ms. Bracamontes used TrueAllele to analyze the blade of the knife, swabs from the folding knife, along with reference from the swabs of the samples from dried blood of the Victim and the buccal sample from Appellant. Id. at 491-92. The samples results from the knife blade indicated that aamatch between Appellant and the sample was 60.5 results billion times more probable probable than aacoincidental match with an unknown African American person, 16.3 billion times more probable probable than than aacoincidental match with an unknown Caucasian person, 23 billion times more probable and 23 probable than aacoincidental match with an unrelated Hispanic person- person.

Id. at 497.98. 497-98. The system system indicated that the Victim was an exclusionary match as to the knife

at 498. blade. Id. at Ms. Bracamontes Ms. testified that Bracamontes testified analysis of that analysis of the the data data from from the the blade blade of of the the folding folding knife knife

indicated aamatch with the Victim as 2.78 thousand times more probable than coincidence as to an unrelated person. Id. at 498, 50I. unrelated Caucasian person. 501. Likewise, the data analysis revealed that it was 18.8

thousand more times probable probable that the Victim Victim was a a match than aacoincidental match with an unrelated African American individual, and 3.27 thousand times more probable aamatch match than aa coincidental match with an unrelated Hispanic person. Id. at 50L 501.

Ms. Bracamontes further testified that while the PSP testing had aacertain threshold for

DNA material below which they would not test due to insufficient data, TrueAllele is able to go down to the baseline and that there is no threshold or cut off point. Id. at 502. Ms. Bracamontes clarified that TrueAllele "has been validated all the way down to the baseline and is able to use clarified use that information in its modeling to to separate out those contributors." contributors." Id.

On cross-examination, On cross-examination, Ms. Bracamontes explained that TrueAllele is considered aa

probabilistic genotyping software because probabilistic genotyping because "it it is not definitely[,]" instead not just pulling things out definitely[,"" qi]t is assigning "iht assigning them some probability Id. at 504. Ms. probability or chance of explaining the data." Id, Cybergenetics does not analyze the actual samples, but interprets data Bracamontes reiterated that Cybergenetics data

produced produced by by another laboratory from an evidence sample. Id. at 505.

Detective Ivan Martinez Martinez ("Detective ("Detective Martinez"), aatwelve-year veteran detective of the County District Attorney's Berks County Attorney's Office, testified that on July 20, 2020, he, along with Detective

Brett Forry, conducted an interview with Appellant System ("BCJS"). Appellant at the Berks County Jail System (BCJS"). Id. at 517-18. Because both both Detective Martinez and Appellant speak English English and Spanish, during the interview, Detective Martinez would translate those portions that were conducted in Spanish into English for his partner. Id. at 518.19, English 518-19. The Commonwealth admitted into evidence, and then

published jury, aavideo published to the jury, Id. at 5519-20; video and audio recording of the interview. Id, 19-20; Comm.'s Ex. 293. In 293. In the the interview, Appellant stated that he Residence from he had traveled to the Residence from Paterson, New

Jersey and that he had been been searching for fro yard sales, and indicated that another, unidentified black male going by male by ""Bu" Bu" was was at at the Residence Residence and and, holding holding a yard sale. a yard sale.

July 17, 2020, Detective Martinez arrived at the Residence and proceeded to the Late on July area where the Victim's body body was located and assisted in securing and removing removing the body. Id. at

521-22. Detective Martinez further observed Sergeant Schade collect fingerprints from the Victim's body. Id. at 522.

On July 18, 2020, at approximately 1:30 a.m., Detective Martinez 1:30 a.m., Martinez met met with Appellant at Central Processing. Central Processing. Id. Id, at 522-23. 522-23. At that time, At that time, Appellant was wearing aablack Appellant was black tank or or muscle

shirt, aapair pink shorts, and aapair of green pair of pink green flip Id. at 523. Detective Martinez noted that flip flops. Id, the shorts that Appellant was wearing wearing were dirty and ripped. Id. During During his conversation with Appellant, Appellant Appellant, Appellant asked Detective Martinez to call his mother, Belkis Belkis Rodriguez, and Detective

Martinez did so. Id. at 524.

On July On July 18, 2020, Detective Detective Martinez applied for and was approved for aasearch search warrant warrant

for the Residence. Id. During the execution Id, at 525. During execution of of the search warrant, warrant, Detective Martinez's Martinez's

observations were Sergeant Schade and Detective Rentschler. Id. at 525- were consistent with those of Sergeant 26. Detective Martinez also attended the autopsy autopsy of the Victim at Reading Hospital and observed

fingernail clippings from the Victim. Id. at 526. Detective Martinez the collection of blood and fingernail met with Appellant again on July 21, 2020, at the BCIS BCJS and, pursuant to aasearch warrant, collected

aabuccal buccal swab swab from Appellant. Id. Id, at 528-29.

July 24,2020, On July 24, 2020, Detective Martinez placed another five-to-ten-minute telephone call with

Appellant's Appellant's mother. Id. at 530. Detective Martinez prepared aacriminal On July 29, 2020, Detective complaint and later served the complaint on Appellant at BCJS, complaint BCIS, whereupon Detective Detective Martinez showing "[h]ardly described Appellant showing indicating that Detective "[h]ardly any emotions[,]" and indicating DetectiveMartinez needed to deal with information Appellant Appellant provided provided regarding aa Mexican cartel cartel "[a]nd that that

relationship relationship [Appellant] [Appellant] had with the the Mexico cartel was more important important than," the the charges against Appellant, including murder. Appellant, including murder. Id. at at 531-32. 531-32.

July 31, On July 31, 2020, 2020, Appellant placed aaphone Appellant placed phone call to his his mother and sister, sister, Leticia Perez Perez!t6 ,

which which Detective Martinez listened Detective Martinez listened to to later, and then later, and then translated Spanish into translated from Spanish into English. at English. Id. at 533-34, .536; 533-34, Comrn.'s Ex. 295. Detective Martinez reviewed translations that were previously 516; Comm.'s prepared by prepared court-certified interpreters, but by court-certified testified that, according but testified according to to him, him, the other other translations translations were not completely completely accurate, accurate, because of differing differing Spanish Spanish dialects. Id. at 534-35. Specifically,

Detective Martinez Detective testified that Martinez testified that he had spent he had spent time time in Texas and was in Texas was familiar familiar with with the the Mexican Mexican

dialect of dialeet of Spanish Spanish and and with certain idiosyncrasies with certain idiosyncrasies of of the the dialect. dialect. Id. at at 535. 535. A A video and audio video and audio

presentation of the presentation of the telephone telephone conversation conversation between Appellant and his between Appellant his mother and and sister sister that was was

prepared by prepared by Detective Martinez, interpretation of the conversation into English, Martinez, and included his interpretation was published to was published jury. Id. at 53 to the jury. 8-39; Comm.'s E. 538-39; Ex. 297. Detective Martinez's Martinez's translation.of the conversation included conversation included Appellant's admission that he Appellant's admission he was was involved in the involved in the killing killing of of the Victim Victim and and

stated that he did it due to his involvement with aaMexican cartel and telling his mother and sister that if if he did not kill the Victim, Victim, that the cartel would would have killed Appellant. Comm.'s Ex. Ex, 295.

August 5, 2020, On August 2020, Detective met with Detective Martinez met with Officer Yeasted of the Yeasted and received all of Sergeant Schade then evidence collected and Sergeant possession of the then took possession the evidence. Id. at 539-40. Or On

August 12, 2020, August Detective Martinez entered the evidence collected from Appellant at BCJS 2020, Detective BOIS and entered the evidence into property. Id. at 540.

Detective Martinez testified that on August August 17, 2020, based on the invoice for aacell phone found in the Honda, Honda, attempted attempted to acquire acquire information regarding an LG Aristo 4 4cell phone with the number the number 551-280-4729 551-280-4729 ("the Cell Phone (the Cell Phone Number"). Number"), Id. at at 540.41. 540-41. Detective Martinez. Detective Martinez attempted to call attempted call the the store store in in Paterson, New Jersey, Paterson, New Jersey, where the invoice where the invoice noted noted that that the the cell cell phone had phone had purchased, but it was not fruitful. Id. at 54142. been purchased, 541-42.

7, 2020, On October 7, 2020, Detective Martinez then traveled to Paterson, New New Jersey with City of Paterson Police Department detectives from the City Department to to the Metro PCS store. Id. at 542. The Paterson detectives Paterson detectives were then able were then able to retrieve retrieve information information from from the store store employees employees regarding the regarding the

" Detective Martinez testified that he had several conversations with Appellant's mother, Belkis Rodriguez, and 16

Appellant's Appellant's sister, Leticia Perez, Pere, and was able to recognize the voices of both individuals. Id. Id, at 533.

Cell Phone Number while Detective Martinez observed from aavantage point viewing the computer Cell screen subsequent printing screen and the subsequent printing of the information, which was provided to Detective Martinez.

Id. at Id. at 54243, 542-43. The Commonwealth then entered aareprinted receipt and payment invoice from

Metro Metro PCS indicating indicating that the LG Aristo cell phone with the Cell Phone Number was purchased

by a by acustomer customer named Raphael Raphael Perez from the Metro PCS store in Paterson, New Jersey on July

15, 15, 2020. 2020. Id. at 543-45; Comm.'s Ex. 298. 298. Detective Martinez then identified the LG Aristo cell phone that was recovered from. phone from the Honda. Id. at 545.

January of 2021, In January 2021, Detective Martinez requested requested and was granted aasearch warrant warrant for

Facebook account records for both Appellant and the Victim. Facebook Victim. Id. at 545-46. While Detective

Martinez was unable to find any Martinez any relevant information regarding Appellant's Facebook account and

was not able to find any was not any communication between Appellant and the Victim, Detective Martinez

was was able to verify verify that the last post post from the Victim was on July 16, 2020 at 8:37 a.m. Id. at 547.

On July On July 16, 16, 2021, 2021, Detective Martinez applied applied for and was granted aasearch warrant for for the

LG LG Aristo cell phone phone recovered from the Honda. Id. Id, at 547. Upon executing the search, Detective Martinez Martinez was able to to confirm that the number from the cell phone matched the Cell Phone Number

also included also included on the Metro PCS receipt receipt and invoice. Td. Id. at 548. On June 28, 2021, pursuant to aa order, Detective Martinez requested court order, requested cell phone records from T-Mobile regarding the Cell Phone Number Phone Number from July July 15, 2020, through 15, 2020, July 17, 2020. Id. through July Id. at at 549. 549. Specifically, Detective Detective requested aaCDR mediation report and aadata report", Martinez requested report', which would provide the locations that that the cell phone phone traveled through during the relevant time period. Id. at 549-50.

Detective Detective Martinez described using using aacomputer computer program program called CellHawk, which analyzes

uploaded from the data report data uploaded report to provide the travel location of aaspecific device. Id. Id. at 557. Detective Martinez testified that the information derived through CellHawk indicated that Detective Appellant's cell phone Appellant's phone first appeared on the Bern Township cell tower location in the Greenfields first appeared area, at area, at approximately approximately 8.39 8:3 9a.m. and remained in the area into the afternoon. Id. Id, at 562-63.

The Commonwealth The Commonwealth then then introduced introduced aadocument document from from the the PSP PSP indicating on the indicating that on the date

Appellant Appellant was initially stopped in the Honda, he did not possess aavalid license to carry aafirearm initially stopped

l' Detective 17 Detective Martinez described aacall detail report Martinez described report (CDR) (CDR) mediation as providing any and all phone calls, text messages messages that that are executed executed with with a a specific specific device, device, and aadata data report report as as providing providing which which cell towers have been towers have communicating with the device itself. Id. at 550. communicating

in the Commonwealth. Id. at 563; Comm.'s Ex. 303. Detective Martinez confirmed that he was in familiar with these these forms and that it comported with the PSP licensing status with the status forms that he had

received in previous investigations. Id, Id. at 563-64, 563-64.

On cross-examination, Detective On Detective Martinez admitted admitted that that during interviews interviews with with Appellant

shortly after his shortly his apprehension, Detective Martinez did not believe the that Appellant was the story that relaying that another person relaying person was at the Residence and sold Residence and sold him the found in the items that were later found with Appellant. the Honda with Appellant. Id. at 567-68. Detective Martinez Id. at Martinez clarified clarified that Appellant purchased

the LG the cell phone LG cell on July phone in Paterson on July 15, 2020, at 15, 2020, at 4:55 4:55 p.m, and appeared p.m. and appeared to to remain remain in that area area

until approximately approximately 11:57 p.m. id. at 576. Appellant's cell cell phone phone then traveled traveled into Pennsylvania via Intestate 78 and down Route 222, 222, arriving Reading around 2:42 a.m. on July 16, 2020, Id. arriving in Reading

at 577. Appellant's cell phone appeared in the area of the Residence around 8:37 a.m. and stayed phone appeared until approximately 3:07 until approximately 3.07 p.m. p.m. Id. Id.

Defense first called Sonia Schlamowitz who, at the time, was employed as the chief court interpreter interpreter with the Court of Common Pleas of Berks Berics County, County. Id. at 587-88. Ms. Schlamowitz

testified that she completed aatranslation testified that translation transcription, transcription, from Spanish Spanish into English, along with with Mr.

Urdaneta from the interpreter's office, office, of the telephone telephone call call.that that Appellant placed from BOIS. Appellant placed BCJS. Id.

at 590-91. Ms. at Ms. Schlamowitz Schlamowitz further explained explained that that in in her process, she first first translates translates the phone the phone call in written format, format, and then she goes through again and interprets including through the phone call again Id. at 591. Defense then entered Ms. Schlamowitz's nuance into the interpretation. Id, Schlainowitz's interpreted

document into evidence. Id, at 592-93; Def. Ex. 55 & & 6. On cross-examination, Ms. Schlamowitz clarified that an clarified an initial initial translation translation was was done done by by Mr. Urdaneta, Urdaneta, and that that the District Attorney's the District Attorney's

Office requested Office requested that she revise revise the the translation. Id. at 593-96.

The Defense next called called Arthur Young, aa forensic biology specialist forensic biology specialist with Guardian with Guardian Forensic Sciences, Sciences, who was qualified qualified as an expert expert in the field of forensic DNA analysis. Id. at 600-

12. Mr. Young prepared Mr. Young prepared aareport report based based on on documentation documentation and and data data received received regarding evidence regarding the evidence analysis. Id. at analysis. at 613-14. 613-14. Mr. Young Young first discussed his analysis analysis of the swab from the the basement

sliding door using sliding using electrophoresis, which produces an electropherogram that Mr. Young then Id. at 615-16. interprets. Id. 61.5-16. Mr. Young noted that the PSP DNA laboratory determined that there was

insufficient DNA material insufficient material from which to produce interpretable interpretable results. Id. at at 614. 614. However, However, Mr.

Young continued that Young continued he reviewed that he the data provided by reviewed the the PSP lab by the and found conflicting results lab and results

sliding door swabs. Id. at 627. Specifically, according to Mr. Young, the DNA data as to the sliding actually excluded both Appellant and the Victim as contributing the DNA found in the swab of the actually sliding door and was indicative of DNA from an unknown male. Id. at 627-28. Mr. basement sliding Young explained that the PSP lab needed five genetic markers in order to draw aaconclusion, but Young explained he only needed one genetic marker for purposes of elimination. Id. at 628-29.

Mr, Young Mr. Young then reiterated the PSP lab results regarding the sample from the Adidas sneaker

Appellant and wherein both Appellant and the Victim could not be excluded as against an unknown and unrelated

against each. Id. individual against at 631. However, Mr. Id, at Mr. Young opined that if both individuals were were to to detennining the results, then there should be no remaining DNA material that was be included in determining inconsistent with both individuals, but that was not the case, inconsistent case. Id. Id. at 632. Using charts from from his his report, Mr. Young report, Young explained that there were genetic markers that were not consistent with either Appellant Appellant or the Victim should indicate genetic material indicate genetic from material from another individual, individual, and specifically from an unknown male. Id, Id. at 634-38. Moreover, as Mr. Young elucidated, modern DNA analysis

enough o is sensitive enough odetect genetic genetic material even through transference and so the tests cannot

determine how the DNA material got onto whatever item is tested. Id. at 637-38.

Mr..Young Mr. Young then discussed the PSP results from the inside tongue and heel of the Adidas sneaker and those results indicated aamixture of genetic material from four individual contributors, Appellant and the Victim not excluded as contributors. Id. at 638. However, upon reviewing with Appellant the data from all of the genetic markers, Mr. Young opined that the Victim should be excluded as aacontributor to the mixture found on the inside heel and tongue of the Adidas sneaker because there were there were markers markers listed from the Victim's sample listed from sample that that were were not not found in the the swabs from those at 643-48. areas. Id. at Mr. Young moved Mr. Young moved on on to the results to the results from the the swabs swabs of of the handle of the handle of the the second second knife, which which the PSP lab found aamixture of DNA from two individuals and concluded that Appellant could not be excluded as aacontributor and the Victim could not be included as aacontributor. Id. at 652-53. Mr. Young Young testified that his interpretation interpretation of the data reached aadifferent result. Id. Id, at 655-56. Notably, Mr. Notably, Young indicated Mr. Young indicated that that there was was aagenetic genetic marker include din the swab that was was consistent with consistent with that that of of the the Victim Victim such such that that he he would would not not conclude conclude that that the the Victim would be Victim would be excluded as aa-possible possible contributor to the DNA profile, or at best, that the results are inconclusive. 656-58. Id. at 656-58

As to the sample from the blue Versace shirt, Mr. Young noted that the PSP found aamixture mixture of DNA material from two individuals and concluded that both Appellant and the Victim could not be excluded as possible Id. at 657-58. Again, though, Mr. Young possible contributors to the profile. Id, disagreed with the conclusion because the individuals were compared as against another unknown disagreed individual and not not as the two sole contributors, which, according to Mr. Young, would have produced results inconsistent with aamixture only from Appellant produced Appellant and the Id. at 659. Thus, the Victim. Id, Mr. Young Young posits that the conclusion, when the profiles are analyzed as only Appellant and the Victim as contributors, would result in in being mutually exclusive. Id. Id, at 659. Mr. Young continued tthat comparing more hat when comparing genetic material more genetic material markers, the alleles that are shared between between both Appellant and the Victim were attributed to both, even where Appellant could be excluded as to Appellant additional alleles that Icy. at 661-62. Thus, the statistical weight is affected in adding that should appear. Id. the shared alleles to the analysis. Id. at 662.

On cross-examination, Mr. Young Ona Young agreed with Ms. Richart's conclusion that Appellant could not be excluded as aacontributor to the genetic material material, found on the black and orange mask.

Id. at 683. Mr. Young Id. at Young further noted noted that that while while he disagreed with Ms. Richart's conclusion that he disagreed Appellant could not be excluded as aacontributor to the DNA profile of the swabs found on the Appellant heel and left side of the Adidas Adidas sneaker, he did agree that the Victim was not excluded. Id. heel swabs, Mr. Young agreed that Appellant was not Moreover, as to the inside tongue and heel

excluded as aapotential potential contributor but disagreed that the Victim should be included. Id. at 684.

Likewise, Mr. Young Young agreed that that neither Appellant nor the Victim could be excluded as

contributors to the DNA profile from the sample from the shorts. Id. at 685-66. Finally, while Mr. Young opined Young opined that that Appellant should be excluded as as 'aa contributor to the profile mixture found on the blue Versace shirt, he agreed that the Victim would not be excluded. Id. Id, at 686.

At At the conclusion of the trial on April 21, 2022, the jury found Appellant guilty of Murder Murder of the First Degree", Degree ,Burglary", Burglary ,Robbery, 18 Robbery20 , 19 Aggravated Assault' s, Aggravated Assault", two counts of Receiving Stolen Property2' Property,-,and two counts of Firearms Not to be Carried Carried Without aaLicense. License' . -3

¹⁸ Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2502(a) "18PLC.SA. 18

18 Pa,C.S.A. §$3502()01K 18PaCSA. 3502(a)(1)(i) 2-0 18 Pa,C.S.A. 83701(a)01¥9 18PC.SA. § 3701(a)(1)(i) 18 Pa.C.S.A §$27026)(1) !18PAC.SA 21 2702(a)(1) 218 Pa.C.S.A. §$3925(a) 1gPaCSA. 222 3925(a) (Honda CR-V); 18 Pa.C.S.A. (Honda CR-V) Pa.CS.A. §$ 3925() 3925(a) (Lenovo (Lenovo Laptop Computer) 18 Pa.C.S,A. §$ 6106a) 18PAC.S.A. 2-3 6106(a)

On May May 2, 2022, Appellant Appellant filed aapost-sentence motion challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence and alleging error of sufficiency of the court in permitting pennitting electronically obtained

documents from from T-Mobile and limiting the the scope of the Defense expert's testimony at trial. On March March 21, 2022, A 21, 2022, A hearing hearing on the motion motion was held on July 29, 2022, and both parties filed briefs

in support in support of their respective respective positions. positions. By order dated August 25, 2022, the court denied Appellant's post sentence motion. Appellant's On September Oa September 23, 23, 2022, 2022, Appellant Appellant filed aaNotice of Appeal with the Superior Court. Court. On On

September 27, 2022, entered an order directing Appellant to file aaConcise Statement of Matters September Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A,P, Complained Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant filed aaConcise Statement of

Matters Complained Complained of -on Appeal on October 18, 2022, in which he sought review on the

following issues:

1. L. The evidence adduced adduced. at trial was legally insufficient to support Appellant's

convictions for Homicide, Aggravated Assault and Robbery, where, inter alia, convictions there was no testimony or circumstantial proof at all - that that [Appellant] the [V]ictim [Appellant] and the [VJictim were ever in the latter's house at the same time, so as to make any of those crimes crimes possible; - that Appellant ever touched or threatened Appellant ever threatened [the [the Victim] personally, or was ever in aaposition to do so; - that some burglar burglar or assailant or acquaintance other than Appellant was was not perpetrator of these gravamens the perpetrator gravamens in or near the [V]ictim's house, even if

Appellant might Appellant present therein or stolen something therefrom at might have been present other time, before some other or after before or after the the [V]ictim's [VJictim's murder. Nothing in the record Nothing in record excludes the possibility possibility of an alternative perpetrator; perpetrator, inexplicably, the police inexplicably, police did not attempt to investigate the possibility of another

perpetrator, even in the face of abundant evidence that perpetrator, even there was that there was at at least least one:

and cases almost factually factually identical or at least corresponding to this one in all points will show that under such nebulous circumstances these essential points convictions of Appellant cannot stand. 2. The evidence was legally legally insufficient to support support Appellant's conviction of

Receiving Stolen Property, Receiving Property, when no facts on record established the value of the

items stolen, and it could not be confidently inferred what the value of the stolen

items were or what burglar burglar was responsible for which theft. theft. The The conviction

therefore had to have been impermissibly based on idle speculation. 3. All Appellant's convictions were based on evidence derived from an illegal search of the [V]ictim's [VJictim's house, in which the did not the Commonwealth did not show or even attempt to show that Appellant had no expectation of privacy. Once challenged, the the Commonwealth has an affirmative has an affirmative duty to justify justify an otherwise otherwise

illegal search illegal search by by showing showing that the the defendant has no expectation of privacy, privacy,

the court gratuitously assumed this instead the in it's decision this burden sua sponte in decision on

Appellant's pretrial suppression-motion. 4. All guilty verdicts went against the weight of the evidence, much for the same reasons as as those mentioned above above with regard to to evidentiary sufficiency, but

also, inter alia, because of the inexplicable lack of police investigation into other possible culprits; because Appellant's supposedly self-inculpatory phone- other call from prison was so obviously exculpatory in nature, though it was perversely inculpatory weight, perversely accorded inculpatory weight, even though he implicated some unnamed others; and because in general all testimony purporting to incriminate

was so Appellant was so weak wispy that to dismiss any weak and wispy any reasonable doubts doubts as to

his innocence after three or four days of trial trial but only ninety minutes of

supposed deliberation --— aahomicide trial --— is preposterous. 5. At At the very least, aa new new trial is warranted, warranted, because by upholding upholding the Commmonwealth's objection and not allowing Commonwealth's allowing [Appellant's] Expert Witness to [Appellant's] Expert testimony of the Commonwealth's answer questions regarding the testimony Commonwealth's expert from

Cybergenetics the lower court critically impaired Appellant's ability and right to defend himself. This was an abuse of discretion and contrary to elementary evidence. rules of evidence. 6. Also warranting aa new trial is the lower court's improvident admission of unauthenticated hearsay evidence from Detective Martinez, unauthenticated hearsay Martinez, namely namely documents electronically from T-Mobile that led to obtained electronically to the admission of other evidence that prejudiced Appellant. Detective Martinez received the documents electronically, did not see the author sign them, otherwise had no

personal knowledge regarding personal knowledge the sender, and had he regarding the he any any personal knowledge knowledge of the business practices practices of T-Mobile Telekom.

Appellant's Appellant's Concise Stmnt. ¶T1-6.

Upon review of the record, we find that all alleged Upon alleged errors lack merit. We submit this

opinion pursuant opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P, 1925(a).

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION

L I. of the Evidence Sufficiency of Appellant contends Appellant contends that that the the evidence evidence presented by the presented by Commonwealth was the Commonwealth was insufficient insufficient to to establish his establish conviction on his conviction on the the cbarges charges of of homicide, homicide, aggravated aggravated assault, assault, and and robbery robbery at at trial. trial.

Specifically, Appellant Specifically, Appellant claims claims that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth failed to present failed to present sufficient sufficient evidence evidence that that Appellant Appellant was was ever at the the Residence at the same time as the Victim Victim to present present such an opportunity to commit the crimes, or that he was ever in aaposition position to threaten or touch the Victim personally. Appellant further claims Appellant further claims that that no no evidence evidence or or testimony testimony eliminated eliminated the the possibility possibility of of another another

perpetrator having committed the crimes and that law enforcement only investigated Appellant perpetrator having Appellant to the exclusion the exclusion of of other other possible suspects. possible suspects.

Appellant Appellant likewise challenges challenges the sufficiency sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions of receiving stolen property. receiving property. Appellant Appellant claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish the who stole them. value of the items stolen evidence or who

In reviewing In reviewing aaclaim claim that that the the evidence evidence was insufficient to was insufficient support the to support the verdict, our Superior verdict, our Superior

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

967 (Pa.Super. Commonwealth v. Miklos, 159 A.3d 962, 967 (Pa.Super. 2017). Although aaconviction must be based on more based on more than than mere mere suspicion suspicion or or conjecture, conjecture, the Commonwealth Commonwealth need need not not establish establish guilt guilt to aa certainty." Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A,3d mathematical certainty." A.3d 736, 756 (Pa.Super. 2014). (Pa.Super. 2014)

"Moreover, if a Moreover, afact fact finder reasonably determines finder reasonably detennines from from the evidence that that all of the necessary elements of elements of the the crime crime were were establisbed, established, then then the the evidence evidence will will be deemed deemed sufficient sufficient to to support support the the 213, 215 (Pa.Super. verdict." Commonwealth v. Heidler, 741 A.2d 213,215 (Pa.Super. 1999); see also Commonwealth A.3d 602, 607 v. Ramtahal, 33 A.3d 607 (Pa. (Pa. 2011(noting 2011)(noting that "the jury, that "the jury, which which passes passes upon upon the the weight weight and

credibility of credibility of each each witness's testimony, is witness's testimony, is free to believe free to believe all, all, part, or none part, or none of of the the evidence"). evidence").

Homicide Homicide In order In order to to convict convict aaperson of first person of first degree degree murder, murder, "the Commonwealth Commonwealth must prove that must prove that aa

human being human being was unlawfully killed, was unlawfully that the killed, that the defendant defendant perpetrated the killing, perpetrated the killing, and that that the the

defendant acted with malice and aaspecific specific intent to kill" kill." Commonwealth v. Johnson, 107 A.3d

66 (Pa. 2014) cert. 52, 66(Pa. cent, denied sub nom. Johnson v. Pennsylvania, 577 U.S. 831, 136 S.CL. S.Ct. 43, 193

52 (2015)(citation L.Ed.2d 52 (2015(citation omitted). "It is well-settled that specific intent to kill can be established through circumstantial evidence through circumstantial evidence such such as as the use of the use of aadeadly deadly weapon on aavital weapon on part of vital part of the the victim's victim's

body." Id. "Malice, body." "Malice, as well, may be inferred from the use of aadeadly weapon upon aavital part of well, may the the victim's.body." victim's body." Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d A:3d 1128, 1134 1134 (Pa. (Pa, 2011). Moreover, "proof 2011). Moreover, "proof of motive of motive is not necessary for aaconviction not necessary conviction of of first-degree first-degree murder." 889 murder." Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501,517 (Pa. A.24 501,517 (Pa. 2005).

initially stopped, When initially stopped, Appellant Appellant was found in possession possession of multiple items belonging to the Victim, the Victim, including including the Victim's Tesla the Victim's Testa, car car fob, graduation graduation rings, rings, laptop, laptop, wallet, wallet, identification identification cards, and various credit and debit cards. After finding cards, finding these items, law enforcement proceeded

to the Residence, Residence, and when unable to make initial contact, made various attempts to reach the Victim. Upon entering the Residence, Upon entering Residence, officers found the the rooms, drawers, and closets disheveled as if as if they they had had been been ransacked. ransacked. Alarm Alann panels panels were were found ripped ripped off off of of the wall wall and on on the floor. floor.

When When they they returned with aasearch returned with search warrant warrant for for the the Residence, Residence, they they discovered the Victim discovered the deceased Victim deceased in the rear of the the Residence.

Dr. Hoffman Dr. Hoffman concluded concluded that that the Victim died from Victim died from exsanguination exsanguination and and internal bleeding internal bleeding caused by caused by multiple multiple stab wounds to the wounds to the Victim's Victim's neck neck and and chest. chest. Dr. Hoffman Hoffman testified testified tthat the hat the

nature and varying nature and direction of varying direction of the the injuries injuries indicated indicated that that the the bodies bodies were were in in close close contact contact and and in in

motion, signaling aastruggle motion, signaling struggle occurred occurred during during the infliction of the the infliction the wounds. Further, while wounds. Further, while Dr. Dr suggested that Hoffman suggested that the maggot maggot activity he observed were indicative that the Victim's time of death death was approximately thirty was approximately thirty to to forty-hours prior to forty-hours prior to discovery, discovery, he noted that he noted that information information

provided provided by by law enforcement allowed him to narrow that period period to between 8:45 a.m. and 12:00 12.00 p.m. on p.m. on July July 16, 16, 2020. 2020.

interview with detectives, During his interview detectives, Appellant Appellant admitted that he had been to to and was able

to describe the the Residence in detail. In aaphone phone call with with his sister and mother, Appellant Appellant admitted being being involved in in the murder of the Victim but claimed that the Victim would purchase purchase drugs from

him and was involved in human trafficking trafficking and that the Victim's murder was directed by aa Mexican cartel. Mexican cartel.

Cell phone phone records tracked Appellant's Appellant's movements from Paterson, New Jersey and arriving in the area in the area of of the the Residence Residence around around the time of the time of the the Victim's Victim's murder murder and remaining remaining until until the

people observed an individual matching afternoon. Several people matching Appellant's description and clothing Appellant's description at or around the Residence, including several who retuned the Victim's wandering dog and and found

response as odd or apathetic. the individual's response apathetic. Jeffery Neubauer identified Appellant as the the

presented aa photographic array and he told law individual he saw at the Residence when presented enforcement officers that he noticed the individual at the Residence wearing the same branded underwear as underwear as was was later later recovered recovered from Appellant. Appellant.

While no evidence was found regarding the actual murder weapon, there was genetic . . evidence linked to to the Victim found on Appellant's Appellant's shoes that were found at the Residence.

Additionally, the Victim's Additionally, the DNA was Victim's DNA was found found on on Appellant's Appellant's shirt.

Viewing the evidence Viewing the evidence presented at trial in presented at in totality, totality, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth presented sufficient presented sufficient evidence to evidence to place place Appellant at the Appellant at the Residence aathe the time of the time of the Victim's including cell Victim's murder, including phone records and eye phone eye witnesses who either identified Appellant, Appellant, or described an individual matching Appellant's matching Appellant's description description as being being present present at the Residence on the date of the Victim's

death, and even posing death, posing as the Victim himself. Blood and DNA evidence was found on Appellant's clothing. Appellant shoes and clothing. Appellant confessed being being at the Residence to law enforcement and admitted to his his sister and mother of, at mother of, at least, being being involved in in the Victim's Victim's murder. Again, Again, Dr. Dr. Hoffman's testimony concluded that the Victim died as aaresult testimony result of the stab wounds wounds and noted that that the direction and severity of the wounds indicated aastruggle. struggle. Moreover, the location of the stab wounds wounds to the

neck evinces both neck and chest evinces and an intent to kill. Given the reasonable both malice and reasonable inferences that could be could be drawn from from the the evidence evidence presented, presented, we we find find that that Appellant's Appellant's challenge challenge to to the the sufficiency sufficiency

support his conviction for murder of the first-degree lacks merit. of the evidence to support

Aggravated Aggravated Assault Assault Code, "[a] Under the Crimes Code, "[a] person person is guilty guilty of aggravated aggravated assault if he...(1) he ... ( 1) attempts to

cause serious bodily cause serious injury to bodily injury another, or to another, or causes causes such such injury injury intentionally, intentionally, knowingly or recklessly knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting under circumstances manifesting extreme extreme indifference indifference to to the the value of human value of human Life." life." 18 Pa.C.S.A. §$ 18 Pa.CS.A. 2702(a)(1). "Serious 2702(a(1). bodily injury," "Serious bodily is defined injury," is defined as as "[b]odily "[b]odily injury injury which which creates creates aasubstantial substantial risk risk of death or which causes serious, serious, permanent permanent disfigurement, disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the

any bodily function of any bodily member or organ." organ." 18 Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2301, 2301. "[W]here "[W]here the victim suffers bodily injury, serious bodily injury, the Commonwealth need not prove prove specific specific intent[,]"" intent[,]" but but."need "need only prove appellant acted recklessly appellant recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life." Commonwealth v. Nichols, 692 A.2d 181, 185 185 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 1997). The degree of recklessness required recklessness under the required under the aggravated aggravated assault assault is "such that is "such that life threatening threatening injury is essentially injury is essentially

certain to occur," occur." Commonwealth v».v: O'Hanlon, 653 653. A,2d A.2d 616, 618 618 (Pa. (Pa. 1995).

support of Appellant's Based on the evidence set forth above in support Appellant's conviction for murder, we

find the same supports supports Appellant's Appellant's conviction for aggravated aggravated assault. The evidence places Appellant at the Appellant at the Residence Residence at at the time time of of the the Victim's murder. Dr. Hoffinan Victim's murder. testified as Hoffman testified as to to the the

multiple multiple stab wounds to the Victim's neck and chest --— vital areas of the body body --— demonstrating, at the very least, Appellant's very least, Appellant's reckless reckless behavior to the degree degree that life-threatening injury was almost

Appellant's challenge certain to result. Appellant's challenge to sufficiency of the to the sufficiency the evidence for the conviction of

aggravated assault aggravated

Robbery Pennsylvania Crimes Code, Under the Pennsylvania Code, "[a] "[a] person person is guilty guilty of robbery if, if, in the course of

committing a committing a theft, he . .. (i) he... () inflicts serious bodily injury upon another." 18 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.CS.A. §$ 3701(a)(1)(i). Furthermore, 3701(a)(1(). Furthermore, "[ a]n act "[a]n act shall shall be be deemed deemed `'in in the of committing course of the course committing aatheft' theft' if if it it

attempt to commit theft or in flight occurs in an attempt flight after the attempt or commission." 18 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.CS.A. §S 3701(a)(2). As 3701(a)02). stated above, As stated above, "serious "serious bodily bodily injury," injury," is is defined as"[b]odily defined as injury which [b]odily injury which creates creates

aasubstantial risk of death or which causes serious, serious, permanent penmanent disfigurement, disfigurement, or protracted loss or

impairment of impairment of the function function of of any any bodily bodily member or organ." member or organ." 18 18 Pa.CS.A. Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2301 2301.

The testimony The testimony and evidence evidence presented presented by by the the Commonwealth Commonwealth at at trial trial demonstrated demonstrated that that

Appellant was in the Appellant the area at the time time of the Victim's murder murder and was later found with various various valuables and valuables and belongings belongings of of the the Victim Victim in the the stolen stolen vehicle vehicle he he was was driving. driving. Included in those Included in those

items were the Victim's two graduation rings, his laptop, laptop, debit and credit cards, coins, and aa

camera. As previously discussed, Dr. Hoffman testified as to the nature, extent, degree, and direction of the Victim's stab wounds that were indicative of aastruggle struggle and that the wounds were

to the Victim's chest and neck area, which were vital areas of the body. It It.is is clear that the perpetrator caused serious bodily injury perpetrator injury to the Victim, Victim, who died as aaresult of his injuries. injuries

cilia, that there Appellant contends, inter alia, there was no evidence that Appellant Appellant and the Victim

were both in the Residence at the time the offenses were committed connnitted and that there is nothing

connecting Appellant Appellant to any contact with the Victim. Victim, However, the cell phone phone records place

Appellant Appellant in the area in the area of of the the Residence at the Residence at time of the time of the the Victim's murder. Several Victim's murder. Several eyewitnesses eyewitnesses

strongly resembling described Appellant, or at least an individual strongly resembling Appellant Appellant at the Residence

during the during the time that the the offenses were committed. Law enforcement noted that the condition of

including that the alarm panels the Residence as being ransacked, including panels were ripped ripped from the walls. Cell

phone phone records further track Appellant as leaving the area in the afternoon, subsequent to the Victim's murder.

Based on the evidence presented presented at trial, we find the evidence sufficient for the jury to infer that that Appellant, committing aatheft, murdered the Victim by causing life- Appellant, during the course of committing threatening Appellant's challenge, therefore, must fail. threatening injuries to vital areas of the body. Appellant's

Receiving Stolen Stolen Property Property

"In order to convict aa defendant of Receiving Receiving Stolen Property Property [("RSP")], [("RSP")], the Commonwealth must establish three elements: "( 1) intentionally "(I) intentionally acquiring acquiring possession possession of the

movable property of another; another; (2) (2) with knowledge or belief that it was probably stolen; and and (3) () the deprive permanently." intent to deprive 224 A.3d 1095, 1099 permanently." Commonwealth v. Gomez,224 1.099 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2019); 18 Pa.C.S.A. §$ 3925(a) I8PAC.S.A. 3925(a).

Appellant's challenge Based on this court's review of the Concise Statement, Appellant's challenge as to his

conviction for RSP only as to count seven for the items stolen from RSP is only from the the Victim's Victim's Residence. Residence. Appellant claims that no evidence on the record established the value of the items stolen or who Appellant who

stole which which items. Appellant notes that because of this, the jury could only items. Appellant only have have reached its verdict and assigned aavalue on pure speculation. We disagree.

At trial, the Commonwealth, through through the Victim's son, introduced insurance documents indicating the valuation of some of the items at the Residence. Included in that documentation

32 *33 was aavaluation of the Victim's U.S. Air Force Academy graduation ring, which was assigned aa

value of of $2,795. $2,795. Trial N. T. at 110; N.T, 110; Comm.'s Ex. 3. 3. - While the jury jury could infer at least some value

stolen, including to other items stolen, including the Victim's other jewelry, jewelry, the credit and debit cards, and the

laptop, the valuation laptop, the of the valuation of Air Force the Air Academy ring Force Academy ring alone alone was sufficient sufficient to to support support the the jury's jury's

separate finding separate finding that the value of the stolen items received and retained by Appellant exceeded $2,000.

To the extent that Appellant that no evidence was demonstrative as to "what Appellant contends that burglar burglar was responsible . for which theft." We find was responsible find this claim is likewise unconvincing. The Commonwealth placed Commonwealth Appellant at placed Appellant at the the Residence cell phone Residence through cell phone records eyewitness records and eyewitness identification. Appellant admitted being Appellant being at the Residence. Appellant's explanation that he obtained the items from an alleged alleged yard sale purported to be held by some other unidentified

individual is individual is not not supported supported by by the the evidence. evidence. No No other other witness saw any witness saw any yard yard sales sales occurring at at the the

neighborhood. Appellant Residence or elsewhere in the neighborhood. Appellant was found in aastolen vehicle with items belonging to tthe belonging he Victim and with aaflimsy excuse for his possession of the items. The jury could obviously infer from Appellant's obviously Appellant's possession possession of the items that he was aware that the items were

stolen, and stolen, and that, that, in in fact, fact, he he stole stole the the items. items. However, However, evening evening assuming assuming arguendo carguendo that that Appellant Appellant was was not the person not the person who who stole stole the the -items, conviction .for items, his conviction for RSP RSP would not be affected would not affected as as his his possession possession of the stolen items, and his knowledge, which could be inferred, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. As such, we As such, we find that the alleged alleged errors challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence are without merit.

IL II. of Suppression Pretrial Denial of , of Evidence Suppression of Appellant Appellant next contends that the court erred in denying denying his pretrial motion for suppression

of evidence of evidence derived derived from from the the search of of the Residence. Specifically, Specifically, Appellant claims that Appellant claims that this. this court assumed the burden of the Commonwealth in addressing the issue of Appellant's expectation privacy in its opinion of privacy opinion in disposition disposition of the pretrial pretrial motions. Such an assertion is clearly meritless. _

Challenges to aadefendant's expectation Challenges expectation ofof privacy privacy involve involve shifting burdens of initially bears the burden of producing evidence that proof. The Commonwealth initially shows the defendant lacked aareasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched. If the Commonwealth produces produces evidence placing the defendant's lack of aareasonable of reasonable expectation expectation of of privacy privacy atat issue, issue, then then the the burden burden shifts shifts to to the the defendant to defendant to persuade persuade the suppression suppression court court that he he has has aa reasonable reasonable

expectation of privacy expectation privacy in the area searched. Where the Commonwealth produces produces evidence evidence placing the placing defendant's reasonable the defendant's reasonable_ expectation expectation of of privacy privacy at at issue, and the burden of persuasion issue, has shifted, the defendant may, but is not persuasion has to, produce required to, produce his own evidence to meet his burden to persuade the court that he he had aareasonable privacy privacy interest in the area searched. Thereafter, it is is incumbent on the suppression court to consider all of the evidence to determine whether the Commonwealth met its burden of production, production, and, if so, whether the defendant met his burden of persuasion persuasion that he possessed aareasonable expectation of privacy expectation privacy in the car.

907 (Pa.Super. 2022)(internal Commonwealth v. Jackson, 284 A.3d 907 2022(interal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Skipper, 277 omitted). 277 A.3d 617, 621 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2022)(noting 2022{noting that "Our Supreme Our Supreme Court Court has has explained explained that, that, while the expectation while the expectation of privacy be described privacy can be described as aa

`preliminary' matter, Pa.R.Crim.P. preliminary' 581(H) nevertheless Pa.R.Crim.P. SI(H) nevertheless requires the the Commonwealth Commonwealth to to both both

challenge aadefendant's expectation challenge expectation of privacy privacy and demonstrate that the defendant lacked an

expectation of expectation of privacy"(emphasis in original)). privacy"(emphasis in original)). Similarly, Similarly, our our Supreme Supreme Court has has provided: provided:

[T]he defendant's [The defendant's ability ability to to meet meet this this burden burden is is not not aaprerequisite prerequisite toto the the Commonwealth's initial burden of production, production, aaburden it must satisfy in all cases. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 581 cmt. Rule 581(H) 581(H) clearly clearly states it is the Commonwealth's burden Commonwealth's burden to present evidence to present evidence that the defendant's that the defendant's constitutional constitutional rights rights were were not not infringed. infringed. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth may concede concede the privacy the privacy interest, choosing to contest only the interest, choosing the.legality'of legality of police conduct; if it does does.so, so, the defendant's "reasonable expectation of privacy" the defendant's "reasonable expectation of privacy" need not need not be established. established. However, However, if if the evidence evidence ofof the Coma-onwealth, the the Commonwealth, the party party with with the burden of the burden of production, production, shows the defendant lacked such aaprivacy interest, the burden of establishing the contrary establishing contrary is is on the defendant.

Commonwealth v.v. Enimpah, Commonwealth Enimpah, 106 106 A.3d 695, 701 A.3d 695, 701 (Pa. Nevertheless, "[t]o (Pa. 2014). Nevertheless, "[t]o be sure, under our be sure, our

jurisprudence, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion jurisprudence, persuasion with respect to his privacy interest[,]" and "if and privacy interest, the Commonwealth need prove no more; if the evidence shows there was no privacy in terns terms of the court's review, it need go go no further if it finds the defendant has not not proven aa reasonable expectation reasonable expectation of of privacy." privacy." Id. at 701-02. Id. at 701-02.

We begin by We begin by noting noting that that the Commonwealth, in in its response response to Appellant's Appellant's pretrial pretrial motion, raised raised the the issue expectation of privacy, issue of his expectation privacy, and again again in in its post-hearing post-hearing brief ,in in support of denial. The Commonwealth asserted that the testimony testimony at both the preliminary hearing, and that presented during the pretrial suppression presented during suppression hearing, hearing, demonstrated that Appellant Appellant had had no conceivable privacy privacy interest in the interest in the Victim's Residence. Victim's Residence.

As the court set forth in its opinion in disposition of Appellant's omnibus pretrial motions dated March 29,2021, 29, 2021, the testimony at the pretrial hearing established that Appellant was initially

pulled over in the stolen Honda with items belonging to the Victim in the Honda with him. Appellant Appellant was not present at the Residence when law enforcement entered the the. property. After

being arrested, Appellant initially denied that he had knowledge of the Residence, but later acceded being that he had been to the Residence for aayard sale and was admitted by aablack male identified as "Bu" who sold the items found in Honda with Appellant. Appellant was not found to be in Bu" possession of aakey to the Residence and there is no indication that Appellant had the subjective from, the Residence. expectation of privacy or the ability to exclude others from

We stand by the court's March 29, 2021, opinion and the conclusion set forth therein. We 29,2021, with Appellant disagree with court Appellant that the court usurped the burden of establishing that he lacked sufficient expectation of privacy. It expectation It is evident from the notes of testimony of the pretrial suppression hearing that the Commonwealth satisfied its burden in presenting testimony that Appellant lacked aa reasonable expectation of privacy in the Residence. Therefore, we find that that Appellant's allegation

of error lacks merit.

III. Weight.of Weight of the Evidence Appellant next claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. While Appellant Appellant cites to the reasons set forth in his challenge to the sufficiency, he also notes that law enforcement failed to investigate any other possible perpetrators. perpetrators. Appellant continues that his statements during the phone call to his mother and sister were obviously exculpatory, but were perverted to appear inculpatory, even though he implicated other unnamed parties in the Victim's

murder. Finally, Appellant claims that the relatively short deliberation period of the jury to reach Finally, Appellant its verdicts based on the the "weak and wispy" evidence was was "preposterous." preposterous."

Where the weight of the evidence has been the weight challenged, "[a] been challenged, "[a] new trial should be be granted only where the verdict is so contrary contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense ofjustice? justice. 24 "Davis v Dais v.

773 A.2d Mullen, 773 764, 766 A.24 764, 766 (Pa. 2001). (Pa. 2001).

A motion A motion for for new trial on new trial on the the grounds grounds that that the the verdict verdict is contrary contrary toto the the weight of the weight the evidence, concedes that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. the verdict. Thus, Thus, the the trial court court is is under under no no obligation obligation toto view view the the evidence evidence light most favorable in the light favorable to the the verdict winner. An allegation allegation that the verdict verdict isis against against the weight weight ofof the the evidence evidence is is addressed to to the the discretion of the of the trial trial court. court. AA new new trial should not trial should not be granted because be granted because of of aamere mere the testimony conflict in the testimony or because because the judge judge on the would have the same facts would have arrived at arrived at aadifferent conclusion. conclusion. A trial judge must A trial must do do more more than than reassess reassess credibility of the the credibility the witnesses and allegeallege that he would would not have assented to the the verdict if he were were aajuror. juror. Trial judges, judges, in reviewing aaclaim that the in reviewing the against the weight verdict is against weight of the evidence do not sit as the thirteenth juror. Rather, the Rather, the role role of of the the trial judge judge is is to determine that to determine that notwithstanding notwithstanding all all the the certain facts are so clearly facts, certain clearly of greater greater weight weight that to ignore them or that to or to give them give weight with all the them equal weight the facts is to deny justice. to deny justice.

v. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751--52 (Pa. 2000)(internal citations and quotation (Pa. 2000(internal omitted). Likewise, marks omitted). Likewise, "a "atrial court's exercise of discretion in finding finding that aaverdict is or is not

against the weight against weight of the evidence is one of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying aa

new Commonwealth v. new trial." Commorwealth v. Sullivan, 820 820 A.2d 795, 806 A.2d 795, 806 (Pa.Super. 2003). An (Pa.Super. 2003). An appellate appellate court's court's

role "is to role "is to review the trial review the court's exercise trial court's exercise of of discretion discretion in ruling on aaweight of ruling on of the the evidence evidence

challenge," and "not challenge," "not [to] underlying question [to] review the underlying question of whether whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence." Id.at 807. weight

The verdict of the verdict of the jury jury will not be will not be disturbed disturbed "unless the weight "unless the of the weight of the evidence evidence is is so so weak weak

and inconclusive and that, as inconclusive that, as a amatter matter of of law, law, no no probability probability of of fact can be drawn fact can drawn from the combined from the combined

Juray, 275 circumstances." Commonwealth v. Juray, 275 A.3d A.3d 1037 1037 (Pa.Super. 2022). "The jury is (Pa.Super. 2022). the is the

ultimate fact-finder ultimate fact-finder and and the sole arbiter the sole arbiter of of the credibility of the credibility of each of of the the witnesses," and "[a] witnesses," and "[a] jury is is entitled to to resolve any inconsistencies in the the Commonwealth's evidence in the manner that it sees fit." Commorwealth ft" Commonwealth v. Clemons, 200 A.3d 441, 464 A.3d 441, 464 (Pa. 2019). "Issues (Pa. 2019). "Issues of witness credibility include questions include questions of of inconsistent testimony testimony and and improper improper motive." motive." Commonwealth v. 36 v. Sanchez, 6

Our courts + per '-4 courts have stated that aaverdict have stated shocks the conscience, verdict shocks conscience, "[whhen [when "the figure of the figure of Justice Justice toters totters on on her her pedestal, or when the jury's verdict, at the time of o£ its rendition, causes the trial judge to lose his breath, temporarily, and causes him him to almost fall from the bench, then it is the bench, is truly truly shocking to the judicial judicial conscience." Comtonwealtl Commonwealth ».v. Davidson, 860 A.2d A.24 575, 581 581 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2004), affd, 938 A.2d 198 2004), afr, 148 (Pa. 2007). (Pa. 2007)

39 (Pa. 2011). Moreover, A.3d 24, 39 Moreover, "[t]he weight of the evidence is exclusively "[t]he weight exclusively for the finder of

fact who is free to believe all, part, credibility of the part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility witnesses." Commonwealth v.v. Lewis, 911 A.2d 558, 565 565 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2006).

At the jury At trial, the jury heard all all of of the the testimony and was testimony and was presented evidence. presented the evidence. The The Commonwealth presented Appellant was stopped presented evidence that Appellant stopped in aa stolen vehicle with aa

substantial amount of the Victim's valuables and belongings belongings both on his person person and in the vehicle.

jury heard evidence tracking The jury tracking Appellant's Jersey, where Appellant's location from Paterson, New Jersey, where the the vehicle had vehicle had been stolen, and been stolen, and to the area of the area of the the Residence. When law Residence. When law enforcement enforcement arrived arrived at at and

they found the home ransacked and the alarm panels later searched the Residence, they panels ripped from the walls. The Victim's Tesla vehicle, to which Appellant Appellant had the fob on his person, was still in the

garage. Dr. Hoffman testified that the Victim's time of death was between 8:45 a.m. and noon on garage. July 16, 2020, July 2020, which was was around the the same time time that Appellant Appellant arrived and remained in the area of the Residence. the Residence. Several eyewitnesses Several eyewitnesses place place Appellant, or at Appellant, or at least an individual least an individual resembling resembling Appellant at the Residence on July 16, 2020, Appellant identifying himself as the Victim. Dr. 2020, and even identifying Hoffman further Hoffman further testified testified as as to the the extent extent of of the the Victim's Victim's injuries injuries and and the the conclusions conclusions drawn drawn from

both bruising and both and abrasions abrasions observed observed on on the the Victim, Victim, and from the direction from the direction and severity severity of of the stab

wounds. The wounds. Commonwealth also The Commonwealth also presented blood blood and DNA evidence from DNA evidence the Victim from the Victim found on on

Appellant's sneaker Appellant's sneaker and and shirt. shirt. Despite Despite Appellant's contention otherwise, Appellant's contention otherwise, the the phone call to phone call to his his

sister and sister and mother, mother, at at aaminimum, minimum, implicated implicated Appellant in the Appellant in the Victim's Victim's murder, murder, regardless regardless of of his his

justifications or suggestion various justifications suggestion of other unnamed individuals. Based on all of the evidence

presented, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying presented, denying Appellant's Appellant's post-

sentence challenge sentence challenge to the weight of the weight of the the evidence. evidence.

jury's verdict indicates that they The jury's they lent credibility credibility to the Commonwealth's witnesses and did not choose to accept accept the Defense's witness' dispute dispute of the blood evidence. The blood and DNA evidence, verdicts rendered by against the weight by the jury were not against weight of the evidence. Further, Appellant's attack on the deliberation period of the jury as somehow demonstrative of aalack of diligence on the the part of the part of the jury jury is is absurd. absurd. The The jury jury , spent four days days observing observing the the testimony testimony and and evidence evidence and

was was properly charged by properly charged by the the court court in in its analysis of its analysis of the the evidence. evidence. We draw no inference We draw inference from the the jury was able to come to aadecision in what Appellant fact that the jury Appellant deemed aarelatively short amount Appellant's claim that the court abused its discretion as to the weight of time. Therefore, we find Appellant's weight of the evidence to be be without merit.

IV. Limitation on Appellant's Expert at Trial Appellant Appellant next claims that this court erred when when it sustained the Commonwealth's objection to his expert objection expert witness. witness. Specifically, Appellant Specifically, by upholding the Appellant contends that by Commonwealth's objection, Commonwealth's objection, and and not allowing his not allowing expert to answer his expert answer questions questions regarding the the expert from Cybergenetics, Commonwealth's expert Cybergenetics, the court abused its discretion resulting resulting in prejudice Appellant. We disagree. to Appellant. disagree.

At during direct examination of his At trial, during expert witness, his expert witness, Defense Counsel began to question Young regarding Mr. Young regarding data data and and information information contained contained in in the Cybergenetics. However, the report from Cybergenetics. However,

the Commonwealth objected objected to Mr. Young Young referring referring to the Cybergenetics Cybergenetics information because he

had not included the discussion of such in his report. The court sustained the objection. Defense Counsel noted Counsel noted his objection objection on on the record.

A trial court has A has broad broad discretion toto determine whether whether evidence isis admissible and aatrial court's ruling riling on an evidentiary evidentiary issue will be reversed only the court abused only if Accordingly, aaruling its discretion. Accordingly, admitting evidence will not be ruling admitting be disturbed on appeal appeal unless that ruling reflects manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, bias, or ill-will, or or such such lack lack of of support support toto be be clearly clearly erroneous. erroneous. Moreover, in cases involving Moreover, involving the admission of expert expert testimony: testimony: Generally speaking, Generally speaking, the the.admission expert testimony admission of expert testimony is aamatter matter left largely largely to the discretion of the trial trial court, court, and its rulings rulings thereon thereon will will not be reversed absent an expert's testimony abuse of discretion. An expert's testimony is admissible when it is based on facts of record and will not cause confusion or prejudice. prejudice. Where the evidentiary question the evidentiary question involves aa discretionary discretionary ruling, [an [an appellate scope of review is plenary, court's] scope plenary, in that the appellate appellate court may review review the entire record in record in making making its its decision. decision.

v. Huggins, Commonwealth v. 68 A.3d Huggins, 68 A.3d 962, 962, 966 966 (Pa.Super. 2013)(internal citations (Pa.Super. 2013(internal citations and and quotation quotation

marks omitted). marks

As noted, noted, in the instant matter, the court sustained the Commonwealth's objection and

limited Young's testimony limited Mr. Young's testimony as to to the information information and data from the the Cybergenetics report. In doing so, the court stated that ". doing " . given that neither of these knives [referred [referred to in the Cybergenetics report] have been in any Cybergenetics any way referred to as the murder weapon weapon or aapotential murder weapon weapon in this case, the the materiality of it materiality of it is is extremely extremely small. If there is If there is any any materiality at all. The materiality at The

objection sustained." objection sustained." Trial Trial N.T. N.T. at at 675.

In discussing aatrial court's limitation of testimony by aadefense expert witness, our Superior Court has has noted:

Although there there are no rules of procedure in criminal cases precisely govering governing the scope of expert trial testimony, it cannot be asserted that either the Commonwealth or aa defendant has carte blanche to allow an expert to testify beyond the information contained in his or her report. Commonwealth v. Williams, 241 A.3d 1094, 1106 1106 (Pa.Super. 2020).

In Commonwealth v. Stith, 644 A.2d 193 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 1994), the Superior Court discussed the admissibility of expert testimony that exceeded the scope of disclosed reports. On appeal of his conviction for driving under the influence, Stith challenged the admission of an expert witness' testimony, in part, testimony, part, on the allegation that the witness had testified beyond the scope of this report. Id. at 197. While Stith conceded that "there "there [were] [were] no reported criminal cases which discuss the appropriate remedy where the Commonwealth introduces expert testimony exceeding the scope of appropriate expert report[,]" he instead relied "upon civil rules and case law to support his notion that in an expert criminal cases, an expert is limited to testifying testifying only to the facts contained in his or her report." Id. 197-98. Stith cited to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5(c), which provides in relevant part: "To the extent that at 197.98, facts known or opinions held by an expert have been developed in discovery proceedings the facts .... proceedings..,» the direct testimony of the expert at the -trial may not be inconsistent with or go beyond the fair scope of his or her testimony." Pa.R.C.P, 4003.5(e). scope 4003.5(c), The Court, in affirming affinning Stith's judgment of

sentence, concluded that the expert did not testify beyond the scope of his report. Id, Id. at 198.

In the unreported unreported case of Commonwealth v. Reeves, Reeves,7' 1566 WDA 2017,2019 2017, 2019 WL 3383703, 21 33 83703,

• • 1 (Pa.Super. at 1 (Pa.Super. July 25, 2019), the 25,2019), the Court cited to the Stith Stith Court's decision and noted the the reliance reliance on the civil rules in in determining detennining whether an expert's testimony exceeded the fair scope of his

report. Again, the Court found that the expert's report did not exceed the report. the fair scope as there would

be a"fair be a "' fair extension' extension' of of his his reports, reports, [which] would be [which] would be to explain explain the the very findings, interpretations very findings, interpretations

and diagnosis with which he agreed." Id. at *10. 10.

'-' "Non-precedential decisions filed after May I,2019,may s«ea-precedential 1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P 126(b)."210 126() PA.Code $365.37. 210 Pa.Code

Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) provides PAR.A.P, 126() "unpublished non-precedential provides that "unpublished non-precedential memorandum decision of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019 ... may be May 1,2019,may be cited for their persuasive value."

It is clear from the above decisions that an expert's testimony testimony at aacriminal matter is subject

same "fair scope" of his disclosed report as is consistent with the Civil Rules. Dr. Young's to the same report did report did not not discuss discuss the the Cybergenetics results or report. Therefore, the did not abuse the trial court did its discretion in precluding Dr. Young from testifying about the Cybergenetics report as it it would

scope of his disclosed report. exceed the fair scope report.

Moreover, as our Moreover, as our Superior Superior Court has stated, stated, "[a] discovery violation "[a] discovery violation and and testimony

of the expert's report, as aaresult of exceeding the scope of of court questioning, questioning, do not automatically automatically

command aanew trial. Appellant still must establish that the introduction of the expert testimony caused him bim prejudice prejudice to the degree that it affected his trial strategy or likely the degree likely affected affected the outcome

v. Roles, 116 A.3d 122, 133 (Pa.Super. of the proceedings." Commonwealth • (Pa.Super. 2015). The same must be the case where aatrial court has has precluded testimony beyond the scope of an expert's report.

Instantly, Appellant merely asserts that Instantly, that preventing preventing Dr. Young from testifying regarding regarding the the

Cybergenetics results was prejudicial Cybergenetics prejudicial and requires requires aanew trial to remedy the error. We disagree.

As nothing in As the trial court noted, nothing in the Cybergenetics Cybergenetics report was germane to the issue and was germane harm, was caused to Appellant no harm Appellant in in precluding precluding Dr. Young Young from providing providing his opinions on on results

fror, from the two knives the two knives that they were not that demonstrated they weapons. not the murder weapons. Consequently, Appellant's allegation 'of Appellant's allegation of error lacks merit. merit.

V. V. of T-Mobile Admission of T-Mobile Documents Appellant Appellant finally contends that through Detective Martinez's testimony of that the admission through from, T-Mobile regarding the cell phone documents from phone activity of Appellant's Appellant's cell phone, over Defense Counsel's objections, was prejudicial prejudicial to Appellant. Appellant. We find Appellant's Appellant's argument unavailing. unavailing.

Comnrnonwealth sought At trial, when the Commonwealth sought to introduce the Metro PCS records for the Cell

Phone Number, and in doing so, Detective Martinez read into the record aacertification from Lauren Collins of the Law Enforcement Relations Group Group with T-Mobile MetroPCS indicating indicating that the records were regular regular business records and were produced produced in compliance with Federal Rules of Evidence and Evidence and state state equivalents, equivalents, Defense Counsel objected. Defense Counsel objected. During the During the subsequent subsequent sidebar sidebar

conversation, the conversation, following discussion the following discussion occurred: occurred:

[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY [ASSISTANT ATTORNEY("ADA")]: (ADA")]. Your Honor, in anticipation anticipation of being introduced on March 30th, 2022, I this evidence being I sent Mr. Bompadre aaletter informing informing him of our intent to introduce these documents. And IIspecifically mentioned that we Mr.—or excuse me, Detective we had attached the document that Mr.or Martinez isis currently currently reading reading from in order to in order comply with to comply with Rule of Evidence Rule of Evidence 803 [(6)] and 803[(6)] and 902((11)] 902 [( 11)]. you receive any THE COURT: Did you any response? response? ADA: IIdid ADA: did not. not. DEFENSE COUNSEL: COUNSEL Your Honor, the Your Honor, 26: the documents documents have have toto still be reliable. reliable. business records that These are business that were produced produced by by aacompany company that that they are relying relying on the on the data that was sent to them, them, and there there is is --— he doesn't have the he doesn't the personal knowledge knowledge or the witness doesn't have personal knowledge. knowledge. THE COURT: COURT: The same thing thing applies to to aabill bill from aacontractor, contractor, IImean the the rules on this are clear on stuff. Your this stuff. Your objection objection is is overruled. overruled.

Trial N.T. at 552-53. THal concerning the admissibility of evidence are within the sound discretion Questions concerning of the trial court and we will not reverse aatrial court's decision concerning admissibility of evidence absent an abuse of the trial court's discretion. An abuse admissibility of discretion is not merely merely an error of judgment, but is rather the overriding of or misapplication misapplication of the law, or the exercise of judgment judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, or unreasonable, or the result of the result of bias, bias, prejudice, ill-will or prejudice, ill-will or partiality, as shown partiality, as shown by by the evidence of record. record. IfIf in reaching reaching aa conclusion the trial court overrides or misapplies law, discretion is then abused and it is the duty misapplies the law, duty of the appellate appellate court to correct the the error. 236 A.3d Commonwealth v. LeClair, 236 A.3d 71, 71, 78 78 (Pa.Super. 2020)(citation omitted). (Pa.Super. 2020)(citation omitted).

Hearsay is defined Hearsay is as "as an defined as an out-of-court out-of-court statement, statement, which which is is offered offered in in evidence evidence to to prove prove

the truth of the matter asserted." Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35, 68 68 (Pa. (Pa. 2012); PA.R.E. Pa.R.E. 8-

3(c). "Hearsay 3(c). generally inadmissible "Hearsay statements are generally inadmissible unless unless they fall under an enumerated exception." ld; exception." Id.; Pa.R.E. 802. Rule 803 of the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence provides such

exceptions, in exceptions, in relevant relevant part: part:

Rule Rle 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay--Regardless of Whether the Against Hearsay--Regardless Declarant Declarant Is Available as aaWitness following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether The following the declarant is available as aawitness:

We note that while the Me 26 the transcript transcript ascribes this statement to ADA Charles Prutzman, Esq., the response was actually by Defense Counsel, Adam Bompadre, Esq. made by

(6) Records (6) of. aa Regularly Records of Regularly Conducted Conducted Activity. Activity. A A record record (which includes aa (which includes memorandum, report, memorandum, report, or or data data compilation compilation in in any any form) of an form) of an act, act, event event or or condition condition if. if: (A) the (A) the record was made made at or near near the by--or from the time by--or from information transmitted by--someone with knowledge; by--someone knowledge; (B) the (B) record was the record kept in was kept the course in the course of aaregularly regularly conducted conducted activity activity of aa "business", which includes business, institution, association, profession, which term includes and calling occupation, and calling of every every kind, whether whether or not conducted for not conducted for profit; profit; (C) making (C) making the record was was aaregular regular practice practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by (D) by the testimony testimony of o£ the custodian or another qualified witness, or by qualified by a acertification certification that complies complies with Rule 902(11) 902(11) or or ((12) 12) or with aastatute permitting certification; and (E) the CE) the opponent does not show that the source of information or other circumstances indicate circumstances indicate aalack lack of of trustworthiness. trustworthiness. 803(6)(emphasis added). Pa.R.E. 803(6(emphasis added). Pertinently, Pertinently, Rule 902 of the Rules of Evidence provides that:

Certified Domestic Certified Domestic Records Records of of aaRegularly Conducted Activity. Regularly Conducted Activity. The original or aacopy copy of aadomestic record record that meets the that meets requirements of Rule the requirements Rule 803(6(A)-(0), 803(6)(A)-(C), as as shown by shown by aacertification certification of of the the custodian custodian oror another another qualified qualified person that that complies complies with PAR.C.P. with Pa.R.C.P. No. No. 76. 76. Before the trial Before the trial or hearing, the proponent hearing, the proponent must must give give an an adverse party adverse party reasonable reasonable written notice of the intent written notice intent to offer the the record--and record--and must must make the record make the record and certification certification available available for for inspection--so inspection-- so that the the party has aa party has challenge them. fair opportunity to challenge 902(11). Pa.R.E. 902(11)

The Commonwealth's presented presented aadocument executed by by Lauren Collins of the T-Mobile Law Law Enforcement Relations Group Enforcement Relations Group indicating that that the records met the records met the the conditions set set forth in

303(6)(A)-(D). At trial, the ADA noted that he sent notice to Trial Counsel pursuant to Pa.R.E. 303(6(A4)-(D). Pa.R.E. 902(11) Pa.R.E. 902(11) on on March 30, 30, 2022. 2022. While While Appellant argues that Appellant argues that Detective Martinez lacked Detective Martinez lacked

personal personal knowledge of the records being introduced knowledge of introduced and admitted, admitted, there there was no no such requirement

as required as under the required under the Rules of Evidence. Rules of The Commonwealth Evidence, The Commonwealth complied complied with with Rule 902(11) and Rule 902(11) and

the document the document conforms conforrns to Rule Rule 803(56A)-(D). 803(5)(A)-(D). Therefore, Therefore, there there would would be be no no reason reason for for the the trial trial

court to prevent of the prevent admission of the records. records. Appellant's of error Appellant's claim of error thus thus fails. fails.

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION foregoing reasons, For all of the foregoing reasons, we we find that all of Appellant's Appellant's allegations of of error lacks

Accordingly, we urge merit. Accordingly, urge the Superior Superior Court to affirm affinn the judgment judgment of sentence.

Footnotes

[18] Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2502(a) 1 18PCS.A, 2502() '18PAC.SA. 18 Pa:C.S.A. $§ 2502(6) 2502(b) 3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § '18Pa.C.SA. 2502(c). $ 2502(¢) 18 Pa.C.S.A. §$ 3502(a)(1Xi) '1$Pa.C.S.A. 4 3502(a)(1)(i) 5 18 Pa.C.S.A. § +18Pa.C.SA. 37o1(a)(1)(i) 8 3701(a)610)0) 18 Pa.C.S.A. §$ 2702(3X1 6 18Pa.C.S.A. 2702(a)(1) 7 18 Pa.C.S.A. $3925(a) 718Pa.C.SA. §39 2 5(a) Vad'AO SY:FF9 8 18 Pa.C.S.A. § '1PAC.SA. 6106(a)(1) $ 6106(a(1) 9 75 Pa.C.S.A. § '75PA.C.SA. 7122(1) $ 7122(1 10 18 PA.CS.A. 818 Pa.C.S.A. $ § 5510 93a1 t2 a±Jag 11 35 P.S. $ "35PR.S. § 780-1136a)016) 780-113(a)(16) "75 75 Pa.C.S.A. Pa.C.SA. sec 15o1(a) 1501(a) $10OD JOE5ID SIIJUC" I