Com. v. Campbell, C.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: June 9, 2025
• Docket: 480 MDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S10027-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : COLE JAMES CAMPBELL : : Appellant : No. 480 MDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 4, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-31-CR-0000187-2022

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED JUNE 09, 2025

Appellant, Cole James Campbell, appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered January 4, 2024, as made final by the denial of his post-sentence

motion on March 27, 2024. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of

this case as follows.

On the evening of April 3, 2022, Timothy Skipper and his wife, Hillary Skipper, were unloading groceries from Mrs. Skipper[’]s vehicle in the driveway of their home located [on] Springhill Drive in Clay Township, Huntingdon County[, Pennsylvania]. Springhill Drive is a private, dead-end dirt road that was constructed in the early 1970s to access the houses located along it, with the houses forming an informal neighborhood. The Skippers were new to the neighborhood, having bought their home a little over a year prior. For them, the purchase of their home was a symbol of their success in turning their lives around. Both were former drug addicts who had also been involved in selling drugs, and both had criminal convictions for drug offenses. But both of them had been able to get clean, and, after completing their respective sentences, obtain good J-S10027-25

employment. Most significantly, they had been able to build a better life for their two boys, then approximately ages nine and [13], who were playing out in the yard.

As they were unloading the groceries they saw one of their neighbors, [Appellant], drive past their home headed toward the main road. He was speeding. This was an ongoing issue that the Skippers had tried to address with him, particularly in light of the amount of time their boys spent outside playing. Their efforts only seemed to encourage the behavior. It had also led to a larger dispute in the neighborhood regarding the use and maintenance of the road. [Appellant] and his wife were on one side of that dispute, and a group of neighbors that included the Skippers was on the other.

A few minutes after [Appellant] first drove past, the Skippers saw him come back up the road, headed toward his home at the top of the hill. He was speeding again. Mr. Skipper expressed to his wife that he had had enough of the situation, and he was going to go up to the Campbell residence and tell [Appellant] that he was going to put speed bumps on the road. He got into his pickup truck and headed up Springhill Drive. It was the last time Mrs. Skipper saw her husband alive. Minutes later he was dead, having been shot three times by [Appellant] with an AR-15 style rifle after a brief argument between the two men regarding the road and the speeding issue.

[Appellant’s] wife, Brandy Campbell, placed a call to 911 just after the shots were fired. [Appellant] was very cooperative with the Pennsylvania State Police Troopers who responded to the call. He claimed to have shot and killed Mr. Skipper in self-defense. The entirety of the incident at [Appellant’s] residence was captured on video by camera systems that [Appellant] maintained, and he showed the videos captured by those systems to the state troopers in support of his claim. The Commonwealth, however, viewed the situation quite differently. [Appellant] was brought to trial in October 2023 on a number of criminal charges arising from the incident, including, most significantly, first- degree murder. On the basis of the video and other significant evidence the jury convicted [Appellant] of [Count one, voluntary manslaughter, Count two,

-2- J-S10027-25

aggravated assault – serious bodily injury, and Count three, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.1]

[The trial court sentenced Appellant on January 4, 2024]. At sentencing[,] the [trial c]ourt first found that Count [three], the second aggravated assault, merged with Count [one], voluntary manslaughter. The [trial c]ourt then sentenced [Appellant] to serve a term of [seven] to 20 years' incarceration on Count [two, aggravated assault – serious bodily injury], and a term of 10 to 20 years' incarceration on Count [one, voluntary manslaughter]. The sentences were imposed consecutively, resulting in a global sentence of 17 to 40 years' incarceration.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/24/24, at 1-3 (footnotes added). This timely appeal

followed.

Appellant raises the following issues for our consideration.

1. Whether the [trial] court erred, as a matter of law, when it failed to merge the imposed sentenced for count [one], the offense of voluntary manslaughter, and count [two], the offense of aggravated assault attempting to cause or causing serious bodily injury?

2. Whether the [trial] court abused its discretion when it sentenced Appellant to an aggravated term of imprisonment of 17 [] to 40 years[’ incarceration], imposed consecutively and outside the aggravated ranges, without adequate basis for such departures, and doing so while fixating on the gravity of the offenses and ignoring other factors, resulting in an unreasonable sentence?

3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence, insomuch as the verdicts were so contrary to the evidence as to shock the sense of justice and so that the right may be given another opportunity to prevail?

4. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law when it failed to grant Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal when it found that the Commonwealth met its burden of proof, hence ____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2503(b), 2702(a)(1), and 2702(a)(4), respectively.

-3- J-S10027-25

finding sufficient evidence, of disproving Appellant’s claim of self-defense?

Appellant’s Brief at 8 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified

record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable George N.

Zanic. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for the

reasons expressed in President Judge Zanic’s June 24, 2024 opinion.

Therefore, with respect to the issues that Appellant raised and briefed on

appeal,2 we affirm on the basis of President Judge Zanic’s able opinion and

adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing

this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of President Judge Zanic’s June

24, 2024 opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

2 Appellant included nine issues in his statement of errors complained of on

appeal filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), one in which Appellant argued that the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs, and four that address issues of suppression. See Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 4/25/24, at 6-8. The trial court addressed each of these issues in its 1925(a) opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/24/24, at 75-77. Appellant, however, did not raise any of these claims on appeal and, as such, failed to preserve these issues for our consideration. See Appellant’s Brief; see also Commonwealth v. Sipps, 225 A.3d 1110, 1112 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2019) (issues raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement which are not raised and developed in the appellate brief are waived).

-4- J-S10027-25

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 06/09/2025

-5- Circulated 04/30/2025 03.48 03:48 PM

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CP-31-CR-187-2022 11)

vs VS. a

r 7 COLE JAMES CAMPBELL - i'. r ,T OPINION OPINION ININ SUPPORT SUPPORT OF OF ORDER ORDER PURSUANT PURSUANT TOTO Pa.R.A.P. Pa.RA.P. 1925(a) 19250a) 3 •• N N On the evening of April 3, 202, 2022, Timothy Skipper and his wife, Hillery Hillary Skipper, were unloading groceries from Mrs. Mrs. Skipper's vehicle in the driveway of

their home located at 21414 Springhill Drive in Clay Township, Huntingdon County. Springhill Drive is a County. a private, dead-end dirt road that was constructed in the early 1970s to access the houses located along it, with the houses forming an informal neighborhood. The Skippers were new to the neighborhood, having

bought their home aalittle over a a year prior. For them, the purchase of their home was a symbol of their success in turning their lives around. asymbol around. Both were former drug addicts who had also been involved in selling drugs, and both had criminal offenses. But both of them had been able to get clean, and, convictions for drug offenses. after completing their respective sentences, obtain good employment. Most significantly, they had been able to build a abetter life for their two boys, then

approximately ages nine and thirteen, who were playing out in the yard yard.

As they were unloading the groceries they saw one of their neighbors,

defendant Cole Campbell, drive past their home headed toward the main road. road. He was speeding. speeding. This was an ongoing issue that the Skippers had tried to address

with him, particularly in light of the amount of time their boys spent outside

playing. playing. Their efforts only seemed to encourage the behavior behavior. It had also led to a a larger dispute in in the neighborhood regarding the use and maintenance of the road. road Defendant and his wife were on one side of that dispute, and aagroup of neighbors that that included the Skippers was on the other other. A A few minutes after Defendant first drove past, the Skippers saw him come back up up the road, headed toward his home at the top top of the hill. He was speeding

again. Mr. Skipper expressed to his again. Mr his wife wife that he he had had had enough of the situation, the situation and he was going going to go go up to the Campbell residence and tell Defendant that he

was going going to put speed bumps on the road. road. He got into his pickup truck and

headed up Springhill Drive. Mrs. Skipper saw her husband Drive. It was the last time Mrs. alive. Minutes later he was dead, having been shot three times by Defendant with alive, AR- 15 style an AR-15 style rifle after after aabrief argument argument between between the the two two men men regarding the the road and the speeding issue. issue Defendant's wife, Brandy Campbell, placed aacall to 911 just after the shots

fired. Defendant was very cooperative with the Pennsylvania State Police were fired. Troopers who responded to the call. He claimed to have shot and killed Mr. Skipper in self-defense. Mr self defense. The entirety of the incident at Defendant's residence was captured on video by camera systems that Defendant maintained, and he

showed the videos captured by those systems to the state troopers in support of his claim. The Commonwealth, however, viewed his claim. differently. viewed the situation quite differently Defendant was brought brought to to trial in October 2023 on aanumber of criminal charges arising from the incident, including, most significantly, first-degree murder. murder On the basis of the video and other significant significant evidence the jury convicted Defendant of following: the following. Count 1 1 --Voluntary manslaughter, manslaughter, unreasonable belief killing killing justifiable, as a lesser--included a lesser included offense to the charge of

first- degree murder first-degree murder [[18 18 Pa. C.S. $§ 2503(b)] Pa.CS. 2503(b)];

Count 2Z2--Aggravated assault, causes serious bodily injury to another intentionally, knowingly knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life [[18 18 Pa. C.S. § 2702(a)(1) Pa.GS,$ 2702(a)(1); and

Count 333- - Aggravated Aggravated assault, intentionally or knowingly knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a a deadly weapon weapon [[18 18 Pa.CS Pa. C.S.

§2702(a)(4). $2702(a)04)

22 At sentencing the Court first found that Count 3, 33, the second aggravated assault, merged merged with Count 1, I, voluntary voluntary manslaughter. manslaughter. The Court then sentenced Defendant to serve aaterm of 77to 20 2O years' incarceration on Count 2,2, and aaterm term of 10 to 20 years' incarceration on Count 1. The sentences were imposed 10to2O consecutively, resulting resulting in a a global sentence of 17 to 40 years' incarceration incarceration.

Defendant now appeals, raising raising aanumber of issues with respect to the sentences imposed, this Court's pretrial rulings, and the evidence admitted at trial, along with continuing his argument that his killing of the victim, Mr. along Skipper, was Mr Skipper entirely justified. justified. For the reasons set forth herein the issues raised by Defendant do not merit relief, relief and the order of sentence should be affirmed. affirmed

I. PROCEDURAL PROCEDURAL HISTORY As noted above, the crimes for which Defendant was convicted occurred on April April 3, 2022. 2022. The criminal complaint against against him was filed on April 29,2022. 2022. The

matter was the subject of much pretrial motion practice. Most significantly, both Defendant and the Commonwealth filed motions on August 8, 2022, that sought

rulings that would effectively decide the case in their favor favor. Defendant's took the

form of his extensive omnibus pre-trial motion, which sought, sought, in pertinent part part:

(i) a [i) habeas corpus ruling that the Commonwealth had failed to establish a ahabeas a prima facie case on the grounds grounds that Defendant was acting in self-defense; and and (ii) [(ii) suppression of nearly the entirety of the evidence that the Commonwealth had

obtained against Defendant. Defendant. The Commonwealth sought sought an order barring barring Defendant from arguing or otherwise raising a a claim of self-defense at trial. After careful review of the video of the shooting, shooting. the additional written legal argument submitted by both sides, and the applicable law, the Court denied each of these

motions in an order entered December December 20, 202ZZ. 2022. After further further motion practice

regarding regarding various evidentiary and jury selection matters, Defendant was brought to trial the week of October 16-20, 2023. 2023. Jury selection occurred on October 16th, the evidence was presented on October 17th, 18th, 18t, and 19th, 19", and closing arguments and deliberations occurred on the 20th. 20th

33 Sentencing Sentencing occurred on January 2024. Both sides submitted sentencing January 4, 2024. memorandums, memorandums, and the Court reviewed these along with the presentence investigation report. report. The Court also received character statements from from

Defendant's acquaintances and impact statements from the victim's family

members at the sentencing hearing. hearing Defendant filed post-sentence post- sentence motions on January 16, 2024, and

supplemental motions (filed supplemental post-sentence motions (filed with leave from the Court] Court) on March

21, 2024. 2024. The post- sentence motions were denied by this Court by post-sentence by order entered March 27, 27, 2024, 2024, resulting in this appeal appeal.

IL I ISSUES ISSUES RAISED Defendant's statement of matters complained of on appeal ostensibly raises issues. Those nine issues are complexly, but also broadly, stated in aa nine issues. multipart multpart fashion fashion over the the course of eight pages. pages. Thus, the the Court will will not not repeat repeat them verbatim here. The Court further further notes that Defendant's Issue No. No. 3, which

ostensibly pertains pertains only to Defendant's post post- sentence motion for acquittal, also

incorporates, in a a rather convoluted fashion, a a challenge to the denial of Defendant's post- sentence motion in post-sentence in arrest of judgment despite not specifically

identifying such motion. motion Stated more succinctly, and with Issue No. 3 3 divided into two separate parts, the issues raised by Defendant are as follows: follows 1. The Court abused The abused its its discretion by imposing sentences on Counts bry imposing Counts 1 L

and 2 2that significantly exceeded the aggravated ranges of the

Sentencing Guidelines and Sentencing Guidelines imposing such and imposing such sentences sentences consecutively, consecutively, in in that such sentences are manifestly excessive in light of the evidence

adduced at trial and the fact that the three shots constituted one act.

2. The Court erred by failing to merge Count 1 1 and Count Z2for sentencing purposes. purposes 3. 3 a.a. The Court erred by failing to grant Defendant's motion for judgment Judgment of acquittal as to each of the three counts on the

11 4 4

ii basis that the Commonwealth failed to disprove his claim of self-defense beyond aareasonable doubt doubt.

b. The Court erred by failing failing to grant Defendant's motion in arrest of judgment on the basis that the criminal information did not charge three separate criminal acts, and yet the Commonwealth proceeded on that basis at trial, and further that the evidence at trial showed that the three shots were fired in aasingle criminal act act.

4. 4 The Court erred by failing to grant Defendant's motion for new trial based on the weight weight of the evidence, on the basis that the greater weight of the evidence at trial demonstrated that Defendant had acted in self-defense. self-defense S. 5. The Court abused its discretion in admitting four photographs photographs of the

victim's bullet wounds at trial, as the sensational nature of these

photographs unfairly prejudiced Defendant to aadegree degree that

outweighed their probative value, particularly since they were cumulative of other evidence such as the autopsy report and testimony of the pathologist. pathologist 6.6. The Court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a a result of the warrantless entry, search, and seizure that occurred at Defendant's residence. residence 7. 7 The Court erred by denying denying Defendant's motion to suppress suppress all evidence obtained as aaresult of the search warrant issued on April 5, April5, 2022, at 9:53 am, on the grounds that the Court was without jurisdiction to issue the warrant. Jurisdiction warrant 8. 8. The Court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress suppress all evidence obtained as a aresult of the search warrant issued on April S, 5,

9:53 am, on the grounds 2022, at 9.53 grounds that the warrant was not served in compliance with the procedural requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P. 200- 212. 212

5 5 9.9. TheCourt The Court erred by by denying Defendant's motion to suppress suppress all evidence obtained as aaresult of the search warrant issued on April April 8, 2022, at 10:53 1053 am, on the grounds grounds that the Court was without jurisdiction to issue the warrant warrant.

Because many of the issues raised between the claims of error overlap, and

the analysis of some of them naturally builds upon the analysis of others, the Court will address them in aadifferent order than that in which they raised (but they were raised (but with Defendant's numbering maintained). The Court will also merge numbering maintained). merge the analysis analysis of some of the issues, as appropriate.

III. ANALYSIS IL.

A. A. Relevant Facts

The evidence relevant relevant for for the the consideration of the the issues raised raised by by Defendant falls into three broad categories:(lJ categories: ( 1) the history of the ongoing ongoing dispute dispute

that had been occurring between the Skippers and the Campbells, which led up up to the shooting; shooting; (2) (2) the events that occurred on the evening of April April 3, 2022; and (3) the physical and testimonial evidence obtained as a (3)the a result of the investigation. Commonwealth's criminal investigation

1. History of the Ongoing Dispute

The basic outline of the dispute from the Skippers' view is set forth in the opening above. above. But there are additional relevant details. details. As noted, both the victim and Mrs. Mrs. Skipper were former heroin addicts who had fought fought hard to get get clean. clean Both had criminal convictions from 2017. 2017 Mrs. Mrs. Skipper had been convicted of simple possession and possession of drug paraphernalia, and had served four years' probation. probation. N.T., Trial, Oct. Oct. 17, 2023 2023 (" Day One"), at 48. ("Day 48.1 The victim had been convicted of three counts of possession possession with intent to deliver and one count of

t The Court takes judicial notice of the criminal docket for case no 1 no. C31CR CP-31-CR-134-2017, Mrs. Skipper's drug 134.2017,Mrs drag ovctos convictions.

6 6 conspiracy to commit PWID. PW1p 2 He was accepted into the state drug drug treatment

program and served a a sentence of two years in that program, followed by two years' probation. probation.'3 After getting clean, Mrs. Skipper worked as a After getting nurse. The a nurse. The victim had taken a anumber of classes while in the state drug drug treatment program program and became employed at Manitowoc after release, first as aawelder welder and then as aarobot operator. He also did odd jobs on the side to make additional income. income. N.T., N.T, Day Day One, at 46-48. The Skippers had lost their prior home as part of their 2017 drug convictions and had lived with other family family members for aatime while getting getting back on their feet. By working a a significant number of hours they had managed managed to save

enough to obtain aaloan and purchase their home on Springhill Springhill Drive. Drive At the time of their 2017 arrests the Skippers had owned three firearms: firearms: aa shotgun (which shotgun (which technically belonged to one of their sons); sons); a ahunting hunting rifle; rifle; and a a

9mm handgun. These had been seized by the Commonwealth as part of the cases. After her criminal case had been resolved, Mrs. Skipper worked criminal cases. with an attorney to have the firearms returned and transferred to her father, rather than forfeited. Mrs. Skipper was adamant that she and her husband did not have any firearms at their Springhill Drive residence in April 2022. She was April 2022. prohibited from possessing firearms due to her probation, and the victim was

prohibited from owning or possessing firearms due to his multiple multiple felony felony convictions. Id. at 49--50 convictions. 49-50.

After moving moving in, the Skippers got to know their neighbors, Skippers got neighbors, and generally generally them. They had asked a were on good terms with them. a couple of the neighbors neighbors to slow down when going past their house on Springhill Drive when they first moved in, out of concern for their children. children. With the exception of the Campbells, all of the

neighbors neighbors had understood and were fine with it. it. Id, Id. at 50-51. 50-5L. Mrs. Mrs. Skipper tended to keep to herself more, more, in part because she worked night night shift, but she became friends with a aneighbor neighbor who she also worked with, and got got to know the parents of

Te 2 The Court takes judicial note notice of of the the criminal docket for tor case no. CP-31-CR-62-2017, the victim's drug no €p.1.4R-62-2017,the convictions. Although not captured in the convictions. the transcript, trans0pt, the Commonwealth specifically convictions specifically noted these cow tons in ts n its openngstatement opening statement.

3 See id.; see also N.T., Day One, at 48.

77 the children who lived nearby. Id. at 47. nearby. Id, 47 The victim became friends with aanumber number

of the neighbors, including including Curtis Guyer, who lives at 8043 8043 Campbell Circle next to

the Campbells' residence, and Rudy Rud D'Alesio, who owns aasecond home located at 21588 Springhill Drive, roughly across from the Skippers. Skippers. Id, Id. at 90-91; N.T., Trial,

Oct. 19, 0et. 19, 2023 2023 (" Day Three"), at 1-3. (Day 1-3 Curtis Guyer is married to Samantha Christine Guyer, who is Defendant's cousin. He had known Defendant for approximately seventeen years, cousin. years, and had hatd lived at 8043 Campbell Circle with his wife and her father for approximately ten years. years. N.T., Day One, at 91-92, 119. 119. Campbell Circle is aaprivate lane that branches off of Springhill Drive, crosses Defendant's property, and leads to both Defendant's house and the Guyers' house, house. Mr. Mr Guyer became friends with the victim after the Skippers moved into their home. home. The victim often came up to the Guyers' residence and worked on vehicles and equipment with Mr. Guyer in his garage,

including an old gray Ford pickup truck that the victim owned and aabackhoe that the victim had purchased and repaired to get it it in in working order. Id. at 97-98, order Id, 121. I2L. The pickup truck was recognizable recognizable in the neighborhood in part neighborhood in part because it had a a loud exhaust. See.e.g. See, e.g., id id. at 121. 121 Rudy D'Alesio is aaretired police officer from Upper Darby, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania.

He continues to work part-time doing security security work. He purchased his his property property on Springhill Drive in 1987 as aasecond home, originally coming up to hunt and fish, and began using it as a a general getaway getaway as the years went on, on. N.T., Day Day Three, at 1-3, 13-14. He was familiar with Defendant, and knew the victim. He had I-3,13-14. gotten to know the victim after the Skippers moved in, and had given giwen the victim permission to go onto his property so the Skippers' children could fish in in his pond pond.

Id, at 3, 10-11. 10-11 The witnesses were all in in agreement that Springhill Drive was in in poor

condition, that it could be treacherous if not plowed in winter, and that road maintenance was an issue. issue, The road is narrow, so much so that in in some places if

two vehicles meet going opposite directions one of them has to to pull over to the

edge and stop to let the other one pass. pass. It also has aanumber of steep hills. hills. Because of its of its dirt dirt surface, surface if someone drives if someone drives too too fast on the fast on road, they the road they stir stir up up a cloud of a cloud of

8 8 dust, which can cause problems for some of the neighbors. neighbors. It also creates safety issueS. issues.'4 An association had been formed back in 1971 among the property owners specifically regarding regarding the road, with with responsibility for maintaining it, it, plowing plowing it, and setting setting basic rules for its use. use. 5 At some point, the association had placed

private speed limit signs along Springhill Drive, setting a a limit of 10 MPH. MPH.66 When

Mr. D'Alesio first purchased his home, the association was run by by Defendant's grandparents.? Over time, the association had become inactive, and maintenance grandparents. became an issue. issue. Control over the association had apparently apparently gone gone to Defendant and his wife by by default after his grandparents grandparents moved, and Defendant did not keep keep on top of things." things.$ The association was inactive enough that the Skippers had no

knowledge or notice of it when they purchased their home. home. They did not learn it until approximately the fall of 2021, when Defendant and his wife sought about it sought

to to ""organize" organize" the association and get it active again. again. 9

Because of all the issues with road maintenance, the victim set out to

improve the situation. situation. He used the old backhoe he had purchased to repair road. He also used it to carry loads of sand to refill the sand damaged areas of the road. barrels that were stationed at points along the road tor for use when the road became

icy. icy. In the winter, he plowed the road promptly after each snowstorm, using using his old Ford pickup truck. He also plowed many many of the neighbors' neighbors' driveways, and helped those who had trouble getting in and out of the neighborhood. neighborhood. Some of this work work he he did on his did on his own, own, and and some of it some of it he he did did with with the the help help of certain neighbors of certain or neighbors or

4 N.T., One, at NT Day One, at 56; N.T., Day Three, at6 56NT_Day at 6-7, 8, 94-95. 7 8,94.95

5 N.T., One, at 51, NT, Day One, 51, 53; N.T., Day Three, at7-9 N.T_, Day at 7-9.

6 N.T., at 6, 41. NT Day Three, at6,41

N.T., Day Three, at9 'NT_Day 7 at 9.

See 8See NT N.T., Dy Day Oe, One, at at 100, 100, 101-102 ( Curtis Guyer 104-102(Curtis Guyer; the road was wars in in poor poor shape was not shape and wars maintained, no ot maintauned, road fees pad paid in in the ten years he had lived there; there; Defendant plowed the snow, but but would wait wat until days after each storm); storm N.T., NT_DayDay Three, Three, at 9 ( Rudy D'Alesi; at 8, 9(Rudy D'Alesio; after Defendant'sgrandparents Defendant's grandparents moved away away "it it didn't seem like anything was getting done" beyond the bare minimum to keep getting done keep the road open; open; Detendaat Defendant plowed plowed the road betore before the Skippers moved in); [did. at 30 ( Defendant; there were a 30(Defendant; a number amber of of neighbors neighbors who had not paid fees tees to the ass00at0in association for tor years, and he 2rd yeas,and and his wife wile were trying to get the association tryingtoget association "organiedagain] organized" again).

9 N.T., One, at 51-52. NT Day One, 51-52

99 his brother, Dustin, who also lived in the neighborhood. neighborhood."10 The victim never asked

to be paid for any of this work. work. Instead, he did it to try to improve improve the situation." situation.' The appearance of the Skippers in the neighborhood, their new relationships with the existing neighbors, the victim's performance of work on the

road and driveways, and the Skippers' request that the Campbells slow down when going past their house, were all triggers for Defendant's anger. anger Per Mrs. Skipper, the Campbells were among the neighbors that the victim asked to slow down not long after the Skippers moved in. in. 12 In response, response, the Campbells not only continued speeding, but seemed to speed up up intentionally intentionally when going going past house. 13 At some point the house. point in the fall of 2021, 2021, Defendant and his wife sought to reassert authority over the neighborhood via the association. Each of the

neighbors received a aletter from the Campbells, via via the association, declaring declaring that that all residents needed to register their ATVs with the association in order to use them on the road, and stating the annual fee that was to be paid to the association was going to be raised from from $$50.00 50.00 per year to a a much more significant significant amount. amount.I14

10 N.T., Day One, gt 0NT_pa0ee, 59-60 (H/Lary at 59.60 (Hillary Skipper Skipper; Defendant confronted the victim twice when he was dong doing road maintenance, including once when he was snowplowingsnowplowing in n his truck with his brother; brother); id id. at 96, 100102 at 96, 100-102 Guyer; the victim's brother (Curtis Guyer. brother, Dustin, lived in the neighborhood neighborhood; the victim purchased the backhoe with the intent of using it it to fix up p the road, road, ad and sedit used it to fix the road and various neighbors' driveways; the victim neighbors' driveways snowstorm, and cane plowed promptly after each snowstorm, came outoe out one time plow Campbell Circle when Defendant toe to piowCampbel€rcle refused to plow plow the lane and Mrs Mrs. Guyer needed to work NT.,Day to get to work); N.T., Day Three, 8-10, 12 Three, at 8-10 12 ((Rudy Rudy D'Alesio; D'Alesi0, after moving moving, in, the victim took on the tasks of plowing the road using his truck and toeing fixing the road using using his backhoe; the victim kept the sand barrels fled backhoe filed and Mr. Mr D'Alesio D'Alesi helped him with this; the victim ad and hi¢his brother would help aafemale neighbor gtupandownthe brother get up and down the road in the winter when she she needed it;it, the victim would plow Mr Mr. D'Alesi0's D'Alesio's driveway in the winter without beg being asked asked, instead just gust giving him a a phone eallcall and letting him know that it it had been done] done).

+NT 11 N.T., pa Day Oe, at 85-89 (Hillary One, at859 ( Hillary Skipper Skipper; the victim never asked to be for the work, though be paid tor though some of the neighbors offered to give him mote money tor for fuel as aathank you—she you-she remained firm about this despite despite repeated, repeated heated questioning by Defendant's Defendant s counsel alleging that the victim was angry about not ot being paid and refused to pay fees tees to the association because of it); it); id. id at 102 ( Curtis Guyer·the 102(Curtis Guyer; the victim did not ask for money money for the plowing plowing or repair repair work). work

12 Id. at 50-51, 74-75. 1d at5054 74.75 Note that that both Defendant and his hie wife denied having ever spoken to or communicated with the victim regarding regarding speeding prior to the shooting shooting. Id. at 135-36; N.T., Day Three, Id at13536NT_Day 30-31, Three, 30 65. 31 65

13 Id. at 51 ( Mrs. Sipper 1d at5l(Mrs Skipper, noting both the intentional intentional nature of the behavior and that Defendant, Defendant, his hs wife, wife, his mother, mother. and hshis mother's paramour all engaged engaged in the behavior). behavior)

+[d 14 at 52 ( Id. at5?(Mrs Mrs. Skipper Skipper; giving the basic outline ot giving the of tthe he letter letter and stating stating that the tee fee was going to be be ""much much larger" $50.00 per year), larger than the allegedly existing $50.00 99 (Curtis Guyer year),99(Curtis Guyer; letter stated the fee was going going to be $200.00 0r either $200.00 $250.00 or $250 exactly), 142 00 per year, though he did not recall the amount exactly). ( Brandy Campbell; she 142 (Brandy

10 10 Neither the Skippers nor the rest of the neighbors it well. For the Skippers, neighbors took it Skippers, it was the first they had heard anything about the association. association. Mrs. Mrs. Skipper researched the issue and believed the association was invalid, as it it had not not been registered since 1971. 1971.I15 One of the other neighbors started a a petition to dissolve the association. association. It was signed by the Skippers and aalarge number of the other neighbors and then then sent to Defendant and his his wife wife by by Certified Mai1. 16 A Mail.le A meeting meeting of the association was held at the Campbells' residence in December 20Z1, 2021, and it it

was Mrs. Mrs. Skipper's understanding that at that meeting, meeting, the neighbors neighbors passed aavote to dissolve the association, meaning the association was no longer existence. 17 longer in existence.' The Campbells apparently apparently believed differently. differently. 1S Regardless Regardless of when the letter or whether the vote was effective, the Campbells were both aware of was received or it and angered by it.I it. 19

The Campbells, for their part, both testified that they they ""never" never" sped past past the Skippers' residence, and drove slowly on the road. Id. at 143 road. Id, 143 ((Mrs. Mrs. Campbell;

Defendant Defendant ""never" never" sped past the Skippers' residence, and neither did she; she

drove 10 MPH, 15 MPH MPH "at at the max."); N.T., Day Three, at 41 41 ((Defendant Defendant on direct

examination; he tries to keep his speed on Springhill Drive to "around around 10 10 to 15 15 [MPH]," and has never driven faster than 15 MPH past the Skippers' residence] residence).

This was in conflict not only with Mrs. Mrs. Skipper's testimony, but also Mr. D'Alesio's. Mr D'Alesi0's Id. at ld, 7 ( Mr. D'Alesio's testimony on direct examination regarding Defendant's at7(Mr driving habits on Springhill Drive; Drive; ""He He drove fast every time he came up. "). up.")

and Defendant sent the the letter out. out, cha characterizing it as setting a ateringitassetting a meeting association members to isess meeting of the asoaton discuss "possibly" raising "poss/" raising the the annual fee, fee, since t it had not been raised in years). in years]

1s Id. at 51-52, 53.

16 Id. at 55, 84, Id at5 84 142. 142

17 Id. at 55. Id at55

18 Id. at 142( Brandy Campbell clamng ld at142(randy claiming that they did not receive the letter regarding the petition until after the December 2021 meeting). meeting)

See id. at 55-56 seeidats5 19 ( Mrs. Skipper 56(Mrs. Skipper, in response to what observations led her to Campbells to the conclusion that the Cam pbells were angry angry about the petition: pettio "Well, All the speeding past the house increased. increased They were staring at us. us. Our [road] [road]isis shared andit'svery and it's very narrow gong going pthe up the hull hill. The They have bug big vehicles. vehicles They make sure we get pushed off to the side of the road. ott road)").

11 The witnesses witnesses were were also in agreement that that there were were at at least least two two instances of direct contact between Defendant and the victim prior to the shooting shooting.

One occurred when the victim victim was attempting attempting to smooth out the stretch of

Campbell Circle between Springhill Springhill Drive and the Guyers' driveway. driveway. Id, Id. at 59-60

(Mrs. Skipper), 101 (Mrs. 101 (Curtis (Curtis Guyer), 154 154 ((Mrs. Mrs. Campbell; Campbell); N.T., Day Three, at 31

(Defendant). The other occurred while the victim was plowing snow on Campbell (Defendant). Circle after a N.T., Day One, at 59-60 a storm. N.T,, 59-60 ((Mrs. Mrs. Skipper), 155 155 ((Mrs. Mrs. Campbell);

N.T., NT., Day Three, at 31 31 ((Defendant). Defendant). With respect to the first incident, the stretch of

Campbell Circle between Springhill Drive and the Guyers' driveway is apparently quite rough, rough, and has a a deep ditch across it near the intersection with Springhill Springhill Drive. Mr. Guyer had asked the victim to come up with his backhoe and repair Campbell Circle because the condition of the road was poor enough it was causing

the Guyers' car to bottom out. N.T,, bottom out. N.T., Day One, at 100-101. 100--101. The victim started to fill in the ditch using his backhoe, and when Defendant and Mrs. Mrs. Campbell saw this,

they went out on their ATV to stop him. him. Despite multiple claims by Defendant's

counsel, both in his opening statement and during cross-examination, that the victim used his backhoe to to "tear apart" the Campbells' driveway and rip up buried uneventful. See Id, wires, it was clear that the incident itself was uneventful. id. at 154 154 (testimony (testimony of Mrs. cross-examination Mre. Campbell on cross -examination by Defendant's counsel, when asked to describe the one interaction she claimed to have had with the victim); victim]; Q: What is that interaction?

A: That Tat would be when he came up our driveway with his backhoe and was digging digging, I l guess, to attempt to fix the roadway.

Q: Q: What did you see? see?

A: As he was digging my husband and I I drove over of the four- wheeler to ask him to stop because of our electric lines driveway. And when he had asked him to stop, underneath the driveway. he says, I'm sorry, man. man. IIdidn't know, and continued up our driveway to our neighbor's. neighbor's.

12 12 and N.T., Day Three, at 31 (Defendant's NT_,Day (Defendant's testimony on direct examination] examination).

Q: you—can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury And had you-can what the nature of those encounters were and what prompted those or what they were about?

A: A. So one encounter IIconfronted-well, confronted—well, me and wife confronted Tim. He was on the backhoe coming up our driveway.A" Tim. driveway. 20 He started to fill in aarain redirect ditch. ditch. We took the four-wheeler over. We just asked him kindly over kindly hey, hey, can you not do that? We're having problems with our other neighbor complaining complaining about water run off. I I have the road the way IIwant it.it. Just please don't touch the driveway. driveway.

Q:Q: All right. Alright A: A: He said okay, my mistake. I I apologize, apologize, this and that and that was the end of that. that Defendant later clarified that he was also concerned during this incident because

the Campbells' have wires run under Campbell Circle that supply power to an

electric fence for the livestock they keep on the far side of the road, and the victim could possibly have damaged them if he dug into the roadbed while making making repairs. Id. at 33 repairs. Id, 33.

Turning to the second incident, this is where the differences between the version of events testified to by Defendant and his family members, and the

version of events testified to by the Commonwealth's witnesses, became

significant. Defendant described the event as follows on direct examination. Significant. examination:

Q: Q Okay. Was there anything else relative to the property? Okay. property A: A. So he was-that was—that winter-I winter— Idon't remember the month—he month he was plowing the driveway with his truck. truck. We've asked him in an email my wife sent previously to no plow it it or do anything with our driveway politely. politely. So II told her, IIsaid, I'm going to go go down and talk to him face-to-face, face-to face, so I l took her her car. I I went to the bottom bottom of the driveway and I waited. As Tim was coming I waited. coming down I I flagged him down. down. He came to a stop. His brother a stop. Dustin was was in in the the truck with with him. him. I I walked walked up and I I said hey, hey, like, we've asked you numerous times not to plow the driveway. Can you please stop? You're disrupting driveway, disrupting—you're -you're causing[sic] to dig the dirt up, causing headaches. headaches. He said--he said—he

Defendant and Mrs. Defendant 20 Mrs. Campbell consistently referred to Campbell Circle as their their "driveway," despite the fact that it exists as a that4tests an.a00dro.hadst0a4sheath named road and is used to access both their their house hose and the Guyers'. at/he6eyer

13 13 came back at me and was saying saying about how there is this right- of-way—written right-of-way shared between me and the of-way-written Guyers. Guyers. IIwasn't plowing plowing or maintaining maintaining the driveway, that he was going to do it it.

I l informed him that that is incorrect. IIhave the deeds to my property, the Guyers' as well as the previous deeds to both properties and there's never been any written right-of-way right-of-way. There's never been a a written agreement or anything like that that. property—my So from my understanding that it was my property-my driveway to maintain and all al IIasked him was aasimple ask me, not to go through anybody else. else. He came back to me and was saying Iwas aaliar and some other names I'd rather not say saying Iwas say.

At that point IInoticed laying between him and his brother there was aafirearm. firearm. II believe it was aapistol. IItold him I I said, listen, IIsai[d], I'm done with this, this, Tim. II said, I'm going to go find a lawyer. I'm alawyer advice. I lm going to get some legal advice. I want to get aadeed on the driveway, so I'm l'm going to talk to aalawyer. lawyer The conversation basically ended when he told me IIcould go- go— excuse me—but go fuck myself and sped excuse me but go fuck myself and sped away. away.

•••

Q: Q: When Mr. Mr Skipper told you to go FF yourself, what was his demeanor? How did he appear to be?

A: A: Shooting Shooting fire fire balls balls would be be the closest things. Q: Q Okay. Okay

A: A: Just glaring at me me.

Q: When he left did he pull out slow or how did he leave? A: A Ibelieve he attempted to kick rocks up and there are[sic] like aaburn out but, yeah, it wasn't slow, no, calm calm.

Id. at 31-33. Id 31-33 On cross examination, examination, Defendant clarified that this incident occurred

in early March 2022Z, 2022, about a amonth prior to the shooting. He also contradicted his

earlier testimony regarding where the pistol was located located (which (which was originally on the seat between the victim victim and his brother), and claimed that the firearm was in the victim's possession. Id. at 56("It possession. Id, cocked. "). 56 (" It was under his leg like cocked

Defendant testified that the snowplowing incident was not the first time he

had seen the victim with aagun. gun. Approximately six or seven months prior to the shooting, he had driven past the Skippers' home and saw the victim standing shooting,

14 14 outside in the yard with a a handgun in a a holster on his right hip. Id, Id. at 34, 60 60.

Defendant was adamant that it could not have been anything other than a a handgun, despite the fact that at the time he allegedly witnessed it, he was driving,

it was evening light (between 6:30 pm and 7.00 7:00 pm), and the victim was standing

thirty yards away. away. Id, Id. at 60-62, 64. 64. Mrs. Campbell testified as to a similar instance a similar in which she claimed to have seen the victim victim carrying aagun. gun. She gave gave no date, time, or or situation, other than she had had seen seen him outside of the Skipper residence residence with aaholstered handgun on his right hip. hip. N.T., NT., Day Day One, at 1SS. 155 other witness who testified for One other for Defendant claimed that he had seen the victim armed with a a handgun. handgun. David Quarry, Mrs. Mrs. Campbell's father, testified that

two or three months before the shooting he had driven up Springhill Drive with his wife and son to visit the Campbell family, and was confronted by the victim victim

regarding his speed speed.

A: We drove up, went past pagt Tim's house. As we were pulling in up Tin's house. at my son-in-law's house, Mr. Skipper Skipper come driving in behind us. II got out of the car car. He got got out of the car car. Made the statement that Il needed to F-ing slow down, that there was Fin F'in kids down there and they could have got hurt. hurt. My response was that IIwouldn't be able to speed on that road if I I wanted to. to Q: Why Why is that? A: Because it was in such bad shape that probably probably would have tore my my car apart. ... Q: Q. You had the conversation?

A: Yes. And at that point as he was saying this, he brushed his whatever it coat back or whatever it was. I'm not sure exactly what he was wearing wearing and there was—he was -he had a a gun on his side. Q: Did you you see that for sure? A: Yes. Yes

Q: Q: How was it that you were able to see the gun? gun? A: He basically basically made sure that IIsaw it, it. He brushed his coat or whatever he had on there. there Q: Q: Where was the gun located?

15 15 A: A: It was onhis Itwas on his right side. right side Q: And can you describe the gun at all if you can? A: It It wasn't wasn't a a revolver. revolver. It It was—would was---would be be more more of a gun in the a gun the style of either aaGlock or maybe a a Smith && Wesson, something something in that nature but it it was not aawheel gun gun.

Q: Q: Idon't know what aawheel gun Idon't gun is. A: A. That's arevolver. That'sarevolver

N.T., Day Three, at 94-95, NT., 94-95. Mr Mr. Quarry testified that after the victim brushed his

coat back to show the him the gun, the victim repeated to Mr. Mr Quarry that he needed to slow slow down, and then left, left. Mr Mr. Quarry then went inside and told

Defendant what had happened. Id. at 96-97. happened. Id, 96-97. Mr. Mr Quarry did not call the police about the incident, and did not ask Defendant to check to see if Defendant's camera system had recorded the alleged incident, despite being concerned by it. Mr. Mr Quarry also did not seek out any of the investigating state troopers to tell them about the alleged incident after the shooting occurred. occurred. The first mention he made

of it was in response to questions he was asked by state troopers when they they interviewed him three or four days after the shooting happened. Id, Id. at 98-101 98-101.

As noted above, Mrs. Skipper Skipper testified that the guns that she and the victim

had owned had been seized by the Commonwealth as part of their criminal cases,

those guns had later been transferred to her father, and that neither she nor the

victim had been in possession of any firearms since those few guns had been seized. Mr. Guyer, while not aware of the victim's criminal convictions, had never seen the the victim victim in possession possession of aafirearm. N.T., N.T, Day Day One, at 98. Mr. Mr D'Alesio did know that the victim was aaconvicted felon felon (and [and thus ineligible to possess firearms), and had never seen the victim in possession of a afirearm--whether firearm—whether

carried on his person or in his truck. truck. N.T., N.T., Day Three, at 12-13. 12--13. Mrs. Campbell testified that after the alleged incident with her father, she

looked up the victim's criminal docket and discovered that he was aaconvicted felon with drug charges, meaning he was prohibited from possessing firearms. firearms N.T., N.T., Day One, at 157-58, 15758, 165. 165. She did not go go to the police with his information. information

16 16 Rather, she provided it to Defendant, who reached out to some of his his ""friends" friends" in

law enforcement via text messages for for advice. Id. at 165-167. advice. Id The Commonwealth presented three sets of text messages that were revealing as to Defendant's mindset about the situation and his attitude toward the

victim and the Skipper Skipper family in general. general. The first did not address the alleged

incidents incidents of of firearms possession. Rather, Rather, it it was was in in regard regard to aawarning warning that Mrs. Mrs Campbell sent to Defendant and other family members on February February 5, 2022, via Facebook Messenger, Messenger, regarding regarding the safety safety of the Skippers' Skippers' children: children: ""Whenever Whenever

y'all head out be careful because Skippers kids were sledding sledding onto the road." In

response, Defendant sent a GIF in the form of a a GlF ascreen capture from the movie

Rocky Rocky IV. The image image is of the lead antagonist, antagomist, Ivan van Drago, uttering uttering the line line ""If If he

dies, he he dies." See Commonwealth's Exhibits 5 5 and 6; 6; see see also N.T., N.T., Day Day One, 143- 143- 148 148 (testimony (testimony of Mrs. confirming that she sent the message) Mrs. Skipper confirming message).

The second set of messages that were admitted pertained to the alleged alleged firearms possession. possession. On March 12, 202Z, 2022, Defendant, via Facebook Messenger, Messenger sent aatext message to Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Paul Brenneman. Brenneman. Trooper Trooper Brenneman was an old acquaintance of Defendant's, whom Defendant knew gs as

PJ. ,6 P]"

DEFENDANT: DEFENDANT Hey IIhate to bug bug you. you. Who would you you contact if your neighbors that moved in ya found out are felons which is whatever yafound but they still carry aa firearm and have come onto your your property property multiple multiple times. times There not on it now just just makes me uneasy with the kids. TROOPER BRENNEMAN: BRENNEMAN; As far as the no trespassing, make sure it's posted and if they trespass call psp. psp. As far as the firearms if you know they are felons and f fall a under one of the sections ll regarding person not to possess you could call then in on that to either probation/parole probation/ parole if they're on it. it. If not report it to psp psp.

DEFENDANT: DEFENDANT Okay man thanks. thanks. Yeah we have aabright bright reflective sign for no trespassing for the

17 17 driveway. I driveway. I give them a a call just hate being one of those lol but not risking it it in this world with the kids. kids

BRENNEMAN: TROOPER BRENNEMAN Yeah, I Yeah, I don't blame you. you Defendant's Exhibits 4, 4A 4A (text (text as in the original, timestamps removed for clarity]; clarity);

5e see also N.T., NT, Day One, at 168-170 168-170 ((Mrs. Mrs. Campbell discussing her knowledge of the

message), N.T., Trial, Oct. Oct. 18, 2023 (" 18, 2023 Day Two"), at 159-66 ("Day 159-66 (testimony (testimony of Trooper Brenneman regarding regarding the text exchange, including that Defendant never sent him further messages regarding the situation and never identified the victim as being

the felon allegedly in passion of a property). a firearm on Defendant's property) The final set of text messages also pertained to the alleged firearms possession by by the victim and were exchanged via Facebook Messenger. Messenger They were an between Defendant and Joey Allen, a afriend of his who worked at Youth Forestry

Camp # Camp #3.3. N.T., N.T., Day Three, at 38-40. 38-40 DEFENDANT: DEFENDANT I I know you work the kids side but maybe your Leo 21 would know. or Leo?' know. How can you find out if someone's on parole or probation? We have a a new neighbor who's a a felon which is whatever whatever but has carried aa firearm onto my property. property. I I didn't catch it her parents did.did. I I talked to aa trooper and told me to call psp for trespassing but told me if he's on either of those to call his probation or parole officer if is on it it.

JOEY ALLEN: Do you know his name? I'll see if Leo can get one of his friends record to view but off hand I'm not sure what site to go through for it. DEFENDANT: DEFENDANT Timothy Skipper Jr Jr. 11/19/81 DOB. Found some 11/19/81 D0B. records of felony just couldn't find if on probation or anything or if was the felony type that can't be in possession or anything of a a firearm wasn't sure how all that went. firearm wasn't sure how all that went Know he's on something that he doesn't want doesn't want brought back up cuz when I I told him I'd get legal action and all he shut up and left. Tried to spin

zl pefend.at Defendant clarified that "Leo" Leo" referred to Leo Scalia, Scalia, aamutual friend of Defendant and Joey Joey Allen who worked as asaaprobation officer officer. N.T., Day Three, at 39. 39%

18 l8 his wheels but his truck was too shitty lol other wise woulda shot his back window out. Defendant's Exhibit 4A, at 2 ((not not paginated in in the original, text as in the original], original),

Commonwealth's Exhibit 127 127 (emphasis (emphasis added, otherwise text as in in the original); original);

See also see alg N.T., N.T,, Day Two, at 184-90 184--90 (testimony (testimony of Trooper Christopher Bourne regarding how the messages were obtained and presenting the text of the

messages). On direct examination, Defendant admitted that he had sent the messages)]. messages to Joey Allen soon after the snowplowing messages to snowplowing incident, and characterized himself as as ""angry" angry" and and ""heated" heated" at time he sent the messages. messages. N.T., N.T_, Day Three, at

38-40. 38-40 The Commonwealth also presented an item of evidence that bore on Defendant's mindset in in regard to the use of deadly force; force; a apicture of aasign sign

hanging on the inside wall of the Campbells' residence, in the dining dining area, not far

from where the shooting occurred. occurred. It shows aapair of crossed revolvers and reads

"WE DON'T CALL911 CALL 911." Commonwealth's Exhibit 74; N.T., Day Two, at 44.45 44-45

(testimony of Corporal Travis Garner, identifying the photograph). photograph). During During his direct examination, Mr. Mr Quarry claimed that he and his wife had purchased the sign sign for the Campbells as aaChristmas gift a a few years earlier earlier, because because "[t]hey "[t[hey have aa sort of western theme in their house," and that the sign sign ""was was sort of a across

between that and a a little bit of a a gag that we had going but nothing— didn't mean nothing-didn't anything really." N.T., Day Three, at 97. 97.222 Also admitted were pictures of a a sign sign Defendant Defendant posted at the bottom of Campbell Circle that reads reads ""PRIVATE PRIVATE DRIVE/NO DRIVE/NO TRESPASSING." TRESPASSING" Commonwealth's Exhibits 119-121. 119--121

22 Defendant, Defendant, inin an apparent apparent attempt to to counteract the the "WE submitted aapicture of DON'T CALL 911" sign, submitted WE DON"(A4.911sign, ofa sign that that had been posted posted at the bottom ot Skippers driveway of the Skippers' driveway. It lt showed aapicture of aa handgun handgun ad and read If you are seen here tonight...you "If sou tonight you might tomorrow " Defendant's Exhibit 22. Mrs might be found here tomorrow." Mrs. Skipper Sipper testified that the sign sign had been put up up by the prior owner of their house, hoe, and they the had just just left left it up up. She took it it down and replaced it " no trespassing it with aa no tine after the victim was killed. trespassing" sign ashort time lulled.NT.Day N.T., Day One, at 81-83. 81-83

19 19 2. Events of the evening of April 3, 2022.

a.a. Video recordings recordings.

The key evidence against Defendant were video recordings from two separate systems located at the Campbell residence. residence. The first system was an

Amcrest-brand video surveillance system equipped with cameras inside and

outside of the house house (the (the ""Surveillance Surveillance System). The Surveillance System recorded

video only, and stored that video on a aDVR DWR router that was located in aacloset in the Campbells' residence. Campbells' residence. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth obtained obtained the the DVR router via DVR router via a search a search warrant executed on the Campbells' Campbells' residence on the night shooting, and night of the shooting. obtained the video recordings from the DWR DVR router via aaseparate search warrant. warrant The Surveillance System was equipped with three cameras; recordings from two of the cameras were used at trial. trial. One camera was located outside of the house with

a Circle, and a a view of the driveway, Campbell Crcle, aportion of Springhill Drive Drive,

identified on screen as as ""Fence Fence Side" Side." The second camera was located in the kitchen

of the Campbell residence, was labeled labeled ""Kitchen" Kitchen" on screen, and had a a full view of the entrance door and immediate interior area of the house where the shooting

place. These videos were admitted as Commonwealth's Exhibit 126. See N.T., took place.

Day Two, at 175-77 175-77 ((testimony testimony of Trooper Bourne regarding how the videos were

obtained from from the Surveillance System] System).

The second system was a ""doorbell doorbell camera," sold under the Zumimall

brand, that recorded video and audio from a alocation just to the side of the main

entrance door to the home home (the (the"Doorbell Doorbell Camera"]. Camera"). The Doorbell Camera, which

was located on the same side as the doorknob, was motion- motion activated, so the video and audio obtained from it was was "jumpy" and intermittent. "jumpy"and intermittent. There were also issues

with the audio not being synchronized with the video. video, The only copy that was available was the file that was stored on and downloaded from Defendant's cell phone. phone. The Commonwealth had attempted to contact the Zumimall company to determine if the video file might also be stored on the device itself or or on a acloud

server, but the only address ava available ilable was in in China, and the company did not

respond to inquiries. inquiries. The video from the Defendant's cell phone was admitted as

20 20 Commonwealth's Exhibit 125. N.T., Day Two, at 125. See N.T,, at 173-75, 181-82 181-82 (testimony (testimony of Trooper Bourne regarding how the video was obtained and the issues with it). it] Both videos from the Surveillance System are stamped with the date and

time of the recording. Starting with the exterior, exterior, ""Fence Fence Side" video, the pertinent

follows: events shown are as follows Time Event(s) Event(s] Time Stamp Elapsed From Start

7:31:51 pm 73151pm The headlights of Defendant's vehicle become 0seconds 0seconds visible through the trees for a a moment as he travels up Springhill Drive toward his home. home

7:32:19 7.32.1 9 pm Defendant is still travelling up Springhill Drive, and 28 seconds has not yet reached Campbell Circle. The headlights of the victim's truck can be seen off in in the distance, also travelling up Springhill Drive Drive.

7:32:22 pm 7.3222 Defendant turns onto Campbel Campbell Circle from from 31 seconds Springhill Drive. 7:32:44 pm 73244 Defendant's vehicle becomes clearly visible as a red ared 53 seconds S3 Dodge Journey SUV as he turns right off Campbell Circle into his driveway, just after passing aasmall right. shed on his right

7:33:00 733.00 pm The victim turns onto Campbell Circle. Circle. I minute, 1 9seconds 9seconds 7:33:16 7.3316 pm The victim's vehicle becomes clearly visible as an 11minute, older, silver Ford pickup truck as he he turns off 25 seconds Campbell Circle and into the Campbells' driveway driveway.

Using the point in in time at which each vehicle passed the small shed just

before the entrance to the Campbells' driveway, the victim arrived at the

Campbells' residence approximately thirty-three seconds behind Defendant." Defendant. 23

Moving to the interior, interior, ""Kitchen" Kitchen" video, this video is the most significant, as

it shows the entirety of the shooting. shooting. The view is of the kitchen and dining dining area of

the Campbells' residence, with the entrance door at the top of the screen, toward ,-•,

23 Defendant's vehicle passes pfeedaet« chicle pas«e the shed at 7:33:42 «hes .g4pm pm, and the victim's anedthe vehicle pases victim'«vehicle passes the shed4 shed at 7:33:15 733140 pm.

21 the left-hand side. side. The room is very cluttered. cluttered. The left side of the door is three or

four feet from aacorner formed by the intersection of two of the exterior walls. The door is is of the standard standard width and the the doorknob is on the the right-hand side of of the door. Approximately two feet to the right door right of the door is a a large large cardboard box placed against the wall, perhaps three feet tall, three and one-half feet wide, and two and one-half feet deep deep. The box is being being used as an impromptu table, and has aanumber of items piled on top of it. it. There is aarectangular rectangular dining table with six chairs around it located near the door and the box. box. The upper right-hand corner of the table lines up with the left-hand edge of the box, leaving an aisle about two feet wide to walk through. of the house, with the short through. The table is parallel to the walls of side parallel to the wall with the door, extending to the left such that it is partially behind the door door. There is aachair positioned at the short edge of the table, between

the table and the door door. This positioning means that with the door halfway open,

there is only about one and one-half one half feet of space between the door and the chair chair.

There are also items on the floor between the box and the right-hand right hand side of the path. doorway, and on the floor to the right of the box, extending into the walking path The pertinent events shown are as follows follows:

Time Stamp Event(s) Time rime Elapsed From Start

7:33:11 73311pm pm Defendant opens the door and enters the house. 00seconds He is wearing dark blue pants, aagreen hooded sweatshirt, boots, and a a baseball hat. As he is coming through the door he is reaching into into the front pocket of his sweatshirt and pulling out an object. object 7:33:11 7.33.11 pm pm-- Defendant continues to enter the house, 2seconds 2seconds 7:33:13 7·33·13 pm swinging the door closed behind behind him as he pulls pulls the object out of his pocket. The object is revealed to be aa pistol in a a holster, which Defendant sets down on the upper right-hand right-hand corner of the table as he walks through the gap between the corner of the table and the cardboard box. box

22 Time Time Stamp Event(s) Time Elapsed From Start

7:33:13 pm - 7.33.13 pm Defendant walks out of the kitchen toward the 66seconds 7:33:17 pm 7.33.17 pm back of the house. house. He goes out of view at 7:33:17 pm, exiting toward the lower left-hand 73317 corner frame. corner of the frame 7:33:33 pm 733.33 pm-- Defendant comes back into view from from the lower lower 26 seconds 7:33:37 pm 7.33.37 left-hand corner of the frame. frame. He is carrying an AR- 15- style rifle AR-15-style in his rifle in his right right hand, hand, holding it by holding it the pistol grip with the muzzle pointed at the floor, roughly roughly parallel to his right leg. leg. He walks toward the door

7:33:37 7.33 37 pm pm-- Having Having reached the gap between the corner of 27 seconds 7:33:38 733 38 pm the table and the cardboard box, Defendant lays the rifle on top of the box, with the muzzle aimed forward toward the outside wall, but does not let go go of it. it. The rifle can clearly be identified as an AR- 15- style, equipped with optical sights and AR-15-style, aathirty round magazine. magazine 7:33:39 7.33.39 pm Defendant pauses for a a moment with the rifle 28 seconds laying on top of the box. box. He stands with his weight on his right leg and his left leg slightly bent and relaxed, looking toward the door as though he is contemplating his next move. move. He is still holding onto the pistol grip of the rifle with his right hand. hand 7:33:40 73340 pmpm - - Defendant, moving decisively, steps toward the 31 seconds 31 seconds 7:33:42 7.3342 pm pm door As he does so, he picks the rifle up off the door. cardboard box and stages it roughly vertically to the right of the door, with the muzzle on the floor and the buttstock leaning against the cardboard box.

7:33:43 7.33:43 pm Defendant opens the door using his left hand on 32 seconds seconds the the doorknob. 7:33:45 pm -- 7.3345 Defendant Defendant stands stands with with the the door opened about 53 seconds 7-3406 pm 7:34:06 forty-five degrees, with his left hand holding onto the edge edge of the door near the top and his body body blocking blocking the opening into the house. house. He engages in an argument with the victim, who can partially be be seen seen standing on the the stoop stoop outside

23 Time Stamp Event(s) Time Elapsed From Start

of the door-time. T~see door-time. Both men can be seen gesturing toward Springhill Drive with their right right hand, and gesticulating gesticulating with their hands generally generally (noting (noting that Defendant never removes his left hand from the door). door). When Defendant is not gesturing, his right hand hangs loosely down by by his side. side. Neither man makes a a move toward the other that signals any sort of physical attack attack.

7:34:07 7.34. pm 07 pm Defendant looks down and to the right right toward --- 54 seconds 54 seconds the rifle, and then picks it up up.

77:34:08 34.08 pm Defendant begins bringing bringing the rifle to his 55 seconds shoulder, aiming the muzzle out through the doorway toward the victim.

7:34:09 7-3409 pm pm Defendant fully fully shoulders the rifle and levels it 56 seconds at the victim. victim 7:34:09 7.34:09 pm pm - The victim, still standing on the stoop outside of 57 seconds 7:34:10 pm 7.34.10 the door, grabs grabs hold of the barrel of the rifle and forces it downward and to Defendant's right.right. At the same time, he drives his body forward toward Defendant, continuing to to push the muzzle of the rifle downward and to the right so that it is aimed at the ground, while simultaneously grabbing hold of the hood of Defendant's sweatshirt in in an attempt to gain physical control of him and keep Defendant from being being able toto bring the rifle to bear. bear 7:34:10 pm 73410 pm-- The two men enter the house fully, with the 59 seconds 7:34:12 pm 73412pm victim continuing to drive forward, shoving Defendant backward. backward. Defendant moves to his right right just after the victim's feet cross the threshold. His threshold. His buttocks hit the back of the chair at the end of the dining table, shoving it into the table and shoving the table sideways. His left shoulder and head hit the light that hangs over over the table, setting it swinging. Both men have their upper upper body body angled angled toward the other, other and their legs legs angled behind them, driving against the other. The victim has the advantage and

24 Time Stamp Time Stamp Event(s) Event(s) Time Time ' Elapsed Elapsed From Start From Start

' chair Defendant struggles to gain traction until the Defendant struggles to gain traction until the chair at the end of the table, which Defendant's at the end of the table, which Defendant's body had pushed out of his way, is spun by hip so that it comes between the Defendant's left hip two men. men

7:34:13 7-3413 pm The chair, now fully between the two men, 1 I minute prevents the victim from being able able to to continue driving driving Defendant backward. backward. Defendant regains his footing footing and shoves forward toward the victim. The victim struggles to keep the rifle victim. aimed away away from him, but but Defendant manages to maneuver the rifle so that the muzzle is aimed toward the victim's left lower leg. leg

7:34:14 pm 7.34.14 ' Defendant fires the first shot, hitting Defendant 1minute, in in the left lower leg. leg. The victim's left foot and 1second lower leg leg can be seen snapping backward from the force of the bullet strike.

7:34:14 pm - 73414pm- The victim falls forward, going to his knees knees. 1 I minute, 7:34:16 pm 734.16 Defendant pulls the rifle out of the victim's 3seconds 3seconds hands and the victim lets gogo of Defendant. Defendant ' Defendant takes two steps back and raises the rifle, pointing it toward the victim's chest. chest. The victim, who initially was bent forward at the waist, brings brings himself upright, still on his knees, with his right right hand held in front of his chest, palm palm toward Defendant, and his his left left arm arm and and hand down by his side. He begins to lean backward and angle toward the open door, raising raising his right arm and hand as though to try to shield himself. His posture conveys surrender, not attack. attack

7:34:16 734.16 Defendant fires two more shots in quick I1minute, succession. The second shot is fired as the 33seconds victim victim is still facing toward Defendant. Defendant. After the second shot, the victim quickly pivots left, so he is facing facing the open doorway doorway and his upper body is perpendicular perpendicular to Defendant. Defendant then shot. fires the third and final shot

25 25 Time Stamp Event(s) Time Elapsed From Start

pm -- 7:34:17 pm 7.34.17 After being hit with the third shot, the victim victim 1 1 minute, 7:34:19 73419pm pm falls forward to the floor, briefly laying face 5seconds 5seconds down. down. He shifts his weight weight to his left hip, and, using his left arm and right leg, leg begins to half crawl/half drag drag himself out of the house, using the the threshold leverage. threshold for leverage

7:34:20 pm As the victim begins to crawl out of the house, 11minute, Defendant moves forward and to to his left, again 6seconds 6 seconds raising raising the rifle and aiming toward the victim victim as though though contemplating whether to to fire again. again

7:34:20 pm - 7.3420 pm - The victim finishes crawling out of the house 1 I minute, 7:34:27 73427 pm and rolls off the stoop, stoop. His body is fully out of 13 seconds 13seconds the house at 7:34:23 7.3423 pm. pm. Defendant moves toward the door, following following the victim out, with the rifle still shouldered but pointed toward the ground. ground

As can be seen above, a atotal of one minute and one second passed from the

time that Defendant entered his house and the time that he fired the first shot. A A

total of one minute and three seconds passed from the time that he entered his house to the time he fired the fatal shots. shots. Only twenty-four twenty -four seconds passed from the the time time that that Defendant Defendant opened the door and began arguing with began arguing with the victim victim until the time he reached the time reached for for the the rifle. rifle

Turning to the Turning the Doorbell Doorbell Camera, this system system captured a a portion portion of the initial initial argument argument at the door, and then the aftermath of the shooting shooting (at fat which point the victim had crawled out of the house and dragged himself to to the front of

Defendant's Dodge SUV). SUV). It did not capture the shooting itself. The entirety of the

video was not played for the jury, as it shows Samantha Guyer and others trying to

provide first aid to the victim, Mrs. Mrs. Guyer and Mrs. Mrs. Skipper performing CPR on the victim, and EMS personnel attempting to resuscitate the victim victim.

There is a atimestamp on the video, but it does not match up with the

System. The motion-triggered nature of the Doorbell Camera meant Surveillance System.

26 that the video that was played for the jury has three portions. Using the Doorbell Camera's timestamp, the video begins roughly at 19:36:19. 24 The first portion of 19:36:19.2+ the video extends for twelve seconds, and shows the victim standing outside the door, wearing wearing blue jeans and an orange hooded sweatshirt, with his left hand partially partially in his left front pocket. Snippets of the victim speaking pocket. Snippets speaking sternly about

Defendant's speed when driving past the Skippers' residence can be heard, and the

victim can be seen pacing slightly slightly from side to side, gesturing with his right hand. hand The last audio that can be heard from this portion is something about about ""speed speed bumps."

The second portion of the video begins begins an unknown number of seconds after the first portion ends ends (the (the time stamp is not clearly discernable)], discernable), and shows

the victim victim after he had dragged himself out of the Campbells' residence and rolled

himself off the stoop. stoop. This portion of the video extends for twenty-two seconds,

and shows the victim crawling to the front of Defendant's SUV, propping himself up on his left elbow for aamoment, and then collapsing. collapsing. In the audio portion the

victim can be heard exclaiming exclaiming in pain, and Defendant can be heard screaming screaming ""Get Get

Down!" twice twice ((followed followed by something unintelligible) yelling ""Yeah! unintelligible) before yelling Yeah! Fucking

come in my house and grabbed me!" The third and final portion of the video extends for approximately thirty seconds. It begins seconds. begins with Defendant standing in the driveway with his back to the camera, blocking blocking the camera's view of the victim. in his right victim. He is holding the rifle in hand, with it hanging by his right side pointed at the ground, ground, and he has aatowel in his left hand. hand. He gestures angrily angrily with his left hand, pointing at his house while holding holding the towel, and eventually moves toward his right, to the front of a a silver SUV also parked in the driveway. This reveals the victim still lying face down in

front of Defendant's SUV. At the end of this portion Samantha Guyer comes into view. Defendant hands her the towel and she moves toward the victim to try to view_Defendant help him. In the audio in in this portion, Defendant can be heard angrily yelling, with

only only a a portion of his words discernible. What can be discerned is that he is

24 7:36:19 pm, expressed oa 47.36.1po. on atwenty-four twenty-tour hour clock. boar clock

27 ,I continuing to yell that the victim victim ""Came Came into my goddamn house!" and and ""Came Came into

my fucking house!" At the end of it, Defendant reenters the house, still carrying the rifle, as Mrs. Mrs. Guyer kneels down next to the victim. victim. At that point, Defendant yells

something about about ""I'm I'm not aafucking paramedic!"

b. b. Testimony from from witnesses for the Commonwealth Commonwealth.

Curtis Guyer and Samantha Guyer were lying in bed when they heard the victim's truck coming up Springhill Springhill Drive and then Campbell Circle. Circle. Thinking that

the victim was coming up to visit him, Mr. Guyer got up and went out to their

porch. N.T., enclosed front porch, 93 (Curtis NT., Day One, at 93 (Curtis Guyer), 120, 122 122 (Samantha (Samantha Guyer). The couple heard three gunshots. Guyer). gunshots. Mr. Guyer went outside for aamoment,

saw the victim crawling on the ground outside the Campbells' residence, and then

ran back into the house and told Mrs. Guyer Guyer ""I'm I'm pretty pretty sure Cole shot Tim." [d, Id. at

93, 94 (Curtis 93,94 (Curtis Guyer), 122 122 (Samantha Guyer). Mr. (Samantha Guyer]. Mr Guyer went back outside, by Mrs. Guyer followed shortly by Guyer. Mr. Mr Guyer walked about halfway down the driveway and stopped. He saw Defendant standing in the middle of the Campbells' driveway, holding holding his rifle in one hand with it pointed at the ground, and the victim laying on the ground off to the side. side. He yelled over to Defendant to ask what was going back "What's going on, and Defendant yelled back "What's it look like? I Id. at 9495, I shot him." Id, 94-95,

107. 107 Mr. Mr Guyer was concerned that Defendant, who was still armed and yelling angrily, might shoot someone else, and told Mrs. Mrs. Guyer to stay back. back. Defendant it. ""IIwas still over in our yard. heard this and denied it. yard. My wife was at the top of the

driveway and whenever we was— was-IItold my wife,I wife, Isaid, watch. watch. Don't go over there. there And he looks over at me and goes, I I would never shoot you guys." Id, Id. at 95, 107. 107 Mrs. Mrs. Guyer works works as a a licensed licensed practical nurse. nurse. Her first first instinct instinct was was to to go over and try over try to help the victim, despite the danger presented by the gunfire and Defendant's demeanor. When she got outside and started toward the Campbells' residence, she saw her husband had stopped halfway down the driveway. driveway. He told

her stop, because Defendant still had the rifle. rifle. She looked over and saw the victim laying on the ground near Defendant's SUV, and Defendant standing in the

doorway doorway to his residence, still holding holding his rifle. rifle. Knowing that the victim needed help, Mrs. Mrs. Guyer ignored her husband's warning and continued over to the

28 28 Campbells' Campbells' driveway. Id. at 123-24. driveway. Id, 123-24. Her recollection of her interactions with Defendant was minimal, as her focus was on the victim, and her primary goal with Defendant was to to get him to put the gun down down.

Q: Q: Could you describe that gun to the jury? A: Icannot. I Icannot. just know it was aabig ljust one. I big one. I don't know guns. guns ... Q: Q: So you say Soyou you see him holding say you holding aabig gun. Did you say anything big gun. anything to him?

A: lItold him to put the fucking fucking gun away, get it away. away. I I just wanted him to put it away so II could help Tim Tim.

Q: Did he say anything to you?

A: A. To me? Tome Q: Yes. Yes A: Not that lrecall Irecall.

Q: Q: Okay. Did you start getting closer to Tim? A: A. Yes.

Q: Q: At any in time any point in time did you say anything else to Cole Campbell? A: I told him to put the fucking gun away Itold away.

Q: Q: And did Cole Campbell ever say anything to you as you're saying that? Did he respond? A: A. Not that Irecall. 25 thatlreeats Q: Q: What happens next?

A: A: He went into the house. Hewent house. I l got aalittle tea towel throwed at me. me Q: Q: You know who threw you that towel?

A: A. I cannot tell you. 1cannot you Q: Q: How big big was this towel? A: A: Idon't know. Idon't know. just Just a one. a small one

2s On cross-examination, spa Mrs. Guyer did recall Defendant cross-examination, Mrs. saying "can Defendant saying can you help him him""to to her one time during the interaction. interaction Id. at 131. td at 131

29 29 Q: Q: What do you do when you you get this towel thrown toward you? A: A. Put it on Tim's chest Putit chest.

Id. at Id, at 124-25. 124.25. Mrs. Guyer observed holes in the victim's leg, arm, and chest, and aa lot of blood. His face was gray gray and he had foam in in his mouth. mouth. He was still alive, and looked directly at her her when she said his name, but he was struggling to Ao

breathe. She used the towel to apply apply pressure to his chest until she realized she needed more help to aid the victim. Id.at 125-26 victim. Id,at Q: Q: How did you get more help?

A: Iwent and got Iwent got my husband to go get Hillary Hillary [Skipper]. [Skipper] Q: Q: Why did you want your husband to go get Hillary? A: A: Because I I was panicking on top of IIneeded more help help.

Id. at 126. Id, 126 Mr. Guyer got in Mr in his vehicle and went to get both Mrs. Mrs. Skipper and the victim's brother, Dustin, to help. He went to Dustin's residence first. Id, Id. at 95-96 95-96.

Coming up the driveway and I'm Coming I'm blowing on the horn and Dustin sticks his out the window or out the door and IIsaid, the neighbor just shot your your brother, and just a a blank stare. stare. He looked at me and 1I had to say it again. say again. II said, the neighbor neighbor just shot your your brother. brother An then he said, all right, I'll be up. up. And then I l go down and Hillary's driveway and then Iget get on the main driveway and Hillary comes running out and she asked me what I I was doing and everything. IItold her, IIsaid, the the neighbor neighbor shot shot your your husband. husband ld Id. at 96.

For Mrs. Skipper, the news came as aashock. She had not been concerned about about her her husband going going up up to to confront Defendant about the speeding. The the speeding. The victim victim was angry, angry, but far from from out of control, control. "[H]e "[He was a a little bit upset but not like cussing cussing and swearing swearing and and throwing things and and rushing out. He rushing out. He was was very— pretty very -pretty calm actually." actually." Id, 61-62; see also id, Id. at 61-62, id. at 83 83 (confirming (confirming that the victim was cross-examination). Their nine-year- angry, but calm, on cross-examination]. old son had wanted to go nine year-old along along with the victim when he spoke to Defendant, Defendant. The victim was fine with this,

and was going to take the boy along along, but Mrs. Mrs. Skipper asked the boy to stay there

I 30 ,I so she had help putting putting the groceries groceries away. Id, Id. at 61. 61. Mrs. Mrs. Skipper did not see the victim grab grab any any weapons before heading out. Id, Id. at 62.

Q: Q: What happens next?

A: We're putting putting the groceries away and next thing I I know our neighbor, neighbor, which Tim Tim always referred to as Kirby, it's Curtis, went upup to my brother-in-law's house and then came flying down past past my my house, so lIgo out and likehike yelling yelling at him like, what are you doing? You're way past my house and all he says is the neighbor neighbor shot Tim. Tim. So I ran into the house and threw my Iran shoes back on. At this time by that time my brother-in-law had gotten gotten down to me and they're trying to talk me into not going up because of him having a a firearm. firearm Q: Q: Who had a afirearm?

A: A: Cole Campbell. Campbell. And I didn't—just in reaction I I didn't-just I went up anyway. anyway Id. at62-63. ld, at 62-63. Mrs. Mrs. Skipper drove up in her own vehicle. vehicle. She called her parents on

the way to alert them to what had happened, because the boys were home alone

and and "IIfigured figured if the worst happened happened ... we would need them there." [d, them there." Id. at 63 63.

Mrs. Skipper arrived, but died soon after, The victim was still alive when Mrs. despite the efforts of herself and others others.

Q: What happens when you get up to Cole Campbell's residence?

A: A. Samantha Samantha [Guyer] [Guyer] waived me out, so I I parked behind Tim's truck and went running up and when I I rounded the vehicle there was a a pool of blood on the ground and Tim was laying there gasping and foam was comingcoming out of his mouth.mouth. Sam asked me what she needed to do and I I asked her to go grab towels because we only had one tiny little towel. towel. II then got down, tried to get get him to respond. He looked—he looked-he moved his mouth like he was trying to say say something to me and then his eyes rolled back in his head and I—I IIchecked his wounds and I I looked to seek if the bullets went through because if it goes through and through that's aagood sign. sign. I I noticed that his leg was—the bone was sticking out and there's blood and he had was-the aawound there. there. That was the side I I checked to see if it had gone through. through. II could feel that he arm arm definitely was shattered. shattered. It was very—you very-you could feel the bone move around in there. And then lIproceeded to do CPR.

Q: Q Are you trained in CPR? CPR

31 31 A.A: Yes.

Q: How did you receive training in CPR?

A: A Through the Red Cross through work. work

Q: You are a licensed nurse? alicensed

A: A. Yes. Yes Q Q• How long did you you attempt life-saving measures on your husband?

A: Until the ambulance arrives. arrives. It It felt like forever. forever II don't know aa time still.

Q: What happened when the ambulance arrived?

A: A: They put him in the back of the ambulance, asked me to go up front. I I could hear them hook up the AED and it it was flatlined flatlined.

Id. at 63-64. d, 63-64. Mes. Mrs. Guyer's testimony matched that of Mrs. Mrs. Skipper in regard to Mrs Mrs.

Skipper starting CPR soon after arrival. She further noted that the individuals who tried to aid the victim before the ambulance arrived included herself, Mrs. Mrs. Skipper, Dustin Skipper, and Defendant's mother mother. Id, Id. at 127, 133-34. 133-34 Mrs. Mrs. Campbell called 911 just after the shooting happened. happened. The recording

of the 11 jury. Id. at 173-77, 179-184. 911 call was played for the jury. 179-184. In addition to state troopers, the 911 Center dispatched EMS personnel from Three Springs Springs Ambulance. Traci Rae Fleck, a Ambulance. a volunteer emergency medical technician with Three

Springs Ambulance, was part of the ambulance crew that responded. responded. She holds the rank of Captain for Three Springs Ambulance. Ambulance. Per her testimony, the ambulance initially staged at the bottom of Springhill Drive, since law enforcement had not arrived. After the victim's brother came down on an ATV and begged arrived. them to begged them come up, the ambulance crew decided to risk it, it, and went up to the scene. scene. Id, Id. at

187-89. On arrival, Ms. 187-89. 0n Ms. Fleck was the first one out of the ambulance ambulance.

Idirected directed [the [the crew] to get the stretcher. We went over over. They were doing CPR on him and when we got the stretcher up to him, they just put him over on the stretcher and IIdid not ask no questions. questions. We just wanted to get out of there, went back, put him in the ambulance then.

32 Id. at 189. 189. As the crew was getting the victim on the stretcher Ms. Ms. Fleck noticed a a lot of blood and and ""fragments" fragments" on the ground ground around where he had been laying. Id. at 190. 190 After getting the victim in the back of the ambulance, Ms. Ms. Fleck had one crew member set up up the AED while the other continued CPR. She then did aarapid assessment of the victim. victim. He was not breathing and had no no pulse. pulse, There was a lot was "a of blood" on and around him. him. When she checked his eyes, they were unreactive

and devoid of life. When she went to take the boot off the victim's left foot to assess the leg leg injury, his entire lower leg detached from his body. body. She also noted

that his right right arm was shattered and there was aahole in his chest. chest. Id, Id. at 190-192. 190-192 The crew continued CPR until instructed to to stop stop by medical command. Id, medical command. Id. at 190. 190 Ms. Ms. Fleck did not find any any weapons on or around the victim during her assessment and treatment of him. Id, Id. at 192. 192 e.c. Testimony of Mrs. Mrs. Campbell and Defendant On April 3, 2022, Defendant lived at 8036 Campbell Circle with his wife, Brandy Brandy Campbell, his two daughters Ellie (then age four) and Autumn Autumn (then (then age two), two), and his stepson, stepson, David Nevins Nevins (then (then fourteen or fifteen years old). N.T, N.T., Day

25. Defendant had owned the home for about ten years, and had Three, at 2Z5. purchased it from from his grandparents. grandparents. Id Id. at 26. 26 At the time of the trial, Defendant and Mrs. Mrs. Campbell had been married for five five years, years, and Mrs. Mrs. Campbell had had lived lived with with Defendant Defendant at the the house house on Campbell years. N.T., circle for seven years. N.T_, Day One, at 135. On the day of the shooting, the family

had gone gone to Mifflintown around 3:30 or 4.00 4:00 pm to pick up her son, David, from his

father's house. house. (Mrs. of David with his father.) On their (Mrs. Campbell shares custody of I way way back they they stopped stopped at the grocery grocery store in Orbisonia, and had encountered Mrs. Mrs Skipper and one of the Skippers' sons as they were leaving the store. store. The two boys I said hi to one another another. Id, Id. at 156. There was apparently no interaction between

the adults, and the family went back home. home I Q: All right. right. No issues? A: A. No issues, issues. We had went back home and I I had asked [Defendant] [Defendant] to move the gun off the table because it was sitting sitting

33 on our table from the night prior. I night prior I started dinner and asked him to run down and get gas for the side-by-side side-by- side so my son could get down to the bus stop the next morning. morning

Q: Okay. Okay A: A He had moved the gun. I'm not sure to to the hallway, the bedroom, somewhere in the back of the house.house. And then he left with the gas—the gas -the racing racing gas gas can in in the back of our Dodge Dodge Journey to go down to the gas station to Journey to to get gas. gas Id. at 156. ld, 156. Mrs. Mrs. Campbell testified that usually Defendant stored his guns in in the

gun cabinet in the living Id. at 151. living room. Id, 151 Mrs. Mrs. Campbell's testimony revealed that the family had aahigh level of concern about anyone coming to their home, but particularly so with respect to the victim. The front door, which the victim came to, was always kept locked. Id. (in victim. (in response to being being asked whether Defendant could have locked the door when the victim came to it, she responded: responded: ""It times. "). When she heard the It is locked at all times.")

victim's truck approaching after Defendant returned returned from getting gas, gas, she looked looked out the window, saw it was approaching their home, and took Ellie into the master her Id. at 157. bedroom with her. 157 Q: Why did you do that?

A: A: Because my oldest daughter is afraid of anybody that came up our driveway. Ever since the first incident with the backhoe she has been afraid of him. him Q: Afraid of Skipper? Skipper? A: A. Yes. Yes Q: How did you feel about Timothy Timothy Skipper? A: A: Ifelt aa little uneasy uneasy at that point but when he beat on the door IIfelt really really uneasy. uneasy Id. At this time, the Campbells' youngest daughter was not with Mrs. Skipper and Id, Ellie, but was instead in her own bedroom. bedroom. Id Id.

Mrs. Campbell testified that she did not actually see what transpired

between Defendant and the victim, but did hear it. it. She characterized the victim's him "beating knocking on the door as him "beating on the door," and then heard Defendant open

34 I.

door. "Whenever the door "Whenever he opened the door Tim had yelled at my husband slow the fuck down. Ihave fucking Ihave fucking kids." Id. at 159-160. kids" Id, 159-160. She then heard Defendant tell the victim to "get get the hell off his property" property" five times. times. ld, Id. at 160. 160. She also heard the victim victim say say something something about putting putting speed bumps bumps in. Id, Id. at 149. The next thing she

heard was the first shot. She heard the sound of feet stumbling, and then heard the second and third shots. shots. Id, Id. at 161, 162. 162. Once things were quiet Mrs. Mrs. Campbell went out into the living room room and saw the victim victim crawling out of the house. She phone and called 11. got the phone 911. As she was on the phone with 911, Defendant asked

her for a atowel, which she got for him. Id. at 162-63. him. Id, 162--63. Defendant then headed outside and she stayed in the house. While Defendant was outside, she heard him him yell "he was in my my fucking house." [d, Id. at 163. She noted that while all of this was

occurring, her son was away from occurring, from the house, having gone down to the bottom of Springhill Springhill Drive on the side-by- side to take the trash down. side-by-side down. Id, Id. at 164. 164 Turning to to Defendant's testimony testimony regarding regarding the night of the shooting, shooting, he he began began with the same sequence of events as his wife. wife. They had gone to Mifflintown to pick up his stepson David, returned, and Mrs. Campbell was making dinner dinner. As

she was doing doing so she asked him to run out and get gas for the side-by-side side-by- side that

David uses to get down to the school bus stop. stop. N.T., NT., Day Three, at 42. At this point, he claimed that the pistol later seen in the Kitchen video was not aafirearm, but an Airsoft pistol that belonged to his stepson. stepson."26 He testified that as he went outside to

get the gas get gas can he noticed the Airsoft pistol laying outside, so he shoved it in the

pocked pocked of his hooded sweatshirt with the intent of reprimanding the boy later for "leaving something expensive out" "leaving out." Id, Id. He He "[d]rove "[d[rove out out the driveway like hike lI normally normally do, doing 10, 15 15 [MPH]," [MPH]," reached the main road and went to the gas station without incident. Id. incident. Id, On his return trip, Defendant met his stepson on Springhill Drive as the boy was coming down the hill on the side-by- side to take the garbage down to the side-by-side dumpster at the entrance to the neighborhood. neighborhood. ""IIstopped and I l put the window down, and I I hold him, hey, hey, when you get up to the house put your Airsoft pistol

26 A type of low- powered air gun.

35 35 away. table." Id. Defendant then continued up Springhill away. It's going to be on the table." slowing for aarough Drive, slowing rough section of potholes and shale before he reached the Skippers' property, property, and then accelerating accelerating back up to speed speed (but (but again, still only going going "about "about 10, 15" MPH as he passed their property). 10,15" property). Id, Id. at 43.

Defendant testified that nothing seemed off until he parked, entered the

house, and realized the victim had turned into his driveway driveway.

II had to use the bathroom. bathroom. IIhad to take aaleak. Was heading mnto into the house. Ipulled house. I pulled [my [my stepson's] stepson's] Airsoft out, plopped it on the table, was going back the hallway. hallway. IIcould hear aaloud truck and IIhappened—as happened as IIwas passing passing my stepson's bedroom, Ihappened I to look out the window and IIsaw Tim's truck coming down the road a a decent rate of speed. speed. Didn't raise any red flags flags at that moment because IIknow he goes goes over to to the the Guyers['] often. Continued into Guyers['] quite often. into the the master master bedroom to go into the master bathroom.

When I I entered the master bathroom I I realized he had turned in completely in behind our Dodge Dodge Journey. At this point IIbegan to Journey, worry. worry. It was raising raising all kind of red flags why he was coming up at aa high high rate otof speed. speed. So as IIexited the bathroom, my AR was laying on the bed. IIgrabbed it. it. I I passed the desk and IIgrabbed the magazine. IIseated the magazine magazine into the rifle and I'm walking and racked aa round. IIpassed my—excuse my--excuse me— me-IIpassed my wife with my oldest daughter Ellie. Ellie was already beginning—excuse beginning--excuse me—to me to freak out. I told my Itold my wife Isaid, hey, just Isaid, Just wait here. here. I'm going to go see what he he wants. wants lIproceeded to go out into the kitchen. kitchen. I I went to place the AR on aabox, realized that it wasn't going to be the sturdiest and IIfigured the cat was going to step on it and knock it off balance. So IIdecided to make the decision to place it beside the door where IIwanted it to be safe and sturdy when IIheard pounding on the door. At this point, you know, my heart's racing a a mile aaminute but— but-- *** ++ [Defendant racing.] 1Defendant was asked why his heart was racing.J just Just with previous encounters with him, knowing his history, short temper, just a a million reasons. IIwas afraid for sure sure.

Id.at 43-44. ld,at43-44 As soon as Defendant opened the door, the two men began to argue. After initially denying that he had been speeding, initially denying speeding, Defendant began ordering the victim

36 leave. He also claimed to have become concerned that Defendant might be to leave. armed. He admitted to being angered by the victim's actions. armed. A: A. I I swung swung the door. I l put my my hand on it and he immediately jumped jumped down my my throat about speeding, speeding. saying I I was going an excessive speed speed and I I was caught off guard by by that. So I I started arguing arguing back. I I was like, you you know, Tim, I I was going going 15 mile an hour past your house. You were going way faster than that. that. I I was like, Tim, it was 15 mile an hour. He kept coming at me about it. it. He said he was going going to put speed bumps in. You're crazy. I fucking crazy. I said get the fuck off my my property. property. He's like fuck you.

Q: Q: How was his demeanor? How did he appear to you? A: It was like lightning bolts. bolts. Like it was beyond pissed off. I I told him him to get get the hell off my property, Tim. I Tim. I said, get the fuck off my property because this continued. continued. He said about speed bumps. bumps Q: Q: Did you point like that as well? A: A: IIwas pointing. pointing. When I I get angry or whatever I I talk with my my hands. hands. I I kept him to get off kept telling him off my my property, get get the the fuck off my property. property. I I had noticed his hand was in his pocket and with seeing seeing him with firearms before it made me feel very uneasy uneasy to the point that IIdidn't know what he even had in his pocket. pocket Id. at 45(emphasis ld. 45 (emphasis added) added).

to "get Defendant told the victim to "get the hell off my property" repeatedly. ""II property"repeatedly. probably told him at least three, four, five times." But the victim did not leave leave.

Defendant believed believed "[h]e "[hJe had no intention to leave." Id, Id. at 46. Defendant then

grabbed his rifle and the struggle started. I I had told him to get get the hell off my my property. property. He was making making me uneasy with his hand in his pocket. pocket. This was probably, like hike II said, the third, fourth third, fourth— everything was happening -everything quick. He wasn't leaving. happening so quick. Hand in his pocket, IIreached over over. I grabbed my AR and I grabbed had it down Ihad down. I I told him II was like Tim, just get the fuck off my property. property. Like, pull your hand out of your pocket and keep it where IIcan see it. it. Get the hell of my my property. As soon as you leave I'm calling the cops. cops. I'm done with itit.

He looked at me, looked at the gun, looked at me in the eyes and he's like, hike, I'll show you crazy. He grabbed you fucking crazy. grabbed— reached down hold of -reached

37 the barrel. barrel. He pulled the barrel up to his heart with his left hand.hand. He grabbed grabbed my hood, my my hoodie, with my right and he started pulling on it. it. The first thing that went through my head was I'm going out this door, so I I braced. braced That threw me off balance and he slammed me backwards into the table, smacked my my head off the lamp. I'm screaming at himhim to let go of the rifle, get get out of the house, let go of the rifle, get out of the house. house

We swing off. We get to about the midpoint. swing off. midpoint. II finally get my traction. traction IIwas in smooth bottom western boots.boots. We finally get stopped and he's got the rifle now from about his heart area down. he'sgot down. IIthought it was down way towards the floor or whatever whatever. I I could feel him pulling on my my hood. IIthought he was going going to get get his arm around me and start either trying trying to take me out, take the rifle or whatever he was goinggoing to do. So I I made the decision at that point to pop the safety and squeeze a a round. round. Gun went off. He went to his knees, drugdrug me over with him because he had ahold of the hood and my gun. gun. II felt the gun go free and gave it a a yank. yank *** ++ [Defendant denied knowing that the first shot had hit the victim.]

I pulled the gun as much as I I I could so he couldn't get get back ahold of it. I felt my hood go free. I free. IIknew at this point I I needed to get some distance between me and him, so I I started backtracking. As I'm bent over backtracking trying to o get some space I I told him— I'm yelling at him-I'm him. I him. I was yelling get yelling get your hands up, get up.get your fucking hands up. When up. I got I got my space and IIstarted bringing my my head up, when I I started bringing my head up, I l got visual again on him. him. I I saw his right hand was up like this and I I thought to myself very quickly okay, this is done but II saw his other hand going going right right back down to his hoodie, his pocket area. area. As soon as I I saw that hand going, I I didn't wait and I I fired two more rounds in rapid succession. succession. Ultimately both struck but it was just aaquick swing of the rifle up and I I didn't use the sights or anything, was just a anything. quick reaction. aquick reaction. Everything was happening so fast. fast Id. at 46-48. 46-48. Defendant Defendant emphasized that that the the victim victim did did not not stop stop moving after the first shot. shot, ""From From what appeared to me Ilost visual on him. him. When When lI brought brought my my head back up, up, it looked like hike he was going to attempt to get get in his pocket." Id. at 48. His sense was that the victim's behavior only changed after the

third shot. shot. ""He He rolled after the third shot and then began crawling out of the

house." Id, Id. Defendant repeated his claim that the victim had put the barrel over

his own heart heart.

Q: Q: you shoot him again And did you again after that?

38 38 A: A. No. He wasn't a threat. athreat

Q: Q: Did you want to kill Tim Skipper that day?

A: Absolutely not, not. The barrel was on his heart. I I didn't want to kill him. him Id. at 48-49, Id, 48-49.

After the victim victim crawled outside, Defendant followed him to make sure he did not pull aagun gun and start shooting shooting into the house. Id. at 49, house. ld, 49. But he also testified

that he that he wanted to help wanted to the victim, help the victim, that that he he asked the the Guyers Guyers to do so, and he he was was still concerned that the victim was going going to pull aagun gun out of his pocket. pocket SolIfollowed— So followed-hehe crawled out of the house. house. Iimmediately popped the safety back on the rifle and II began began to follow him out of the house. house. II was yelling at him to get down because I I was going to attempt whatever first aid I I could attempt. attempt. I'm not a a paramedic but II know some basics. He continued to crawl away. away. He eventually collapsed. collapsed. lI was trying to figure out how to safely approach him without putting myself in in anymore danger because he was laying on his arm that he was reaching into his pocket with.

So in that time I I was trying to process that IIheard Curtis Guyer. He started screaming screaming over at me likehike you shot fuckin' Tim. You didn't have to shoot him, and I I was like he was in my my house. house. You know, he grabbed grabbed ahold of me me and he tried to to take my firearm. Like my family's in in that fucking fucking house. house. Samantha was yelling, yelling too. I I was trying to get her to come over over. I knew she had medical training. Iknew training. I I was like can you help him? Can you please come over here like hike and help? Curtis was yelling yelling at her not to approach, that IIwas going to to shoot them which I, you you know, I'm yelling back at Curtis, I'm not going I'm yelling going to shoot anybody. anybody You're not forcing forcing your your way into my house. house. Like, come help him. him She finally does approach. approach. Iasked her-I her— Iwas like, what do you need? And she's like aatowel. Do you have a atowel or a a sheet or anything? I I go go back in in the house. house. I I guess I I should say prior to that I I believe I I yelled at my wife to call 911 and then all this is happening. So lIgo back in, I'm yelling at [[my l'm my wife] to get me a atowel. towel. She comes up, hands me one of our purple bath towels. I I grabbed it from her. her I go back outside Igo outside. Igive, giwe, you you know, Samantha the towel.towel. I'm like hike what else do you need? Tell me what you can do. She said, you've done fucking enough. enough. It's aa little blurry and fuzzy to this day, the adrenalin. adrenalin. It's one of my first adrenalin dumps dumps.

Id. at 49-50. After that, Defendant locked himself in the house until PSP Id psP arrived. He kept the rifle with him in case anyone outside tried to come into the

39 house to retaliate. retaliate. When PSP arrived he finally put it down. ""IIdropped the mag. mag I raked the live round out. I I picked the live round up and and I I placed it back into the magazine. Ilocked the bolt back on the AR ARR with the safety on." Id, Id. at 51. SL

Defendant placed the rifle on top of the box by the door and then met the three

state troopers who had arrived outside. outside. Id, Id.

Defendant's testimony on direct examination also touched on his concerns

regarding the victim generally. With respect to his statement in his text message victim generally. to Trooper Brenneman that having an unidentified convicted-felon convicted- felon neighbor

allegedly carry firearms made him ""uneasy uneasy with the kids," Defendant stated: stated: ""So So

I'm a firearm advocate. afirearm advocate. If you can legally possess aafirearm, I I have no issue with that. Ihave no issue with felons. that. felons. It's just felons with guns. guns. They make me very

uneasy and scared to be around." N.T., Day Three, at 36. He did not tie this to the

victim specifically, but rather only convicted felons in in general. general. Defendant also emphasized the rural nature of where he lived, terming it ""Bumfuck Bumfuck Egypt," or

"BFE," and noted that he had to drive past the Skippers' residence in order to get "BE," into and out of the neighborhood. Id. at 40. neighborhood. Id, 40. Finally, he emphasized that after the Skippers had moved in, he had posted his property against trespassing, noting

with some pride the reflective sign at the bottom of Campbell Circle Circle.

Q: Q: And who put that sign up?

A: A. Iordered it and then I lordered I pounded it into the ground, so me me.

Q Q• And was it visibly visibly—was was it visible when you drove up to get up to that turn to your house to see?

A: The picture depicts it blaring out. I I can tell you when your headlights hit it, it comes back at you pretty bright and if it's in daylight you can sure well see itit.

Id. at 37-38 Id, 37-38.

On cross-examination, Defendant admitted that he had not had many

interactions with the victim, but emphasized his belief that both his fear of the

victim and suspicion that the victim victim had aagun in his pocket were reasonable. But he could not provide an explanation for why he had not provided specific details

regarding the incidents in in which he claimed to have seen the victim armed with a a

40 i I gun to any generally. Id. at any of the law enforcement officers he contacted, or to PSP generally. 55-63. In part, he claimed that it was because because "IIdidn't feel like I I was getting anywhere anywhere with them." Id, Id. at 62. 62. Defendant repeated that he was concerned about

the victim, but also denied that he was was "worried" "worried" about what the victim might do until he came to the Campbell residence the night of the shooting. Id, Id. at 57,63. 57, 63. He

admitted that prior prior to the night night of the shooting, the victim had never threatened him. Id. at62-63. him. Id, at 62-63. Defendant did not see anything when he drove past the

Skippers' residence on the night of April 3, 2022, that caused him concern, and he Skippers' denied ever having having been confronted previously by the victim regarding regarding speeding on Springhill Drive. Id. at 64-65. He did not seeing some sort of hand movement Drive. Id by by the victim victim as he drove past, but was not concerned about it. it. Id. He agreed that

it would have been appropriate for the victim to come up to the Campbell

residence to talk to him about speeding, if he had done so so ""politely." politely." Id, Id. at 65--67. 65-67.

Defendant claimed that he had not grabbed the rifle specifically because the

victim came to his house, and that he had selected it because it was what he had at

hand. hand. He also expressed aageneral fear of strangers coming to his house. house Q: Q: You knew he was coming to your house?

A: Idid not know he was coming to my house until he turned in. [did

Q: Q. And when he turned in, that's when you decided to go not only get get a a firearm but load aafirearm? A. A: Idon't answer that door without a Idon't a firearm. Q: Q So if Iwould come to your house- SoifIwould house—

A: A: There would be a a firearm firearm by that door door.

Q: Q: Staged? A: A. It typically typically would be aapistol but it would be on me. me, That was just there because it was the only firearm I I had quick access to to.

Q: Q: So you have a a general fear that anybody that comes to your residence is a athreat to you?

A: Strangers, yes. Q: Q: A threat to your family? Athreat A: A: Have you seen the world today? today

41 4l Id. at67 Id at 67 (emphasis added). (emphasis added) Asked about how he stored and managed generally, Defendant managed his firearms generally, admitted that he had originally left the rifle on the dining table, and then had left it in the bedroom, despite the fact that there were young young children in the house. house. He emphasized that the rifle was not loaded, and that the magazine magazine (which [which was loaded) loaded] was sitting on the desk in the bedroom away from the rifle. disagreed rifle. He disagreed that the firearm should have been secured away from the children, and instead

emphasized teaching teaching kids about firearms and not to touch them. Id. at 68-69 them. ld, 68-69.

Q: Q: Iwould think that if anytime somebody comes to your house astranger, that gun's loaded, you would be very cognizant as astranger, cognizant of making sure that gun got put back so the two-year- old, the two-year-old, four-year- old or [your four-year-old or [your stepson] didn't touch it, correct? A: A: That's why it wasn't by That'swhy by the door. door Id. at 68-69 Id, 68-69 (emphasis (emphasis added). added) Defendant claimed that the master bedroom door was usually usually locked to

keep the kids out, but at that time it it was unlocked. unlocked. And regardless of the fact that the children's bedrooms were close by, by, he viewed the risk of having having the unsecured firearm in the bedroom reasonable in light of the threat presented by strangers— strangers- the victim particularly so so.

Q: Q: Two-year- olds can be mischievous? Two-year-olds A: A Sure. Sure Q Q: Four - year - Four-year olds don't always pay attention to you? you?

A: Sure. Sure Q: Q: And you took aarisk?

A: It's how I It'show was raised. Iwas Q: Q: You load that firearm-you firearm—you load that weapon and you immediately come out, correct? A: A. From From the bedroom. bedroom Q: Q And II want to ask this question because I I think it's extremely important. What were you afraid of right then and there?

A: A The unknown.

42 Q: The unknown?

A: A: The unknown, unknown. IIdon't know why he's there.

Id. at 70-71 ld, 70-71 (emphasis added). (emphasis added) Defendant repeatedly stated that he thought thought the victim was aathreat as soon driveway. as came up the driveway Q: Q: Was your family Was your family in in jeopardy jeopardy right right then then and and there? there? A: A: Yes, absolutely. absolutely

Q: So when you're approaching that doorway doorway with that gun gun you're you're afraid? A: A. Yes. Yes Q: You're afraid of Tim Skipper? A: I'm afraid of Tim Skipper. I'm afraid of anything, anyone. I'mafraid Id. at 71 Id 71 (emphasis added). (emphasis added) Despite constantly emphasizing his fear, Defendant could not provide aa reasonable explanation for why he opened the door and engaged in an argument argument with the victim, instead of keeping calling the police keeping the door locked and calling police or immediately immediately telling telling the victim victim to leave. leave, He He claimed that that he had no no choice but to open the door, as the victim could have been there for a a reason other than to confront him. Q: Q And when you staged that rifle did you still have that same fear that he was going to harm you, kill you, kill your family, family, kidnap kidnap you? you? A: A: With not knowing why he was there, yes, absolutely. Q: Would it be fair to say that this period of time is nothing nothing but speculation and conjecture on your part? A: A I'm l'm not aahundred percent sure what that means means.

Q: Q: You didn't know what Tim Tim Skipper was there for, correct?

A: Well, opening opening the door, no. no. As far as I I knew he— he-- Q: Q: Because you you did nothing nothing wrong going past wrong going past his house, correct?

A: Correct. For all I I knew my stepson wrecked his side-by- side.

__[ Q: Q You had the option of not opening that door? A: A No. No

Q: Q You didn't have that option?

A: A And leave my stepson outside with a amaniac.

••• Q: When you went back the hallway, according to you because you had to use the bathroom, then you hear hear the vehicle. vehicle. Did ' you tell your your wife immediately I A: A No. Ididn't No. immediately call the police? Ididn't know he was coming coming to my house. my house I Q: Q When he pulled into the driveway and you knew that he was there, did you you tell your wife call the police. police. He's here?

A: A IIdidn't know why he was there. Q: Q· He's trespassing according to you. you A: A. Yes, he is trespassing but again IIwas worried- worried—

Q: 0 ahead. Go ahead A: Again II was worried that maybe something happened to my stepson on top of everything else. Maybe he wrecked the side- by- side, maybe one of our animals got out. side-by-side, 0:Q: Again you['re] you [' re] speculating. And Tim Skipper, you know him so well, that if one of your animals got out he would be the guy to come and tell you, correct? A: A. Idon't know if he would or not. I I would hope he would. would Id. at 72-73, Id, 75 (emphasis 72-73,75 (emphasis added). Despite testifying that he could not leave his stepson outside with the victim, as the victim was was ""a amaniac," Defendant

incongruously testified that he had no concerns with allowing his stepson to drive the side- by- side past the Skippers' residence, because his stepson side-by-side stepson ""had had

instructions to never never stop." Id, Id. at 74.

Finally, Defendant was unable to provide a aspecific reason why he felt the

need to grab the rifle and point it out the door at the victim, or why he thought that the victim was reaching for a a gun in his pocket on the night of the shooting. Instead, Defendant kept falling falling back on things like the fact that the victim did not

44 immediately leave when he was ordered to, the victim was angry, angry, the victim had his hand in in or near his pocket, and that he had allegedly allegedly seen the victim with aa pistol on aaprevious occasion occasion.

Q: Q: When you opened that door, what were you afraid of?

A: A: Originally when I I opened the door at that point point with him standing there and glaring at me me and then besides the fact fact pounding on my door, swinging open and him glaring glaring at me and then immediately jumping jumping on me that I I was speeding speeding when II was not speeding speeding.

Q: Q: And you couldn't just have an argument?

A: A: We did have an argument argument.

tQ: And you're the one that introduced the deadly weapon. weapon. Is ls that fair? A: A: Itold him Itold to leave my property four to five times, to get himntoleave get the hell off my property. property Q: Q: And you you could just simply at that point point in of in time instead of reaching reaching for the AR ARR shut the door? A: A: Again gain my son's outside. ... ***

Q: Q: He came to your doorway and told you you were going too fast?

A: A. Correct. Q: Q He He told told you he was you he was worried about his kids? worried about kids?

A: A. He never mentioned his kids kids.

Q: Q: And he told you if you didn't stop he was putting speed bumps in. n

A: He mentioned speed bumps, yes, and IIhad no issue with this this.

Q: Q: During During that 24 24 second period of conversation he never brandished a a weapon? A: A: His hand was in his pocket that I I believe had aapistol pistol.

*** +++ [Commonwealth's [Commonwealth's Exhibit 129, aa still picture taken from the Doorbell Camera, was discussed at sidebar.]

45 Q: And I I just want to be clear clear. What made you uneasy? What made you frightened? What made you scared with Tim Skipper standing at your door hike like this? [[Demonstrates Demonstrates hand in pocket.] in

A: A: His hand was in in his pocket. I I don't know what's in in his pocket.

Q: Q Was it like this? Wasit A: A: Idon't recall. Idon't recall. I I know it was in in his pocket pocket.

Q: But if it's— ifit Butifit's if it was like this, that's what scared you to the point you introduced deadly force?

A: A Not knowing what was in in his pocket, his demeanor, prior encounters, yes. yes Q: I'm going to show you what's marked as Commonwealth's Exhibit 129 and ask you to take a Exhibit. a look at that Exhibit A: A. Okay. Okay Q: Would you agree with me that's a astill shot of Tim Skipper on the day in question when he was talking to you?

A: A Yes. Yes Q: You say that— does that appear to be a that -does a threatening manner? A: At that point in in time, no no.

*** [[Commonwealth's Commonwealth's Exhibit 129 129 was admitted and published to the jury.] jury]

Q: Q: You pointed the gun at Mr. Skipper?

A: Down and right—well, right well, down and to my left. lett *** ++ [[Discussion Discussion of the distance between the Defendant and the victim when the gun was pointed.] pointed.J Q: Q• When you did that he reacted?

A: A Yes. Yes. He grabbed ahold of the barrel when I I told him—when him -when I l reached and picked up the ritle, rifle, I I had it down. down. I I told him you need to leave. You're trespassing and you need to leave, Tim. He grabbed the barrel. barrel I Q Q: And is it it your belief that you had the right to kill him, shoot I him, him, because he was on your front doorstep?

46 A: When he wasn't leaving continuing to reach around in leaving and continuing pockets, IIwas in fear tear for my lite life.

Q: Q: Fear for your life. life A: Especially when he grabbed grabbed hold of the rifle rifle.

Id. at 73,76,77.79, Id 73, 76, 77-79. Defendant focused almost exclusively on the fact that the

victim had grabbed the rifle, rifle, and had come into his home after grabbing it, as the force. He also reiterated that he did not know justification for escalating to deadly force. that the first shot had hit the victim. victim. Defendant disagreed that the leg wound negated the victim as a a threat, because because ""his his hands and arms still functioned." Id. at

79-80. 7980. Defendant apparently did not view aiming the rifle at the victim as aathreat or form of deadly force; he instead focused on everything that happened after he

pointed the rifle at the victim. victim Q: Tim never personally threatened you with bodily injury? Tie A: That I'm aware of, no. Thatl'm no Q: Tim never threatened to kill you? A: He did that night night.

Q: Q. He He did that night? did that night? A: Yeah. Yeah

Q: Q What did he say? A: A: He didn't say anything. He tried to take my firearm. firearm Q: Q: After After you introduced introduced it. it. A: After he was reaching, had his hand in his pocket with and Iasked him to unknown and]asked to continue to leave and he wouldn't leave. I leave. I presented my firearm, again instructing him to leave and instead of putting his hands up or doing anything. anything, walking walking away, leaving at that point, he took ahold of the rifle. rifle Q: Q: So this is all Tim Skipper's fault that you had to shoot and kill him on the night night of this incident? It's his fault, right? right? A: In my opinion, yes.

Id. at 80-81 Id, 80-81 (emphasis (emphasis added). added)

47 47 3. Evidence obtained as a a result of the Commonwealth's criminal investigation. investigation. Stated briefly, all of the physical and forensic evidence obtained by the

Commonwealth matched with the video evidence that was admitted at trial, trial and corroborated the testimony of the witnesses with respect to the physical events occurred. that occur red. Further, Defendant's testimony regarding regarding his cooperation with the investigating officers investigating officers (such showing them the videos on his phone) matched (such as showing with the testimony of the responding responding officers. The key witnesses and testimony for purposes of appeal are as follows: a.a. Trooper Joshua Kleinfelter Trooper Kleinfelter Trooper Kleinfelter was both one of the first troopers on scene in response

to Mrs. Campbell's 911 call and the first witness to testify for the Commonwealth.

He generally generally testified as to the people who were on scene when he arrived, the information that troopers were provided by the Defendant, that Defendant and his

family members were cooperative, and that Defendant played the videos for the

troopers. N.T., Day One, at 12-41. Specific matters testified to by Trooper

Kleinfelter included that when he arrived on scene, the victim was already in the Kleinfelter back of the ambulance; he observed a a pool of blood, dentures, glasses, and aacell phone in the location where the victim had collapsed; that upon entering the

Campbells' residence he observed what he believed to be bone fragments on the floor; how he located and secured the AR- 15 rifle used by Defendant; and that he AR-15 maintained the crime scene entry log log while members of the PSP forensic services unit were documenting the scene. scene. Id, Id. at 13, 14, 15, 17-18, and 19-20. 15,17.18, 19-20, The Commonwealth also used Trooper Kleinfelter's testimony to introduce the Kitchen video from the Surveillance System and play it for the jury for the first time. Id.at 21-30. 21-30 b. Trooper Cody Hollibaugh Trooper Hollibaugh Hollibaugh testified in regard to the search warrants that were obtained for Defendant's residence and his body, the evidence preservation requests that were sent to AT&T and Verizon regarding cell phone records, and the

evidence preservation preservation requests requests that were were sent to to Facebook. Facebook. With With respect respect to to

48 48 Facebook, one preservation request was sent with respect to Defendant's Defendant' s account, and two preservation requests were sent with respect to the victim's two accounts. N.T., N.T,, Day Two, at 3-8. 3-8. Trooper Hollibaugh then identified the records that were

received from Facebook with respect to Defendant's account. account. Id, Id. at9-11 at 9-11.

c.c. Corporal Travis Garnet Garner

Corporal Garner was assigned to the forensic services unit on the night of the shooting. He took extensive photographs of the crime scene, including the area

where the victim collapsed in the driveway, the area of the stoop outside the

entrance door to the Campbells' residence, and the kitchen and dining area of the Campbell residence where the physical confrontation and shooting occurred. occurred. He

also searched and photographed the victim's silver Ford pickup truck, the victim's

clothing, and took photographs of the victim's body and wounds in the back of the ambulance. ambulance. He began with the victim's body in the ambulance. ambulance. He initially

observed the victim victim to have a a gunshot wound to the left leg below the knee, aa gunshot wound to his right arm below the elbow, and another gunshot wound to

the right arm above the elbow. elbow. Id Id. at 15. 15. The pictures taken in the back of the ambulance were admitted as Commonwealth's Exhibits 14-25. 14-25. As he was taking these photographs he noted that the victim also had aagunshot wound to his right

torso. Id. at 20. torso. Id 20. Thirteen items of evidence were collected from the victim's body,

consisting mostly of his clothing. Id Id. at 15.

Trooper Garner then photographed and searched the victim's pickup truck. Trooper truck truck. This search and these photographs, No evidence was collected from the truck. which were admitted as Commonwealth's Exhibits 26-35, were notable for what found. That is, no firearms or other weapons of any kind. Id. at 22-27. was not found. to the exterior of the Campbells' residence, this area was Moving to documented in Commonwealth's Exhibits 36-53. At the front of Defendant's

Dodge Dodge Journey SUV, Trooper Hollibaugh documented aapool of blood, aapurple towel, glasses, aacell phone, and dentures dentures. Te The glasses, cell phone, and dentures

belonged to the victim. victim. Trooper Hollibaugh also photographed the Doorbell 28-34. Camera. Id. at 28-34

49 49 54-61 were additional photographs of the area Commonwealth's Exhibits 54-61 and items depicted depicted in Exhibits 36-53. These photographs photographs included evidence

markers for identification, and showed how Trooper Hollibaugh collected samples

of the suspected blood for analysis. analysis. No firearms, knives, or other weapons were found outside of the residence. Id.at 35-39. 35.39 Commonwealth's Exhibits 62-81 are Exhibits 62--81 are photographs photographs from the the interior of the the Id. at 39. Items discovered and photographed included a Campbells' residence. Id, a pool of blood on the floor floor just inside the door; the the "WE DON'T CALL 911" sign; a a spent spent shell shell casing found found lying lying on top of a a black black plastic plastic garbage garbage bag that was on the floor near the wall; a a second spent shell casing found on the floor near the wall and the cardboard box that Defendant originally rested the rifle on; and the

surveillance camera that recorded the shooting. shooting. ldat Id.at 41-47. 41-47 As with the exterior, Trooper Hollibaugh took an additional set of photographs photographs of the interior with evidence markers for identification, and to show how the evidence was collected. collected. These were admitted as Commonwealth's

82-100. A Exhibits 82-100. A sample was collected from the pool of blood on the floor. The two shell casings that were shown in the first batch of pictures from inside the

residence were collected. Trooper Hollibaugh Hollibaugh then located the third shell casing, casing,

which was located under aatable after the FSU troopers moved it. it. Each of the shell caliber . 223, consistent with the chambering of the rifle used by casings was caliber Defendant. Hollibaugh also photographed Defendant. Trooper Hollibaugh photographed the DVR router for the Surveillance System, which was collected and entered into evidence. evidence. Id Id. at 49-54. 49-54 No other shell casings were recovered, and the only firearm that was located and seized as evidence was Defendant's rifle. Id. at 54-55. rifle. Id,at 54.gr Commonwealth's Exhibit 101 101 is a a picture picture of the the magazine from Defendant's magazine from Defendant's rifle, which contained twenty-seven twenty -seven live rounds of of . 223 ammunition. Id. at 55. ammunition. Id, S5 Finally, Trooper Hollibaugh Hollibaugh attended the autopsy on the victim's body body that was conducted on April 5, 2022Z. April5, 2022. He took seventy seventy-five -five photographs during during the

autopsy, and collected the victim's underwear, aavial of the victim's blood, and two

bullet fragments that were recovered from the victim's body as evidence. Id, Id. at

59-60. 59-60

so 50 d.d. Corporal Frank H. H. Gaus, Jr. Jr Corporal Gaus, recently retired at the time of trial, worked as aacollision analysis and reconstruction specialist for for PSP PSP. He responded to the scene to take

detailed measurements of the pertinent aspects of the scene and the locations of

the evidence that was collected. collected. He then prepared drawings that were shown to

the jury noting the layout of the scene and where the evidence was discovered. discovered. He

also took photographs of the the ""no no trespassing trespassing" sign at the entrance to Campbell

Circle. Id, Circle. Id. at 80-93 80-93.

e.e. Lieutenant Matthew] Matthew J. Bonin

Lieutenant Bonin is the coordinator of the cellular analysis technicians unit

PSP. He testified in regard to three videos that were extracted from for PSP. Defendant's cell phone, including the video from the Doorbell Camera, and how how he

prepared the video from from the Doorbell Camera for presentation to the jury. Id. at

102-109. 102-109 f. Dr. De. Harry N. N Kamerow Dr. Kamerow is a apathologist, pathologist, and performed the autopsy on the victim's body. He was admitted as an expert in the field of forensic pathology. Id. at 111-

14. 14. Dr. Dr Kamerow testified remotely. remotely The autopsy was performed on April 5, 202Z, 2022, at Mount Nittany Medical

Center. The victim weighed two hundred twenty pounds and was six feet, one inch Center tall. Initial external examination showed aagunshot entrance wound on the right tall. upper pper arm, traveling right to left, aagunshot wound to the right forearm, and a a gunshot wound to the left lower leg. leg. There was also aacontusion of the mid-upper mid- upper

chest. Id. at 118-19. chest and aacontusion of the left upper chest. 118-19 Dr. Kamerow then used Commonwealth's Exhibits 104-108 Dr 104-108 to explain the wounds to the jury. jury. Going through the three wounds in the order in which the

shots had been fired, the first wound was to the victim's left lower leg leg. This was a a near- contact wound, meaning the muzzle of the near-contact the gun was close to the leg, and showed both an entrance wound and an exit wound. The bullet fractured both bones of the lower leg leg (the tibia and fibula), and inflicted aasevere injury. Dr. Dr Kamerow opined that the victim would no longer longer be able to put put any weight on his

51 left leg gunshot. "[ leg after the gunshot. H]is leg "[H[is leg would not work. work. If he he [tried [tried to put weight on it]—first of all, you would have horrible pain which obviously that wound is it]-first associated with but in addition the bones are comminuted. No, they would Id. at 127. buckle." Id The second shot, to the victim's right forearm, fractured both the radius and ulna, and left an open-fracture wound. Id, Id. at 129.

The third shot first hit the outer surface of the victim's right upper arm, traveling right right to left. It traveled completely through through the upper arm and then entered the victim's chest in the right right armpit. After it entered the victim's chest the bullet struck the victim's ribs, fracturing ribs R-5 R-S and R-6. R-6. After striking striking the ribs the bullet spilt into two main fragments. fragments. One fragment tunneled upward

through the chest wall exited the victim's right right breast. The second fragment continued through the victim's chest from right to left. left. That fragment went through two segments through segments of the victim's right right lung, lung. causing causing bleeding bleeding from the lung lung cavity. The damage to the right lung caused and blood to fill the right pleural cavity, massive hemorrhaging; hemorrhagihg; Dr. Dr Kamerow found two thousand cubic centimeters centimeters (two (two liters) of blood in the victim's right pleural cavity, cavity. This meant that the third shot

was the fatal shot. shot. "[ E]ven if you're aahealthy adult male or adult female, 2OO0 "[Even 2000 cc's

acutely lost is certainly enough to end your life." Id. at 120-21, 122-25, 129-30. life" Id, Dr. Kamerow ran aatoxicological analysis on the victim's blood, and found Dr the presence of caffeine and nicotine. nicotine, There were no no controlled substances present. Id, present. Id. at 127-28.

Dr. Kamerow confirmed that the victim could have survived the first shot if Dr he had received prompt first aid to control the bleeding. bleeding. Id, Id. at 131 131 (after (after explaining the issues involved; involved; "[T]he "[T]he answer to your question is if somebody were there and would put aatourniquet around his leg, leg, he would live. "). live."). g.g. Corporal Joseph D. Horton Corporal Horton is aaforensic firearm and toolmark examiner, and testified as an expert in that field. aan field. Corporal Horton identified the firearm used by Defendant as aaWindham Weaponry Weaponry Model WW- 15 semiautomatic rifle, serial WW-15 number WW 028027. He explained the operation of the rifle to the jury, and then WW028027

52 testified as to his examination of the rifle. rifle. The rifle was in good condition and capable of firing capable firing caliber caliber ..223 223 Remington Remington ammunition. It was not susceptible to firing firing in shock and drop tests and had an average average trigger trigger pull weight of six pounds. The magazine magazine held thirty thirty rounds of ammunition. Comparison of the fired cartridge cases collected from the scene against cartridge cases fired through the rifle during testing confirmed that the collected cases were fired from the Defendant's rifle. rifle. Id. at 140-152. 140-152 h. Trooper Christopher Bourne Trooper Trooper Bourne is aacriminal investigator assigned to the PSP Huntingdon station, and was the lead investigator investigator. He primarily testified about his limited

interview of Defendant at the PSP Huntingdon station on the night of the shooting shooting,

which interview occurred with counsel present, and the videos that were obtained from from Defendant's surveillance systems. systems. He noted that the Doorbell Camera video

was downloaded from Defendant's cell phone, and and (as above) the (as discussed above)] Surveillance System videos were obtained from the Amcrest DVR router. The DWR router Kitchen video was again played for the jury jury during Trooper Bourne's testimony, and his testimony also included the playing of the Fence Side video and the Doorbell Camera video. video. Finally, Trooper Bourne testified as to the Facebook Messenger texts between Defendant and Joey Allen that were obtained from Defendant's Facebook account. Id, Id. at 168-192. 168-192

B. Defendant's Issue No. 3(a). issue No. 3(a): Failure to Grant Acquittal on All Ali Counts

The Court begins by noting that while Defendant casts this claim as aa challenge to the denial of his motion for acquittal, it is properly characterized as a challenge a

sufficiency of the evidence claim, as it focuses on whether the Commonwealth met

its burden with respect to disproving self-defense. The standard for review of

sufficiency of the evidence claims is well established established.

The standard we apply in in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact- finder to find every element of the crime beyond aareasonable fact-finder doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact- finder. In addition, we note that fact-finder.

53 the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. innocence. Any doubts regarding regarding aa defendant's guilt maymay bebe resolved resolved by fact- finder unless the by the fact evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances circumstances. Finally, the finder of fact while passing passing upon the credibility credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. Commonwealth v, v, Jones, 273 A.3d 452, 452, 457-588 457-588 (Pa. Super. 2021) (Pa. Super 2021) (cleaned (cleaned up). up). The right self-defense right to self defense and the limitations thereon are set forth in 18 Pa Pa.

C.S. § 505. Pertinent here are the following CS.$505. following provisions provisions:

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.-The person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately immediately necessary necessary for the purpose purpose of protecting himself against against the use of unlawful force by by such other person on the present occasion occasion.

(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.- force.--

(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section: (l)The section ... (ii) to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using using the force is doing so under aaclaim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not not apply apply if: if 4

(C) the actor believes that such force is necessary (C)the necessary to protect himself against against death or serious bodily bodily injury. injury (2) The use use of deadly force is not justifiable justifiable under this this section section unless the actor actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled byby force or threat; nor is it justifiable if: if-

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily (i)the injury, injury, provoked the the use of force against himself himself in in the the same same encounter; Oror

(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using (ii) using such such force with with complete safety safety by by retreating, retreating, except the the actor is is not not obliged obliged to to retreat from his his dwelling or place place of work, work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of

54 work work byby another another person person whose place of whose place of work work the actor knows the actor knows it it to to be. be

(2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.1)Except paragraph ((2.2), 2.2), an actor is presumed to have aa reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily bodily injury, injury, kidnapping kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by by force or threat if both of the following conditions exist: exist (i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and forcefully entered and is ts present present within, within, aadwelling, dwelling, residence residence or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the force is used is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle. vehicle (ii) The [ii) The actor knows or has has reason reason to believe that that the the unlawful unlawful and and forceful entry or act is is occurring or has occurred. has occurred (2.2) The presumption set forth in paragraph (2.2)The paragraph ((2.1) 2.1) does not apply if: if ... (iii) the actor is engaged in a acriminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle to further aacriminal activity; or actvty; ... (2.5) Unless one of the exceptions under paragraph (2.5)Unless paragraph (2.2) (2.2) applies, a a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter an actor's dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle or removes or attempts to remove another against that other's will from the actor's dwelling dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle is presumed presumed to bebe doing so with the intent to commit: commit (i) an act resulting in death or serious bodily injury; or ()an (ii) kidnapping or or sexual intercourse by force or threat. threat ... (] Except as otherwise required by this subsection, aa person (3) employing protective force maymay estimate the the necessity necessity thereof thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act act which which he he has has no no legal legal duty duty to to do do or abstaining from from any any lawful action. action

55 (d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term term "criminal "criminal activity" activity" means conduct which is a a misdemeanor or felony, is not justifiable justifiable under this chapter and is related to the confrontation between an actor and the person against whom force is used used.

Distilled to their essence, essence, "the "the elements of a self-defense [under a claim of self-defense [under 18 Pa. C.S. $505] Pa.CS. § 505] are are that that the individual individual ((I) 1) reasonably reasonably believed that that force was was necessary to protect himself against death or or serious bodily injury; (2) bodily injury; (2) was free from fault in provoking the use of force against from against him; and and (3) (3] did not violate any any duty to retreat" retreat." Commonwealth v. Miller, 172 A.3d 632, 640 640 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2017). 2017) The first element has two further elements: The requirement that the defendant be operating operating under the reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger danger of death, great great bodily bodily harm or some felony, involves two elements. First, the defendant in fact must have acted out of an honest, bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger. Second, the belief must be reasonable in lightlight of the facts facts as they they appeared appeared to to him. him. The The first first element element is is entirely subjective; subjective, the second, clearly objective. objective

Commonwealth v. y. Light, 458 Pa. Pa. 328,334 328, 334 ((1974) 1974) (cleaned up). "The (leaned up). "The finder of fact is not required to believe the defendant's testimony testimony that he thought thought that he was in imminent danger and imminent danger and acted acted in in self-defense." Tones, 273 self-defense." [ones, 273 A.3d A.3d at 458 (citations at 458 (citations omitted). omitted) It lt is black letter law that aadefendant does not have to prove that he acted in self-defense. Rather, self-defense. Rather all he must do is establish that there is "some "some evidence, from

whatever source, to justify such aafinding," which then puts the question question of self-

defense properly before the jury. jury. Commonwealth v,v. Black, Black, 474 Pa. Pa. 47, 53 ((1977) 47,53 1977)

(citations omitted]. [citations omitted). Once he has done so, "the burden is upon the Commonwealth

to prove beyond aareasonable doubt that the defendant was not in fact acting acting in self-defense." self Id. (citations omitted). This is not an insurmountable obstacle, defense." Id, obstacle, as all

the Commonwealth must do is disprove one of the three elements of self-defense in order to gain a aconviction. [ones, Tones, 273 A.3d at 458("Where 458 ("Where the defendant has

introduced evidence of self-defense, the burden burden is is on the the Commonwealth to to

56 self-defense disprove the self defense claim beyond aareasonable doubt by proving that at least one of those three elements is absent.") absent.") (citations omitted). (citations omitted) Defendant was brought to trial on three charges: ((1) 1) criminal homicide,

first- degree murder; first-degree murder; ((Z) 2) aggravated assault, causes serious bodily injury to

another intentionally, knowingly knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting manifesting life; and extreme indifference to the value of human hite; and ((3) 3) aggravated assault,

intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a adeadly weapon• weapon. 27

On Count 1, the Court instructed the jury not only on first- degree murder, but also first-degree lesser- included offenses of third-degree on the lesser-included murder 28 and voluntary third-degree murder? manslaughter. manslaughter. 29 Incorporated into the homicide instructions were detailed

instructions on self-detense. self-defense. On Count 2, Z, the Court instructed the jury not only on aggravated assault under 18 Pa. C.S. $§ 2702(a)(1), but also the lesser- Pa.CS. included lesser-included offense of simple assault under 18 Pa. CS. 18Pa. C.S. $§ 2701(a)(1). No lesser lesser--included included

offense was presented for for Count 3. The instructions for both Count Z2and Count 33 specified that the defense of self-defense applied to those counts in the same 1. See N.T., manner as it had been instructed for Count 1. Oct. 20, 2023 N.T, Trial, Oct. 2023 (" Day ("Day Four"), 75-94. The Court provided the jury with a Four")], at 75-94. awritten copy of the charge- charge-

specific instructions for use during deliberations due to their complexity. complexity. Id, Id. at

75-76. 75- On Count 1, 76. 0n I, the jury rejected rejected the Commonwealth's arguments for for murder,

and instead found Defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The jury found the Defendant guilty as charged on Counts 22and 3. The evidence presented at trial established the order of the shots that were

fired, the places that they struck the victim, and the injuries that resulted. resulted. The first

shot fired, which struck the victim's leg leg and was not fatal, was the basis of the Count 2. The second shot fired, which struck the aggravated assault conviction on Count2Z. victim's right forearm but was aimed at the victim's torso, was also not fatal. The

third shot fired, which struck the victim's right upper arm and passed through through into

27 18 Pa. Cs 18Pa C.S. $$25026) §§ 2502(a), 2702(a)(). 2702(a)(1), and 2702(a)(4), respectively. 2702(a)(4).respectively

28 18 Pa. C.S. $2502( 18Pa.Cs § 2502(c).

29 18 Pa. C.S. § 2503. 18PCS8250

57 his chest, had likewise been aimed at the victim's torso and was fatal fatal. The second

and third shots were the basis of the aggravated aggravated assault conviction on Count 33and the voluntary manslaughter conviction on Count 1. Defendant made it it clear in his

testimony that his decision to introduce the rifle into the verbal argument argument at the

door, and his decision to fire the first shot, were separate from his decision to fire the second and third shots. He also made third shots. made it it clear that that he he made a a conscious decision to to fire two two shots, and and not not one, while while the the victim victim was was on his knees after after the the first shot. This first shot. This was was corroborated corroborated by by the the Kitchen video. Kitchen video. The question of whether Defendant had aaduty to retreat, while included in the jury instructions on self-defense, was not placed in issue at trial. This leaves the ""lack only the lack of provocation" and and ""reasonable reasonable belief' belief" elements of self-defense for analysis. analysis. The Court will first address Defendant's claim that his generalized generalized fear of

the victim was reasonable and justified his use of deadly force, because if this had

not been overcome by the Commonwealth, it would flow across all three

convictions. The Court will then address each of the shots, and the resulting convictions. resulting

convictions, in the order in which they occurred. they occurred

1. The evidence was sufficient to establish that Defendant's generalized fear fear of the the victim victim was was not not reasonable. reasonable Defendant Defendant emphasized, emphasized, many many times, times, both: both: (i) (i) his his belief belief that that anyone anyone other other than a a friend or family member who came to his front door was aathreat to him and his family; and and (ii) [ii) his general belief that the victim was aathreat to him and his family simply by virtue of the victim's mere presence in the neighborhood. neighborhood. The first belief is objectively unreasonable. unreasonable. While situations do occur in which people people

are attacked by strangers who come to their front door, such attacks are fortunately rare, and the vast majority majority of people do not answer knocks at their door with a front door a loaded firearm firearm staged for immediate use, ready to kill their unknown visitor. As for the second belief, there was more than sufficient evidence on which the jury could find that this too was unreasonable. Looking first to the testimony from Defendant, Mrs. Mrs. Campbell, Campbell, and

Mr. Quarry regarding instances in which the victim was alleged alleged to have been

58 armed, there were many aspects on which the jury could reasonably find that their

testimony was not credible. credible. The instances of the Defendant and Mrs. Mrs. Campbell

allegedly seeing the victim present on his own property with aapistol in a a holster on his his hip were were remarkably remarkably identical identical (i.e., [ie., potentially agreed upon upon and rehearsed). rehearsed) Defendant's testimony contained aacontradiction that showed that he was trying to weight the facts in his favor. favor When Defendant Detendant testified on direct examination about having seen aapistol in the victim's possession during the snowplowing incident, he said that it was merely on the seat between the victim and his brother.

But when when asked about about it it again again on cross-examination, cross-examination, Defendant Defendant changed changed his his story so that it was under the victim's leg. The portion portion of Mr. Quarry's Mr Quarry' s testimony testimony regarding the presence of a a firearm also came across as potentially rehearsed (such as the alleged dramatic sweeping aside of the jacket to reveal the pistol), pistol), and it was rather incongruent that he was not able to to identify the pistol he saw with

any specificity specificity (beyond (beyond aageneric, generic, common type), type), but yet used the not-commonly not-commonly known term term "wheel "wheel gun" to refer to aarevolver. Turning to to Defendant's testimony regarding regarding his other other reasons for fearing fearing

the victim prior to the night of the shooting shooting, this testimony had multiple

contradictions that bore upon both its credibility and the reasonableness of Defendant's expressed beliefs. Defendant claimed to be just fine with people people owning and possessing firearms, and to be just fine with people who are convicted felons, but suddenly become but to suddenly become "very uneasy and scared" "very uneasy by any scared"by any combination of

the two, regardless of the specific facts of the situation. situation.o30 Defendant referred to the

victim as a"maniac"in a " maniac" in regard regard to the thought thought of his stepson stepson being being outside when the victim was around, but yet had no qualms about having having his stepson drive up and down Springhill Springhill Drive on the side-by-side side-by-side on his own, regularly going past regularly going past the the Skippers' residence at least twice a day. And Defendant's characterizations of the a day. victim's victim's anger anger during the the snowplowing incident ("shooting snowplowing incident bolts") came ("shooting lightning bolts"]

30 The Court does not advocate for convicted felons to own or possess firearms, but rather only identifies that he Court does not advocate or convicted felons to own or possess frears, but rather only de ntifies that not all situations in which which aacoveted convicted felon—even felon-even omeone who committed aaviolent offense-poses offense— possesses afirearm afirearm presents gclege aclear and imminent danger to te innocent persons. into«cent pere.ere

59 off as embellished, particularly when compared to his demeanor during the prior

incident with the backhoe.

2. The evidence was sufficient to disprove Defendant's claim of self- defense as to Count Z2because the Commonwealth established that Defendant provoked the use of force against himself, or, alternately, that Defendant's belief that an attack with a afirearm was imminent was not reasonable. reasonable, One of the Commonwealth's theories of the case with respect to first-degree first- degree

murder was that Defendant, by introducing the rifle into the verbal argument

between himself and the victim and pointing it it at the victim, provoked the victim

to use physical force against him. him. Had the jury found Defendant guilty of first-

degree degree murder on this basis, the sum total of Defendant's actions on the night of the shooting would have constituted a a single single criminal act, as this would have negated his self-defense claim on that count. But the Commonwealth also

proceeded on first-degree first- degree murder on the theory that the first shot, and the second

and third shots, were separate criminal acts, and that Defendant's actions during the two-second two- second pause between the first shot and the second and third shots

demonstrated both intent and premeditation. premeditation. While the jury rejected the first- degree murder, this does not mean that they Commonwealth's arguments for first-degree they were required to reject the Commonwealth's provocation argument with respect to the aggravated assault charged at Count2. Count 2. The first shot was fired at the

culmination of the physical confrontation that resulted after Defendant grabbed his rifle and pointed it it at the victim, whereas the second and third shots were fired

after Defendant believed that the victim was reaching reaching for aagun in his pocket while kneeling on the floor floor.

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Defendant was angry

about being confronted by the victim about his speed driving past the Skippers' residence, angry at the victim for being present on Defendant's property property (which (which he was clearly very possessive of and believed constituted trespassing), and, having not received instant compliance from the victim victim in response to his order that the victim leave the property, Defendant decided to threaten the victim with deadly

60 force by by grabbing the rifle and aiming at him. Following its Following such evidence to its logical logical conclusion, Defendant did not obtain the result that he anticipated—the anticipated-the victim instantly becoming becoming fearful and compliant at the sight of the rifle. Instead, the victim, confronted with an angry, screaming individual pointing a the arifle at him at at close range, range, took action that was arguably arguably justifiable justifiable in his own self self-defense. defense. He took hold hold of the the rifle barrel, barrel, pushed pushed it it down toward toward the it was not the ground so that it not aimed at either himself or Defendant, and and charged at at Defendant, Defendant, grabbing Defendant's hooded sweatshirt and attempting to both keep physical physical control of Defendant and prevent him from bringing bringing the rifle to bear. bear Defendant, realizing realizing he was potentially going to be physically outmatched, then fired the first shot at the

opportunity. This conclusion is supported by Defendant's testimony that earliest opportunity, he was caught off guard by the victim's actions and that the early stages of the physical physical confrontation happened happened ""so so fast"that fast" that it it took took him him a a moment moment to to come up up with a a way to counter it. it. It is also supported by the fact that the Kitchen video

does not support Defendant's claim that when faced with the rifle, the victim first looked at the barrel, looked at Defendant and said said ""I'll I'll show you you fucking fucking crazy, crazy,"

and then took hold of the barrel and aimed it at his own heart before pushing pushing it downward and charging forward at him. him, The video instead shows the victim grabbing the rifle barrel and pushing it downward as soon as Detendant pushing it Defendant points it it at at him. On this evidence, the jury could find that the Commonwealth had proved him. beyond beyond aareasonable doubt that Defendant provoked provoked the victim's use of force

against against him, negating claim. negating his self-defense claim This is not the only way in which the jury jury could find that the Commonwealth disproved Defendant's claim of self-defense, however. claim at trial was that he was afraid that the victim was armed with aa Defendant's claim handgun, and either was preparing preparing to draw that handgun handgun and shoot him, or or ""could" could"

draw that handgun handgun and and shoot him, him, and and that that this lead lead him to grab his his rifle, ultimately leading to the physical confrontation and the firing of the first shot. shot. He based this on his characterization of the degree of the victim's anger, his claim that

he and other members of his family had previously seen the victim armed with aa handgun, and that the victim had his hand in his pocket as the two men were

61 61 arguing at the door. But, just as with the snowplowing snowplowing incident, Defendant's characterization of the victim's level of anger anger (" It was like lightning ("It lighting bolts. bolts. Like it was beyond beyond pissed off.") embellished. It also did not match with either off.") came off as embellished. the Kitchen video or the Doorbell Camera video. video, Those videos show the victim was angry and gesturing, but not standing in aaposition that suggested a a physical attack was imminent or so angry that he was on the verge of losing control. control. It is also

borne out by the snippets of audio from from the Doorbell Camera, Camera, in which the victim

comes across as angry, but in control. And even assuming, arguendo, assuming ar uendo, g that the testimony of the victim having been seen with aafirearm on prior occasions was

true, that evidence did not support Defendant's claim that his belief that the victim was both armed and about to draw aafirearm firearm on the night of April 3, 2022, 202Z, was reasonable. reasonable The testimony was consistent that on the occasions on which the victim had aafirearm on his person, it was a a handgun in aaholster worn on his belt, on his right side. side. Presumably, such a a handgun would be too large to be concealed in the front pocket of a a pair of jeans, as it would have had to have been large large enough to be seen clearly by Defendant on the victim's belt while driving driving past the victim's residence at aadistance of thirty yards away. away.31 And the Doorbell Camera neither shows a a bulge bulge in pocket that the victim's hand is in nor the victim placing placing his hand in his pocket like he is reaching for something. something. Further, Defendant was clear that his belief was that the victim was possibly possibly armed, not that the victim victim was actually armed.2 armed. 32 Thus, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that

the Commonwealth had disproven disproven Defendant's belief that his use of deadly deadly force was justified was reasonable even on the basis that the victim could have been armed, again negating negating Defendant's self-defense claim. 33 self defense claim." It must also be briefly noted here that Defendant's testimony testimony that he had "no choice" but to open the door when the victim victim "pounded" "pounded" on it, and had to grab his rifle instead of simply cosing closing the door, are contradicted by Defendant's own

31 N.T., Day Three, NT, Three, at 60. 60

32 Id. at 71.

33 See further discussion regarding unreasonable belief/imperfect self-defense in regard to Counts see further discussion regarding unreasonable belief/imperfect self defense in regard to Counts 1 I and 3, below. helo

62 testimony testimony and the video evidence, which further supports a a general finding that was, in fact, Defendant's belief that his threat and use of deadly force was justified was, unreasonable. Defendant claimed that he had to open the door to find out why the

victim was there in order to find out if his stepson had wrecked on the side-by- side- by-

side. But Defendant had recently met his stepson on Springhill Drive just below side. the Skippers' residence, as his stepson was headed down to the bottom of the hill to drop off the garbage, and the victim arrived at the Campbells' driveway a a mere thirty-three seconds after Defendant. Defendant. This means that there was no possibility that the victim victim could have have encountered Defendant's stepson on Springhill Drive Drive (the (the stepson was still headed downhill, away from the Skippers' residence), and no realistic possibility that the victim victim had somehow discovered that the stepson had wrecked, assessed the situation, and then proceeded up to the Campbells'

residence before knocking on Defendant's door door.

3. The evidence was sufficient to disprove Defendant's claim of self- defense as to Counts 1 1 and 3 3{ because the Commonwealth established that Defendant's belief that an attack with a a firearm was was imminent imminent was was not not reasonable reasonable Looking again at the three elements of a valid self a vahid self-defense defense claim and the verdicts handed down by the jury, only the second element--whether element—whether Defendant's

belief that his use of deadly force was justified was reasonable-was reasonable—was truly truly in issue for these counts. The physical confrontation between between the victim victim and Defendant was over at this point in the incident, and thus provocation was not a a consideration. And, as noted above, duty to retreat was not a consideration. consideration. a consideration While the voluntary manslaughter instruction provided to the jury jury on Count 1 I included both both "heat "heat of passion" under 18 Pa. C.S. § 2503(a)(1) and Pa.C.5S.8 and ""unreasonable unreasonable

belief killing justifiable" under under §$ 2503(b) 2503(b), there was there was not sufficient

evidence to support a "heat of passion" conviction. conviction. It was therefore clear clear that the

jury found Defendant guilty on the basis of of ""unreasonable unreasonable belief; belief"; i.e., ie., that at the time of the killing, killing. Defendant actually believed that the killing killing was justified under 18 Pa. C.S. § 505, but his belief was unreasonable 18Pa.CS.$505, unreasonable (also [also sometimes referred reterred to as "imperfect self-defense"). As 'imperfect self-defense"). As set forth in Commonwealth v,v. Jones: Jones.

63 If the Commonwealth proves that the defendant's belief that deadly force was necessary was unreasonable but does not disprove that the defendant genuinely believed that he was in imminent danger that required deadly force and does not disprove either of the other elements of self-defense, the defendant may be found guilty guilty only of voluntary manslaughter under the defense of imperfect self-defense. self-defense 237 A.3d at 458 458 (citations omitted). (citations omitted) As noted above, Defendant testified that after he backed up and and"regained regained

visual" on the victim, he decided to fire two more shots in quick succession. His visual"on right hand stated reason for doing so was that while he observed that the victim's right was upand up and held in front of his chest, the victim's left hand was down by by his side, and he believed the victim was again again reaching reaching for his pocket pocket and possibly going going to agun on Defendant. draw agun Defendant. As an initial matter, the same facts that establish that Defendant's belief that the victim was armed and going for aagun while standing standing at the door was unreasonable also establish that his belief that the victim was going

for aagun at this point in time was unreasonable. unreasonable. But there are additional, and separately significant, facts that support this conclusion with regard to the second

and third shots. The Kitchen video shows that, just before the second shot was fired, while the victim's left hand was down by his side, he was not reaching reaching toward his pocket. pocket Instead, it it was simply down by by his his left thigh. thigh. Further, the the victim's victim's overall posture is not one that indicates an imminent attack, but one that indicates

submissiveness. As the second shot is being fired the victim is both raising his submissiveness. right hand as though to try to protect himself and already starting to turn his body

to the left, toward the door, to leave the house. At the point in time at which the third shot struck his right upper arm and traveled laterally into his chest it was not because the force of the second shot hitting his arm spun him around, but because his body body was was already turning turning in in that direction. Had Defendant Defendant truly truly taken taken the time time to assess what was occurring he would have realized this. this. But he did not. not. Instead, he only paused for just over a a second before deciding to fire the second and third shots, leaving only aatotal span of two seconds between when the first shot was fired and the second shot was fired.

64 The conclusion that Defendant's belief that the victim was armed with a a handgun handgun in his pocket, and intended to draw that handgun and use it, was unreasonable, is further supported by Defendant's testimony regarding his actions

after the victim victim crawled out of the the house. house. Defendant claimed that that he wanted wanted to to help the victim, but was also keeping a a close eye on him him "because "because he was laying on his arm that he was reaching reaching into his pocket with. " But with."M gut it would have been 34

extraordinarily difficult for extraordinarily for the victim to draw aagun with his left hand and put it

into use with any any speed specifically specifically as he was laying laying on that arm. arm. And the Doorbell

Camera shows that once Defendant exited the house, he was holding the rifle in one hand, down by his side, and paid almost no attention to the victim victim (in [in other words, he no longer viewed the victim as aathreat). threat). Instead, Defendant's attention

was focused on the Guyers, to whom he was screaming the reasons he thought

shooting. justified the shooting On the basis of the above, the evidence was more than sufficient for the jury to find that the Commonwealth had disproven Defendant's claim that his belief

that deadly force was justified and necessary was unreasonable with respect to the

second and third shots. shots

C. c Defendants No. 3(b): Defendant's Issue No. of Motion in Arrest of 3(b): Denial of of)udgement Judgement Based on Single Criminal Act Aet Theories

Defendant's claims here, while not the most clearly stated, proceed on two

grounds. The first is that the criminal information was deficient, and did not provide him with adequate notice that the Commonwealth was proceeding against

him on any theory other than that the three shots that were fired constituted a a single criminal act. He claims that this deficiency violated his due process rights under PA. PA. CoNsT. CONST. art. I, §§ 1, 9 I, $$ 9and U.S. U.S. CONST. CONST. amend. amend. XIV, and his rights to notice

and opportunity to defend under under PA. CONST, art. PA.CONST art. I, I, $§ 10 and US. U.S. CONST. CONST. amends. amends. V,

VI, XIV. ground is that XIV. The second ground that ""the the three offenses as charged and adduced

from the evidence at trial constituted aasingle criminal act, consisting of three continuous shots in rapid succession from aa semi-automatic semi- automatic rifle and striking

34 N.T., Day Two, at 49-50.

65 Timothy Timothy Skipper," Skipper," and that that this Court found that that only two two separate offenses occurred, leading leading to violations of Defendants right to aajury trial under P PA.A. CONST. CONST.

art. I, art. I,S§ 66and U.S. CoNsT CONST. amends. V, VI, XIV. XIV With respect to the first ground, the Commonwealth is not required to

reveal its entire theory of the case to the defendant in the criminal information. information The purpose of an Information or an Indictment is to provide the accused with sufficient notice to prepare aa defense, and to ensure that he will will not not be be tried tried twice twice for the the same same act. act. An An Indictment Indictment or an Information is sufficient if it sets forth the elements of the offense intended toto be charged with sufficient detail that the defendant is apprised of what he must be prepared to meet, and may plead plead double jeopardy in aa future prosecution based on the same set of events. This may be accomplished through use of the words of the statute itself as long as those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished.

Commonwealth v.Conaway, y.Onawa, 105 105 A.3d A.3 755, 764 764 ((Pa. Pa. Super. 2014) (cleaned Super. 2014) (cleaned up; emphasis added). added). Thus, it is wholly sufficient if the Commonwealth mirrors and

uses uses the the language language of the statute statute under which which the offense offense is charged. Id, is charged. Id. at 764--65 764-65

(criminal information was sufficient to put the appellant on notice of the offense of burglary burglary - overnight accommodation, persons present, where the statement of the charge included each of the elements basic elements of such offense, set forth the location of the alleged offense, and gave gave the specific title and statutory citation of despite not specifically the offense, despite specifically stating stating that the building building was adapted adapted for

overnight accommodation or that a overnight a person was present). Here, the original original 2022, set forth Counts 1-3 as follows criminal information filed on July 6,20ZZ, follows (text (text and emphasis as in the original]: original):

COUNT COUNT1: 1: Murder of the First Degree Degree-- (H1) (H1) On or about: 04/03/22 18 18$§ 2502 §§ A 2502 $5 A Intentionally and with malice caused the death of another human being, namely Timothy Skipper Skipper.

COUNT COUNT 2: 2 Aggravated Assault -- Attempts to cause Aggravated Assault cause SBI SBI or causes injury with extreme indifference -( 171) indifference-(F1) about: On or about 04/03/22 18 §2702 §§ Al 18$2702 $8 A1

66 Attempted to cause serious bodily injury to another, namely Timothy Skipper, or caused such injury, injury, intentionally, intentionally, knowingly, knowingly, or recklessly recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

COUNT 3: COUNT3: Aggravated Assault Assault - Attempts to cause or causes BI with deadly weapon --(F2J (172) On or about: about. 04/03/22 18 $ §2702 2702 §§$$ A4 Attempted to cause, or intentionally or knowingly knowingly did cause, bodily injury to another, namely Timothy Skipper with aadeadly weapon, namely an AR1S rifle. AR15 rifle

This his is all that was required, and the criminal information therefore provided Defendant with sufficient notice of the charges against him. him Even assuming. assuming, arguendo, that the criminal information was deficient,

Defendant's claim would not merit relief relief. Lack of notice in the criminal

information sufficient to establish a a due process violation is subject to harmless error analysis. analysis. Where the error did not actually prejudice the defendant, no relief is due. v. King, 660 Pa. due. Commonwealth v. Pa. 482, 504-511 504-511 ((2020). 2020). Here, Here, the Commonwealth was clear from the outset that one of its theories of the case on the first- degree murder charge was that Defendant could not claim self-defense first because he had provoked the physical confrontation between himself and the

victim. But the Commonwealth was also clear victim. clear from the outset that this was not the

only theory on which it was proceeding. proceeding, as the Commonwealth also argued argued that

the pause between the first shot and the second and third shots, shots, when the physical

confrontation was clearly over, showed aamoment of reflection and decision by by Defendant that established both the intent and premeditation necessary necessary for first- degree murder. And the Commonwealth was clear that it was pursuing charges pursuing charges based on lesser-included lesser- included theories, which necessarily included separate criminal

acts. acts.>35 Defendant cannot colorably claim to have lacked notice that the

The criminal intormaton fhcriminal 35 information ohon which Defendant was tried only presented counts, but had been pared presented three counts, pared significantly down significant from the criminal information that was originally file from filed. The criminal information Th original crimal information included five charges, as follows we other charges, follows ((numbered numbered to match the original original count numbering numbering): (4) simple assault (4]simple assault, attempts to cause or causes bodily injury; to case injury; ((5simple 5) simple assault, negligently causes bodily bodily injury injury with aadeadly weapon; weapon ((6) 6) simple assault, assault, physical menace; menace (7) recklessly endangering another person; (7)recklessly person, and and (8) terroristic (8)terroristic threats. threats. The amendment amendment of of the eririal criminal information to dismiss these additional charges did not ocur occur until

67 67 Commonwealth was pursuing pursuing a ""multiple multiple criminal acts" theory of the case,

regardless of any deficiencies in the criminal information. information. Therefore no prejudice occurred, and any error was harmless. harmless Turning Turning to Defendant's second ground for this issue, it appears to be based on this Court's finding, finding, at sentencing, sentencing, that two separate criminal acts occurred for purposes of merger. merger. See N.T., N.T. Sentencing Hearing. Hearing, Jan. Jan. 4, 2024, at S 5 (finding (finding that the first shot resulted in the conviction on Count 2, and the second and third shots resulted in the convictions on Counts 1 I and 3). It strains not merely credulity, but reality, to claim claim that this Court's finding finding regarding regarding merger merger somehow usurped Defendant's jury trial rights. rights. This is not a like King a case hike King, where the Commonwealth

filed a a criminal information that asserted a base- level charge, a base-level charge, and then sought sought to prosecute prosecute on aahigher-graded King, 660 Pa. higher graded offense. See Sing Pa. at 504 504 (the (the Commonwealth charged the defendant with attempted murder in the information, but actually prosecuted him him for attempted murder causing serious bodily injury).

Here, the jury found that multiple criminal acts occurred, based upon properly charged ottenses charged offenses and sufficient evidence, and further did not find Defendant guilty guilty of the most serious offense charged charged (first- degree murder). Therefore, Defendant (first-degree received the full benefit of his jury jury trial rights rights.

D. Defendant's D. Defendant' sIssue No. 4: Denial of No. 4. of of Motion for New Trial Based on the Weight of the Evidence While sufficiency of the evidence challenges and weight of the evidence

challenges are at times conflated by appellants, they are two separate challenges, and thus the evaluation of this issue is separate from the evaluation of Defendant's Issue No. 3(a).

Weight Weight of the evidence challenges, if successful, entitle the defendant to a a new trial. Commonwealth v. new trial. , Widmer, Widmer, 560 Pa. 318 (2000). Pa. 308, 318 (2000). By By necessity necessity they involve a a highly highly subjective standard of review.

the morning of October 17, 17 2023, after jury selection had occurred and just prior to the start of trial. trial. On this basis alone alone, Defendant cannot be said to have lacked notice that the Commonwealth was proceeding against hum on the basis that multiple him multiple criminal acts occurred occurred. Each of Counts 22through through 7of the the original original criminal information alleged acome acrime that resulted in some form of injury, try, but not acrime that resulted in death. notacrime death

J__ The weight of the evidence is aamatter exclusively for the finder of fact, all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine who is free to believe all, the credibility of the witnesses. witnesses. A A new trial is not warranted because of "a "a mere conflict in the testimony" testimony"andand must have a a stronger foundation than aareassessment of the credibility of witnesses. witnesses. Rather, the role of the trial judge judge is to determine that notwithstanding notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater weight weight that to ignore ignore them or to give them equal weight with all the facts is to deny justice.

Commonwealth ,v. Gonzalez Gonzalez, 109 A.3d711, A.3d 711, 723 723 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2015). No deference is given given to the verdict winner when evaluating evaluating the evidence,

as aachallenge challenge to the weight of the evidence necessarily concedes that there is

sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Widmer, 560 Pa. at 319 319 (citation (citation omitted). The determination of whether aaverdict is against the weight of the omitted). evidence ultimately invokes the trial court's discretion, and appellate review focuses on the trial court's exercise of that discretion, rather than than ""the the underlying

question of whether the verdict is against the weight weight of the evidence." Id, Id. at 321

(citation omitted) [citation omitted).

[When reviewing aa trial court's decision regarding aa weight of the evidence challenge], an appellate court must first determine whether the trial judge's judge's reasons and factual basis can be supported. Unless there are facts and inferences of record that disclose a a palpable abuse of discretion, the trial judge's judge's reasons should prevail. It is not the place place of an appellate court to invade the trial judge's discretion any more than aa trial judge may invade the province of a a jury, unless both or either have palpably abused their function function.

Thompson v. of Philadelphia, 507 Pa. v. City of Pa. 592, 599 -600 ((1985). 599-600 1985). The appellate

court is to grant grant the trial court aalarge large degree of deference regarding regarding the trial determinations. court's determinations 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 atrial court's determination that the verdict is against against the weight of the evidence. evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for granting or denying aa new trial is the lower lower court's conviction that the verdict was or was not against the weight of the evidence and that aa new trial should be granted in the interest of justice justice.

Widmer, 560 Pa. Pa. at 321-22 321-22 (cleaned up). (cleaned up)

69 Defendant bases his weight of the evidence claim on the following

arguments: arguments: ((I) 1) the Commonwealth did not disprove his claim claim of self-defense as to

any of the offenses; and and ((2) 2) the evidence of the victim's victim's ""drug-dealing drug- dealing and

dangerousness," including carrying firearms, firearms, showed that Defendant's actions

were reasonable. reasonable. These arguments are meritless. meritless Here, much of the testimony that supports the jury's verdicts comes from Defendant himself. At their core, his arguments do not amount to aaclaim that the jury should jury should have have believed believed his claim of his claim of self- self- defense, but defense, but rather rather that that the the jury should jury should have agreed with him that the shooting was justified. However, as noted above,

the jury was not required to believe Defendant's self self-defense defense claim, and it was wholly for the jury to decide whether his stated belief was objectively reasonable.

Light, 458 Pa. at 334, lone, lones, 273 A. A.3d 3d at 458. The jury clearly determined that his belief was not objectively reasonable, and the evidence to support this

determination was quite strong. strong. No relief is warranted warranted.

E. E. Defendant's Defendant's Issue No. 2:2: Failure to Merge Counts land 1 and 2 2 for for Sentencing Sentencing Both the Commonwealth and Defendant submitted extensive memoranda prior to sentencing regarding the issue of merger merger. The Commonwealth argued that

none of the offenses merged, merged, and Defendant argued that all of the sentences merged. As noted previously, the Court's finding at sentencing was that the first

shot resulted in the conviction on Count 2Z, 2, and the second and third shots resulted

in mn the convictions on Counts 1 I and 3.3. On that basis, Count 33merged into Count 1. l Merger is aastatutory doctrine, established and controlled by 42 Pa. C.S. Pa.CS §9765: $9765 No crimes shall merge for for sentencing purposes unless the crimes arise from aa single criminal act and all of the statutory elements of one offense are included in the statutory elements of the other offense offense. Where crimes merge for sentencing purposes, the court may sentence the defendant only on the higher graded offense. offense Because merger has been created by statute statute (as [as opposed to by rule), the courts are guided guided by by the express language language of the statute in applying it. Commonwealth v. v Edwards, 256 A.3d A.3d 1130, 1130, 1137 1137 ((Pa. Pa. 2021) 2021).

70 Section 9765 sets up a a two-part analysis. The first addresses whether the crimes at issue resulted from aasingle criminal act or multiple criminal acts. The second addresses whether all of the elements of one offense are included in the elements of the other offense_ offense. If [f the offenses were committed in separate criminal acts, the analysis ends, as no merger can occur. See Commonwealth v. v. Golphin, 161 A.3d 1009, 161A.3d 1009, 1029 1029 ((Pa. Pa. Super. Super 2017) 2017) (ending (ending the analysis without reaching the "same elements" test, because the the ""single single act" test had not been satisfied) satisfied).

When considering whether there is a asingle criminal act or multiple criminal acts, the question is not whether there was a "break break in the chain" of criminal activity. activity, The issue is whether the actor commits multiple criminal acts beyond that which is necessary to establish the bare elements of the additional crime, crime, [[if if so] then the actor will be guilty of multiple crimes which do not merge for sentencing purposes purposes.

Id. ((cleaned Id cleaned up) up).

Here, Defendant made aadecision to introduce aafirearm firearm into a averbal

argument, and when aaphysical confrontation resulted, he shot the victim in the

leg. leg. He then decided, separately, to fire two additional shots in quick succession as the victim was kneeling floor in front of him. kneeling on the floor him. These were the facts alleged by the Commonwealth in the criminal information and that were proven at trial. trial, It is readily apparent that multiple criminal acts occurrod. occurred. Te To hold otherwise would

be to give Defendant a "volume discount" for his offenses based solely on the

closeness in time of their occurrence occurrence.

FF. Defendant's Issue No. No. 1: 1 Manifestly Excessive Sentence Defendant challenges his sentences on two grounds. grounds. First, that they are

manifestly excessive in that each sentence exceeds the relevant aggravated range range of the Sentencing Guidelines; and second, that they are manifestly excessive in light occurred. 36 As the same facts that justify light of the criminal conduct that occurred.3 justify the deviation from the Sentencing Guidelines justify the sentences generally, the Court will address the two arguments together here.

36 Defendant also challenges his sentences as excessive based upon his " single criminal act" argument. Defendant also challenges his sentences as excessive based upon hs "single criminal act"argument As that that argument argument has already addressed, the Court does not aready been addressed not a0alye analyze it here. here

71 71 The Sentencing Guidelines are not mandatory; courts are not duty bound to impose sentences that comport with them, and and ""will will take into account various

other factors when sentencing." Commonwealth v. v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 210 210 ((Pa Pa.

Super. 1998) Super, 1998) ((quoting quoting Common Commonwealth wealth v. Ellis, 700 A.2d 948, 958 958 ((Pa. Pa. Super Super. 1997)

and citing Commonwealth v. v. Saranchak, Pa. 158, 177 n. 18 aranchak, 544 Pa. 18 ((1996) 1996) ((stating stating that

aacourt has no duty to impose aasentence considered appropriate appropriate under the Sentencing Guidelines)). This does not mean that sentencing courts may disregard but rather only that they must be considered the Sentencing Guidelines entirely, but them, Commonwealth Vv. before the decision is made to sentence outside of them. Scassera, 965 A.24 SCase, A.2d 247, 250 ((Pa. 247, 250 Pa. Super. 2009). consideration "must 2009). Such consideration must be be more more than mere fluff," courts ""must fluff," as courts must necessarily correctly apply the [[Sentencing apply the Sentencing

Guidelines] and reach the correct point of departure before sentencing sentencing outside outside [[of of

them]" v.Wilson, 946 A.2d 767, 769 them]." Commonwealth v. 769 ((Pa. Pa. Super. 2008); 2008); Archer. Archer, 722 A.2d at 210. 210. Where aasentencing sentencing court has has ""adequately adequately considered the

pertinent sentencing factors" for aaparticular defendant defendant ((including including the Sentencing Sentencing

Guidelines), no relief is due simply because the court court ""merely merely weighed weighed [[such such

factors] in a a manner inconsistent with with [the [the defendant's] defendant's] desires." Commonwealth v. Dodge, 77 A3d ¥.Dodge, A.3d 1263, 1276 1276 ((Pa. Pa. Super Super. 2013) 2013) ((citation citation omitted) omitted).

Where the trial court has reviewed aapresentence investigation report prior to sentencing, sentencing, ""it it is presumed that the court court [was] [was] aware of all appropriate and ... its discretion should not be sentencing factors and considerations, and disturbed." Commonwealth v.v. Ventura, A.2d Ventura, 975 A. 2d 1128, 1128, 1135 1135 ((Pa. Pa. Super. Super 2009) (citing Commonwealth v,v. Devers, 519 Pa. 88, 101-102 101-102 ((1988)) 1988)).

The Court was quite well-informed at sentencing with respect to the nature

of Defendant's offenses, his rehabilitative needs, and his character. In addition to having presided over trial, the Court benefited from from review prior to sentencing of

extensive sentencing statements from both the Commonwealth and Defendant's counsel and aaPSI that included lengthy written statements from Defendant, the

victim's wife, the victim's two children, the victim's mother, the victim's stepfather, stepfather, father-in-law. the victim's aunt, and the victim's mother-in-law and father in-law At the sentencing hearing, the Court heard statements in support of Defendant from Nora

72 Espy, a a learning emotional support specialist speciahst who had worked with the Campbells in regard to their youngest daughter's autism diagnosis, diagnosis, and Ruth Shea,

Defendant's former landlord. landlord. The Court then heard further victim impact impact statements from the victim's mother, the victim's wife, and the victim's two children. N.T., Sentencing Hearing, N.T., Sentencing Jan. 4, 2024 Hearing, Jan. 2024 (" Sentencing"), at 7-9, 13 ("Sentencing"), -20. The 13--20. Court also heard argument from Defendant's counsel and from the Commonwealth. Id, Commonwealth. Id. at 10 -13, 21-22. 10-13,21-22 Looking first to the Sentencing Guidelines, Defendant's prior prior record score was 0. On Count 1, was0. I, the offense gravity gravity score score was was 11, range minimum 11, the standard range minimum 36 -54 months, the low end of the mitigated range sentence was 36-54 range was 24 months, and the high end of the aggravated aggravated range range was 66 months. months. The statutory maximum was 10-20 ears. years. On Count 2, without the the "deadly deadly weapon weapon used" enhancement, OGS and sentencing ranges were the same as for the 0GS for Count 1, I, as was the statutory statutory

maximum. maximum. With the the ""deadly deadly weapon used" enhancement, the standard range range

minimum sentence increased to 54-72 months and the high high end of the aggravated aggravated range increased to 84 months. months. On Count 3, the 0GS OGS was 8, the standard range range minimum sentence was 9-16 months, the low end of the mitigated mitigated range range was restorative sanctions, and the high end of the aggravated range 25 months. range was 2ZS months The statutory maximum was 5-10 years. S-10 years The sentences imposed by the Court were 10-20 10-2ZO years' years' incarceration on Count 1, 1, plus plus aafine of of $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 and restitution restitution of $15,109.30, and 7-20 $15,109.30, 7-20 years' years' incarceration on Count Z, 2, plus a a fine of $5,000.00. The sentences run consecutively $5,000.00. consecutively

for aaglobal global sentence of 17-40 years' years' incarceration, and Defendant is not RRRI

eligible. eligible The severe nature of Defendant's conduct is illustrated both by by the videos and his own testimony, discussed at length above. above. The effect of his actions on the

victim's family members is notably traumatic, both for the victim's wife, Hillary

Skipper Skipper (who (who had to watch her husband die as she tried to save him), him) and for their

73 two children. Both children now suffer from a ahost of emotional issues,7 issues. 37 There

was also aamarked effect on the broader community, expressed in the other victim

impact statements, in that other other people in the area are now afraid of what might

happen as the result of aaneighbor neighbor dispute. But what was most remarkable was Defendant's demeanor and the views he expressed regarding the shooting shooting.

This was not aacase where the defendant merely did not express remorse

for his crime. Rather, not once did Defendant Defendant— despite touting that he was a a family man and repeatedly stressing that his wife and children were in the house at the time of the shooting shooting—express express an iota of empathy or sympathy sympathy toward the victim's family. family. In his extensive written statement submitted for the PSI,

Defendant not only blamed the victim for what occurred, but repeatedly made

statements that made it clear that he believed that he himself was the victim. victim He all but plainly stated his belief that the victim deserved what happened. The Court

spoke extensively about this prior to imposing sentence. Id, imposing sentence. Id. at 24-29. 24-29. Those statements speak for themselves, but the following portions in particular bear

repeating repeating here. I l read your statement and quite frankly I I was appalled at the statement you made in the presentence investigation. You showed absolutely no remorse. remorse. Nobody's going to rehabilitate you because you don't believe you did anything anything wrong. wrong. You showed no remorse after you committed this crime. crime. As aaman was dying dying at your feet, you you were standing over him screaming, screaming, holding holding your weapon, weapon, planning planning your defense, yelling at your neighbors why you had to shoot him, concocting yourself aadetense defense story while a a man laid dying at your feet. You didn't render aid. You did nothing feet. nothing but worry about yourself. yourself. ... The facts are clear that he did not have aa gun that day when he came to your house and it's highly unlikely that he ever had a gun. So on the a gun. levels of unreasonable belief, that's why I I say it's a a delusional and ridiculous belief. belief You had posted briefly on Facebook-I Facebook—I think the quote was you you were going to shoot the windows out of his shitty truck. You wanted to

\d 37Id. at 18. Mrs. at18 Skipper noted that their older son now suffers from anger issues, depression, and Mrs Skipper hopelessness, and struggles socially n hopelessness, ad in school as a result of the violent loss of his father aresult father. [her Their younger younger son now suffers from depression. nowsuffers depression, aet. anxiety, al and panic attacks. pa attacks

74 intimidate that man. man. You wanted to be the kingking of the neighborhood. neighborhood You wanted to show him who was the boss in him who in that neighborhood. You ignored law enforcement and showed a a total disregard for the advice that was given to to you by Trooper Brenneman. Brenneman. You messaged messaged him about your situation. He told you you what to do if he comes on your your property. He told you if he comes on your property. your property, property, call the police. police. If you listened to him, Tim Skipper would be alive. alive. But it's not in your your nature to call911. call 911. In fact, you have aa sign sign hanging hanging over the door in in your your kitchen kitchen that that says, says, we we do not not call 911. 911. That That sign sign for for everyone toto see including your kids. kids

That's who you you are. You don't call the police. police. You're going going to take care of the situation. situation. Because you didn't call the police police and you you judged judged Mr. Skipper, you became his jury, you became his judge and you ultimately ultimately became his killer. killer Your actions were utterly cruel. cruel. You blow a aman's legleg off and as he's holding his arm up like this (indicating) tryingtrying to somehow protect himself from aa [rifle], [rifle},38 you you unload two more more shots. shots. The fact that you you believed that you were in danger as he was lying lying there in agony agony with his leg leg practically blown off staring staring at your gun gun barrel pointing pointing at him, delusional. And it's for that reason the again it's unreasonable and delusional. Sentencing Guidelines, all those reasons have been considered and I'm l'm going going to sentence in in excess of the Sentencing Sentencing Guidelines.

Id. at 26, 27-28. Id On the basis of the above, the Court's decision to sentence outside of the Sentencing Guidelines was justified, and the sentences imposed were both

reasonable appropriate. reasonable and appropriate

G. G. Defendant's Issue No. of Photographs of 5: Admission at Trial of No. 5. of the Victim's Bullet Ballet Wounds Wounds

Defendant claims that the Court's decision to admit four photographs photographs

showing the the victim's victim's bullet bullet wounds, wounds, Commonwealth's Exhibits 1-4, was was in in error

because their probative value was outweighed outweighed by their unfair prejudice prejudice to Defendant, and the photographs were cumulative of other evidence admitted (specifically the autopsy autopsy report report and the testimony testimony of Dr. Kamerow). Kamerow) The admission of the photographs was argued by both sides at the pretrial conference held on the day of jury selection. selection. The Commonwealth initially initially sought sought

38 The Court mistakenly referred to the weapon as a " shotgun" at sentencing.

75 to admit five photographs that had been selected by Dr. Dr Kamerow to to illustrate

various aspects of the bullet wounds suffered by the victim, both in in regard to

location and severity. severity. The Court admitted four of the photographs and excluded the fifth, as it showed aaportion portion of the victim's face. N.T., N.T,, Motions Hearing, Oct. Oct. 16, 16,

2023, at 10-18. 10-18. It was important for the jury to be able to see, as well as hear, from Dr. Kamerow what the effect of each of the bullet wounds was in order to understand what occurred and to gauge gauge the reasonableness of the Defendant's

actions and expressed beliefs beliefs (particularly {particularly with respect to the leg wound and his decision to fire fire two two additional additional shots). shots). The photographs admitted. photographs were properly admitted

H. lssue No. 6:6: Denial of H. Defendant's Issue of Suppression of of Evidence From From the Warrantless of Defendant's Residence Entry and Search of Defendant ties this claim to the Court's denial of the suppression motion regarding this evidence set forth in his omnibus pretrial potion. potion. The Court

respectfully rests upon the reasoning reasoning and analysis analysis set forth in the limited findings of fact and conclusions of law entered in in support of the denial of Defendant's

omnibus pretrial motion, filed fled concurrently with this opinion opinion (the [(the "Suppression "Suppression Opinion"). The Court further notes that in addition to the testimony Opinion"]. testimony submitted at

the hearing on Defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion, the evidence and testimony testimony admitted at trial, including from Defendant himself, show that Defendant consented to the state troopers' warrantless entry into his house and securing of his firearm, firearm. He not only acquiesced to those actions, he invited them. them. And he

willingly presented the troopers with the Kitchen video and the Doorbell Camera

video. This claim is therefore meritless. meritless

II. Defendant's Issues lssues Nos. 7 of Suppression of 8, Denial of 7 and 8, of Evidence Resulting from from the Search Warrant Issued on April April S, 9:53 am 5, 2022, at 9.53 Defendant Defendant ties these these claims to to the the Court's denials of the the suppression motions regarding this warrant set forth in his omnibus pretrial motion. The Court

respectfully rests upon the reasoning and analysis set forth in the Suppression Opinion. The Court reiterates Opinion. reiterates here that, that, as as set set forth in the forth in the Suppression Opinion, this search warrant was never served, and no evidence was obtained as a a result of

76 it. it. As aanecessary necessary result, no evidence from such warrant was admitted at trial, and these claims of error are meritless meritless.

J. ]. Defendant's of Evidence Resulting from Defendant's Issue No. 9: Denial of Suppression of from the Search Warrant Warrant Issued April 8, 2022, at 10:53 am 10.53 am Defendant ties this to the Court's denial of the suppression motion Defendant motion

regarding regarding this warrant set forth in in his omnibus pretrial motion. motion. The Court

respectfully rests upon the reasoning and analysis set forth in the Suppression

Opinion. The Court reiterates here that, that, as set forth in the Suppression Opinion,

this search warrant was never served, and no evidence was obtained as aaresult of it. As specified at trial, this evidence, which consists of the Fence Side video and it.

Kitchen video obtained from the Surveillance System, was obtained as a aresult of aa

separate warrant executed on the DVR router found at Defendant's residence. residence. No evidence from the challenged warrant was admitted at trial, and this claim claim of error error

is meritless.

BY THE COURT. COURT:

.0..2 George N. Zanic, President Judge Judge

C: G. Smith, DA David G. Thomas M.M. Dickey, Esq. Esq