Com. v. Campbell, C.

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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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

3

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.

4

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).

5

J-S10027-25

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 06/09/2025

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.

22

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)

33

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

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

5

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.

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.

77

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.

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

99

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

10

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

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)").

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.

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

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,

15

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?

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

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

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

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 motionmotion 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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

28

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

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

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-yearangry , 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

31

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

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.

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

34

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

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.

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

37

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

38

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?

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 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—

strangersthe

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.

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-byside .

43

__[

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 worriedworried —

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

45

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.]

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?

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)

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

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

50

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

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

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

53

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.

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

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

(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

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 chargecharge -

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

58

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

59

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

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

61

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

62

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

63

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-byside - 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

68

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)

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 selfself

- 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).

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

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

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

74

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

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.

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

77

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