Com. v. Hayden, J.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: December 16, 2025
• Docket: 1201 WDA 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-A23029-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JUAN H. HAYDEN : : Appellant : No. 1201 WDA 2024

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 5, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0010092-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: December 16, 2025

Juan H. Hayden appeals from the judgment of sentence entered

following his convictions for third-degree murder and tampering with or

fabricating physical evidence.1 Hayden’s appellate claims are waived, and as

such, we affirm.

The Commonwealth charged Hayden with criminal homicide and

tampering with evidence related to the killing of his girlfriend, who had been

stabbed. When police arrived at the scene, they encountered Hayden and took

him to the homicide unit for an interview. Hayden eventually confessed to

stabbing the victim and hiding the knife behind the couch. He was charged

with the above referenced offenses and filed a motion to suppress his

statement to police. Motion to Suppress Evidence, filed 11/14/22, at 13.

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2501(a), 2502(c), and 4910(1), respectively. J-A23029-25

At the suppression motion hearing, the Commonwealth called the first

responding officer to the scene, Officer Jeremy Howell, and the homicide

detective who interviewed Hayden, Detective Don Oesterle. It also admitted

into evidence a videorecording with audio of Hayden’s interview with police.

Officer Howell responded to the scene along with his two partners, “[f]or

a female that had been stabbed” on August 30, 2019, around 9:34 p.m. N.T.,

Pretrial Motions Hearing, 4/25/23, at 22-23, 24. When he arrived on the

scene, he encountered Hayden standing by the doorway and saw a woman

lying on the ground. Id. at 23. He observed Hayden standing above the victim

and noticed that the victim had a towel on her stomach with “a stab wound to

her upper abdomen.” Id. at 23-24. While Officer Howell attended to the

victim, he asked Hayden to exit the apartment. Id. at 24. Once emergency

services arrived, Officer Howell spoke to Hayden. Id. at 25. He asked Hayden

if he had seen anyone in the area and the last time he spoke with the victim.

Id. He described Hayden’s demeanor as “fairly relaxed” and “clear-headed.”

Id.

While speaking with Hayden, Officer Howell saw a pocketknife in

Hayden’s pocket. Id. at 26. Officer Howell removed the knife and later, his

partner, Officer Matt Kaminski, told Officer Howell to detain Hayden. Id. After

police took the knife from Hayden, Officer Howell said that Hayden became “a

little irate with me.” Id. at 28. Afterward, another officer “noticed the stains

of some sort on [Hayden’s] shirt and had him taken to the station for the

detectives.” Id. Officer Howell stated that Hayden had been detained as a

-2- J-A23029-25

witness and for officer safety but was not under arrest at the time. Id. at 30.

On cross-examination, when asked if he believed Hayden was drunk, Officer

Howell explained, “I didn’t say that he wasn’t drunk or hadn’t been drinking.

I just didn’t think that he was incapacitated.” Id. at 32. He also agreed that

his supervisor reported that Hayden was drunk. Id. at 33.

The Commonwealth then called Detective Oesterle. He stated that he

read Hayden his Miranda rights, and Hayden agreed to speak with him. Id.

at 41.2 The Commonwealth admitted the videorecording of the interview. Id.

at 42. Detective Oesterle testified that he had had many interactions with

intoxicated individuals and that “[i]t’s very common to interview people that

are under the influence of various substances.” Id. at 39. He explained that

in those situations, he has seen “[w]ide ranging” and “[d]ifferent

combinations” of intoxication. Id. at 40. Detective Oesterle said that he

interviewed Hayden and that it lasted seven and a half hours from start to

finish. The Commonwealth also provided the court with an “informal

transcript” of the interview. Id. at 65. The transcript was offered as a “guide,”

and not for its “word-for-word exactness.” Id. It was not entered into

evidence.

Detective Oesterle stated that some staining and hair were found on

Hayden’s clothing and had been collected for evidence. Id. at 43. During the

interview, Hayden did not ask Detective Oesterle for a lawyer or ask him to

2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

-3- J-A23029-25

stop the interview. Id. at 42-43. Detective Oesterle said that Hayden had

previously been arrested and had various convictions ranging from aggravated

assault to aggravated indecent assault. Id. at 44-45. During the interview,

Hayden took a nap on the floor, used the restroom at various times, drank

water, and smoked cigarettes. Id. at 44, 47, 48. Detective Oesterle stated

that there were several breaks taken during the interview, to “run down the

information that Mr. Hayden was giving us to chase down potential other

witness leads and anyone who would have knowledge of what happened to

[the victim] throughout the night.” Id. at 49.

Detective Oesterle testified that Hayden told him that “he planned to

drink with [the victim] that night” and “bought a liter of rum.” Id. at 54.

Hayden also told Detective Oesterle that he had been drinking that night. Id.

at 55. When asked if Hayden was drunk, Detective Oesterle stated, “He was

not to the point of intoxication where he was not unable to answer our

questions concisely, detailed, and continue a conversation with him that would

- - He was able to be questioned as a witness in our case.” Id. Detective

Oesterle also explained that during the interview, he did not notice any

significant difference in Hayden’s behavior or speech. Id. at 65. Hayden

ultimately confessed to stabbing the victim. Id. at 48.

The court denied the suppression motion, and Hayden proceeded with a

jury trial before a different judge. See Order, filed 7/24/23. During the direct

examination of Detective Oesterle, the Commonwealth admitted Hayden’s

videotaped interrogation with no objection from counsel. See N.T., Jury Trial

-4- J-A23029-25

Transcript Volume I, 10/11/23, at 124; Commonwealth Exhibit 53. It then

played various portions of the video. See Id. at 126-130, 140-146. Defense

counsel questioned Detective Oesterle about various portions of the interview

but did not play the video.

During deliberations, the jury asked if it could “get a copy of the

unofficial transcripts of both 911 calls made by Hayden and interrogation of

Hayden[.]” N.T., 10/16/23, at 498. The court provided the jury with the 911

transcript to take in the jury room but ruled that “as to the interrogation, I

think I told you earlier that I cannot provide that to you in the jury room.” Id.

at 500. It stated that the jury could return to the court and “we’ll play for you

in whole or in part whatever you want. And you will have the transcript to

follow along.” Id. The court asked the Commonwealth how much of the

interview it played during trial, and it explained that it played about two to

two and a half hours of Hayden’s interview. Id. at 501. Defense counsel asked

if there was “[a]ny chance we could stipulate to them only hear[ing] what was

played in court in terms of the interview or - - if they wish to hear the whole

entire interview?” Id. at 502. The court responded that “I was speaking in the

context of what was played in court” and “I’m not going beyond what they

heard in court unless they inquire otherwise.” Id. The court then received

two questions from the jury: “Can we receive one minute before and one

minute after Juan Hayden was told [the victim] was dead[?]” and, “[C]an we

see two minutes before the end of the video?” Id. at 503.

-5- J-A23029-25

The court played the requested portions for the jury and asked, “Did

you want to hear the end of the video, to the end of his statement/the end of

the video?” Id. at 505. The jury responded that it did. Id. The requested

portion was played for the jury. Id. at 506.

Counsel then requested a sidebar during which the following occurred:

[Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, we didn’t show this on direct. This is not in evidence. We didn’t show this on direct.

The Court: The entire statement is in evidence.

[Defense Counsel]: But that’s what I was asking before. This is the stuff that they didn’t get originally.

The Court: It wasn’t played in court, but it’s a part of what was admitted into evidence. I’m going to ask them if they want to hear more. We can stop when they talk about taking the pants and stuff like that.

[Commonwealth]: Yes, Your Honor.

The Court: Your objection is noted.

[Defense Counsel]: We might have cross-examined the detectives on several parts, but because they didn’t play it, we haven’t had an opportunity. And I didn’t know that. I thought they were offering the snippets like they’ve done in the past of the interview especially since we haven’t had the opportunity.

The Court: Let me ask them while you’re here.

Id. at 506-507. The sidebar concluded and the court stated, “[T]hat’s what

was played in court. Is that enough? Does that address your question?” Id. at

507-08. The foreperson responded, “[W]e would like to hear what they would

say after.” Id. at 508. Counsel objected, and the court overruled the objection.

See id.

-6- J-A23029-25

During recess and before the jury finished watching the remainder of

the video, counsel objected to playing the last 45 minutes of the video. She

stated that it was unfair to have the jury view portions of the video about

which she had not been able to cross-examine detectives and Hayden did not

have an opportunity to explain. Id. at 510, 511. The Commonwealth

responded that “[t]his entire interview was authenticated in its entirety and

admitted in its entirety.” Id. at 511. The court then reconvened with the jury

present and played the remainder of the interview, except for the portion

showing Hayden’s arrest. Id. at 513-16.

The jury rendered guilty verdicts for third-degree murder and tampering

with evidence. The trial court sentenced Hayden to 15 to 40 years’

incarceration for third-degree murder and a concurrent term of one to two

years’ incarceration for tampering with evidence. Following the grant of his

appellate rights nunc pro tunc, this timely appeal followed.3

Hayden raises the following issues:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law by denying [Hayden’s] Motion to Suppress to exclude [Hayden’s] statement to police as the statement was not voluntary based upon the totality of the circumstances?

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law by allowing the jury to watch more of the video during deliberations than was presented during the trial? ____________________________________________

3 Following the grant of a Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition, the court

reinstated Hayden’s appellate rights from the point of the post-sentencing motion stage. See Order of Court, filed 9/24/24.

-7- J-A23029-25

Hayden’s Br. at 6 (answer of trial court omitted).

Hayden challenges the court’s denial of his motion to suppress his

statements to police. He maintains that his statement to police should have

been suppressed because “he was heavily intoxicated” and in the interrogation

room for over seven hours before confessing. Id. at 15. He argues that his

intoxication and the length of time in the interrogation room “shows that he

was unable to voluntarily give a statement to police.” Id. at 17. He states that

during his time in the room and before confessing, he slept on the floor, talked

to and hit himself, and told police that he had drunk a liter of rum. Hayden

further argues that “[t]he manner in which [he] confessed is indicative of the

lack of voluntariness.” Id. He points out that “[h]e maintained his innocence

for hours,” “[d]etectives were suggesting different situational scenarios that

would explain the homicide to [Hayden],” and he did not confess until “the

very end[.]” Id.

For its part, the Commonwealth maintains that Hayden waived this claim

because he failed to ensure that the interrogation video was in the certified

record and fails to cite to the record “to support his bald claims of alleged

intoxication and improper confinement.” Commonwealth’s Br. at 9. We agree.

When reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, we only consider

“the evidence presented at the suppression hearing[.]” Commonwealth v.

Carey, 249 A.3d 1217, 1223 (Pa.Super. 2021) (citation omitted). Upon review

of the evidence, we determine “whether the suppression court’s factual

-8- J-A23029-25

findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn

from those facts are correct.” Id. (citation omitted).

“Our law is unequivocal that the responsibility rests upon the appellant

to ensure that the record certified on appeal is complete in the sense that it

contains all of the materials necessary for the reviewing court to perform its

duty.” Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa.Super. 2006) (en

banc). The certified record should include “[t]he original papers and exhibits

filed in the lower court, paper copies of legal papers filed with the prothonotary

by means of electronic filing, the transcript of proceedings, if any, and a

certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the clerk of the lower court[.]”

Pa.R.A.P. 1921. We may only consider the “materials in the certified record

when resolving an issue.” Preston, 904 A.2d at 6. In other words, “if a

document is not in the certified record, [we] may not consider it.” Id. at 7.

When an appellant fails to provide the necessary materials to review the

appellant’s claim, the claim is waived. See Commonwealth v. Peifer, 730

A.2d 489, 492 n.3 (Pa.Super. 1999).

Here, Hayden’s videorecorded interview is necessary to determine the

merits of his claim that he was so intoxicated that his statement was not

voluntary. He challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, which requires

us to review all evidence presented at the hearing, including the video. The

interview is not in the certified record.4 Therefore, this claim is waived. Peifer, ____________________________________________

4 We do not even have the “informal transcript” the Commonwealth handed

to the court.

-9- J-A23029-25

730 A.2d at 492 n.3; see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 2024 WL 4052974

at *5-6 (Pa.Super. filed September 5, 2024) (unpublished mem.) (finding

waiver of Rule 600 claim where appellant did not include transcript from Rule

600 motion hearing in certified record).

Next, Hayden claims that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to

watch the portions of his videorecorded statement to police that were not

played during trial. He cites Commonwealth v. Wise, 444 A.2d 1287, 1290

(Pa.Super. 1982), where this Court held “counsel may reasonably display

exhibits which are in evidence and may use such exhibits demonstratively as

long as the demonstration is for illusion purposes and does not constitute the

creation of new evidence.” Hayden maintains that these additional portions of

video played for the jury constitute “new evidence” since they were not played

at trial. Hayden’s Br. at 20 (citing Wise, 444 A.2d at 1290).

We review a decision to allow the jury to review materials during

deliberations for an abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Lilliock, 740

A.2d 237, 243 (Pa.Super. 1999).

Like his first issue, this issue is waived because the videorecording is

not in the record. Without it, we cannot assess the impact of the additional

portions. Additionally, although Hayden cites to the place in the record where

he objected to the court playing the additional parts of the video, Hayden fails

to clearly identify the portions of the recording that he contends should not

have been played. He merely states that “the Commonwealth only played

certain clips from [Hayden’s] interview with police during its case. During

- 10 - J-A23029-25

deliberations, the jury requested to see more footage than that which was

played at trial.” Hayden’s Br. at 19. Thus, even if the interview was included

in the record, this claim would be waived due to Hayden’s failure to develop

this issue. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009)

(stating “where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim

with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other

meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived”); Pa.R.A.P.

2119(a) (addressing specific requirements for argument section of appellate

brief). No relief is due.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

DATE: 12/16/2025

- 11 -