J. A34008/14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : SHANE SHAQUILL HOLLOWAY, : No. 820 MDA 2014 : Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, April 9, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at No. CP-22-CR-0002479-2013
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN AND STABILE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 23, 2015
The instant prosecution stemmed from the fatal shooting of Courtney
Jackson. Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of second degree
murder, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b), robbery, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(i),
firearms not to be carried without a license, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1), and
tampering with physical evidence, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4910(1).1 Herein,
appellant appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on April 9, 2014.
We affirm.
Illiana Luciano (“Luciano”) was dating Jackson (“the victim”). On
March 4, 2013, the two spent time together until approximately 5:00 p.m.
(Notes of testimony, 3/24/14 at 69-71.) At this time, Luciano drove the
1 Counts of conspiracy and furnishing false reports to authorities were withdrawn by the Commonwealth. J. A34008/14
victim around the corner to the Turkey Hill store where he was to meet with
an acquaintance known as “Layton.” (Id. at 72.) Luciano did not
communicate with the victim again until approximately 6:30 p.m. when the
store clerk at the B & W Corner Store notified her that the victim had
purchased something in the store but never came to retrieve it. (Id. at 77.)
Wayne Cameron (“Cameron”) testified to his observations of the
events on March 4, 2013. At 8:00 p.m., Cameron was outside of his home
near the B & W Corner Store when he discovered a young man, later
identified as the victim, lying face down in the alleyway. (Id. at 91.)
Cameron approached and found the victim covered in blood and saw foam
coming from his mouth. He found that the victim did not have a pulse.
Cameron explained that the victim’s body was outstretched as if he was
running with both hands extended from his body. (Id. at 91, 95.) The
victim was holding a cell phone in one of his hands that was ringing
repeatedly, and a picture of a woman continued to appear on the screen as
the phone rang. (Id. at 96-97.)
The police investigated and recovered fired shell casings from a
.40 caliber and a .25 caliber gun. Dr. Wayne Ross performed an autopsy
and also examined the crime scene photos. (Notes of testimony, 3/25/14
Vol. I at 57-58.) The victim had been shot several times in the chest, his
arm, and his back. (Id. at 61.) When the clothing was removed from his
body, Ross observed eight gunshot wounds -- four were to the left arm,
-2- J. A34008/14
three to the left side of his chest, and one to his back. (Id. at 71.) Three of
the gunshot wounds were fatal with two being made by the .25 caliber
bullet. Based on gunpowder residue, Dr. Ross testified that he was shot at a
distance of greater than four feet away from the .40 caliber gun and two to
three feet away from the .25 caliber gun. (Id. at 69-70.) Dr. Ross
determined that the body had to have been face down prior to being face up
at the crime scene due to the foliage and soil on his body. (Id. at 60.) A
.40 caliber bullet was recovered at the scene from beneath the victim’s T-
shirt.
Layton Potter, a friend of the victim’s, testified to the events of
March 4, 2013. (Notes of testimony, 3/25/14 Vol. II at 4.) Potter explained
that the victim used to sell marijuana and cocaine to him. (Id. at 5-6.) On
March 4, 2013, Potter had placed a call between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. to
the victim that he wanted to buy drugs. (Id. at 6-7.) The plan was for
Potter to pick up the victim at the Turkey Hill Store and drive him to 19 th and
North Street where the victim gave cocaine to Potter. (Id. at 8.) Potter
then drove home to smoke the drugs at his house. Later that evening,
Potter wanted to buy more cocaine and called the victim again at 7:00 p.m.
The men agreed to meet at North Street across from the B & W Corner
Store. The exchange took place in Potter’s car. (Id.)
The men then went into the store, and Potter saw appellant with
Tyya Barnes across the street. Potter observed appellant and Barnes
-3- J. A34008/14
“huddling,” which is street terminology for leaning in towards each other and
conversing quietly; he also observed them making hand gestures. (Id. at
10, 15-18.) The victim indicated that he was going to conduct a drug
transaction with appellant and Barnes. (Id. at 19.) The victim then took
Potter home, and that was the last time Potter saw him alive.
Detective Jeffrey Schriver responded to the scene following an
emergency call reporting what had happened in the alley. Upon arrival, he
noticed Jackson’s cell phone ringing and copied the incoming phone numbers
that appeared on the screen. (Notes of testimony, 3/25-26/14 Vol. III at
48.) The last call that was received and answered by Jackson was from a
number which belonged to Barnes.
On March 6, 2013, Detective Schriver conducted a voluntary interview
with appellant at the Harrisburg police station. (Id. at 50-53.) During the
interview, appellant stated that on March 4, 2013, he was not at the location
where the victim was shot and killed. Appellant stated that he learned about
the victim’s death via Facebook.
On March 8, 2013, Detective Joseph A. Zimmerman conducted a
second interview with appellant and recorded his statements. (Id. at 110.)
Appellant was brought to the police department for a non-custodial
interrogation; at this point, appellant was considered a person of interest but
not a suspect. (Id. at 112-113.) Detective Zimmerman met appellant in
the interview room with Detective Schriver and stated that the interview sas
-4- J. A34008/14
going to be non-custodial and that appellant was free to leave anytime. In
an abundance of caution, Detective Zimmerman also gave appellant his
Miranda2 rights orally and in writing, which he signed. (Id. at 114.)
During this recorded statement, appellant admitted that Barnes made
a phone call to the victim to arrange a meeting at 7:00 p.m. at 19 th and
North Street. (Id. at 131.) The men met the victim and then proceeded to
Barnes’ car, which was parked in a dark alleyway several blocks away, so
the victim could use his scale. (Id. at 132.) Appellant averred that while
the victim was trying to weigh the drugs in the backseat, Barnes opened fire
using two different caliber firearms which were in the car. (Id.) Appellant
noted that one of the guns sounded louder than the other. Appellant
explained that he heard more shots fired from the softer-sounding gun. (Id.
at 139.) Appellant alleged that he ducked down and did not see what part of
the victim’s body had been shot. (Id. at 140.) When asked what happened
to the shell casings in the car, appellant said that he picked them up and
explained “we flushed them down the toilet” at appellant’s house. (Id. at
132-133.) Appellant averred that Barnes was in possession of his two guns
and the victim’s gun.
Appellant initially stated that he pulled the victim out of the car and
laid him on the ground. (Id.) Appellant stated he was unsure as to whether
Barnes took any drugs that had been left in the vehicle. (Id. at 134.)
2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
-5- J. A34008/14
However, appellant began to change his statement when
Detective Zimmerman indicated that the autopsy report concluded the victim
was shot outside of the vehicle. (Id. at 141.) Appellant then stated that the
victim had a gun, so Barnes got out of the car and shot the victim while
appellant was pulling the victim out of the car. (Id. at 141.) When
appellant was pulling the victim out of the car, Barnes fired the last shot into
the victim. The victim’s gun then fell onto the ground, and appellant picked
it up and gave it to Barnes. (Id.) Appellant also stated that he picked up
the casings from the interior of the car. (Id. at 142.)
Cell phone records established that Barnes called the victim three
times. Appellant stated that during the calls, Barnes, appellant, and the
victim discussed obtaining scales to weigh the drugs. Store surveillance
footage introduced at trial showed the victim purchasing a scale from a
convenience store in Harrisburg. Appellant stated that Barnes was buying
the drugs, and he denied knowing how much Barnes had planned to buy.
(Id. at 144.) Appellant averred that the men had never talked about a plan
to rob the victim. (Id.)
Appellant’s girlfriend, Emily Latshaw, testified that appellant and
Barnes both asked her to lie to the police after the victim was killed;
Latshaw admitted that she initially lied when talking to the police. (Id. at
33-35, 43.) Latshaw, who lived with appellant, also testified that she
-6- J. A34008/14
observed a disruption in their routine after the victim was killed. (Id. at 36-
37.)
Appellant was charged with the aforementioned crimes. Prior to trial,
appellant filed a motion to suppress the statements made to the police on
March 8, 2013. A hearing was held on March 20, 2014, and the trial court
denied the motion on March 21, 2014. On March 24, 2014, a jury trial
commenced, and on March 27, 2014, appellant was found guilty of the
aforementioned crimes. On April 9, 2014, appellant was sentenced as
follows: count 1 (second degree murder) life imprisonment; count 2
(robbery) merged with count 1, count 4 (carrying a firearm without a
license) two to five years’ incarceration, concurrent to count 1; count 5
(tampering with evidence) six months to two years’ incarceration, concurrent
with count 1. A timely notice of appeal was filed on May 9, 2014. Appellant
filed a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal on July 7, 2014;
the trial court has not filed an opinion.
The following issues have been presented for our review:
I. Whether the trial court committed a fundamental error of law where it erroneously instructed the jury that an accessory after the fact may be liable as an accomplice where such instruction misled and confused the jury, and prejudiced Appellant as the charge permitted a finding of guilt without requiring the Commonwealth to establish the critical elements of accomplice liability beyond a reasonable doubt?
-7- J. A34008/14
II. Whether the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s convictions for: murder and robbery where the Commonwealth failed to prove that Appellant possessed specific intent for the crime of robbery, and; carrying a firearm without a license and tampering with evidence where the Commonwealth failed to prove that Appellant was the individual who committed the crimes in question?
III. Whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress Appellant’s statements where Appellant invoked his right to silence but was denied his right to silence in violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Appellant’s brief at 8.
Appellant first submits that the trial court erroneously instructed the
jury. Our standard of review in assessing a trial court’s jury instructions is
as follows:
[W]hen evaluating the propriety of jury instructions, this Court will look to the instructions as a whole, and not simply isolated portions, to determine if the instructions were improper. We further note that, it is an unquestionable maxim of law in this Commonwealth that a trial court has broad discretion in phrasing its instructions, and may choose its own wording so long as the law is clearly, adequately, and accurately presented to the jury for its consideration. Only where there is an abuse of discretion or an inaccurate statement of the law is there reversible error.
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 754 (Pa.Super. 2014).
-8- J. A34008/14
Appellant directs us to the following portion of the trial court’s
instruction:
You may find that the Defendant is an accomplice in a case if the following two elements are established beyond a reasonable doubt: The first one is that the Defendant had the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime . . . . The second element is that the Defendant solicits, commands, encourages, [sic] requests the other person to commit it, or aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid the other person in the planning of the crime, the committing of it, or even the exiting or afterwards.
Notes of testimony, 3/27/14 at 14-15.
Relying on Commonwealth v. McCleary, 381 A.2d 434 (Pa. 1977),
appellant argues that a jury instruction for accomplice liability for second
degree murder is improper when the defendant is an accessory after the
fact. We find McCleary to be easily distinguishable. In McCleary, the
defendant and his cohort planned to burglarize the home of an elderly
woman, or else obtain money by a ruse. Id. at 435. However, only after
his cohort exited the vehicle carrying a tire iron did the defendant realize
that force was going to be used. Id. Almost immediately thereafter, the
defendant left the area. Id. The defendant’s cohort broke into the woman’s
home and killed her with the tire iron. Id. Later, the defendant and another
person returned and picked up the cohort; however, the defendant did not
actually learn of the homicide until sometime thereafter.
Our supreme court held that the trial court erroneously instructed the
jury so that “a reasonable understanding of the jury could have been that
-9- J. A34008/14
aid only in the flight of the felon would make an accomplice guilty of a prior
murder of which the accomplice knew nothing.” Id. at 436. The McCleary
court explained:
Flight might be part of a felony for a given statutory purpose, i.e., a killing during flight can be considered as a killing during the commission of a felony. That does not mean that one who only aids flight without participating in the felony plan and without knowledge of a death in the commission of the felony can be held responsible for the killing.
Id.
Instantly, appellant was well aware of Barnes’ shooting of the victim.
In his statement to the detectives, appellant admitted he was with Barnes
the entire time and stated Barnes shot the victim multiple times. In fact,
appellant was holding the victim as Barnes fired the last shot. Therefore,
McCleary is wholly inapposite as appellant actively participated in the
underlying offense. Appellant’s involvement went well beyond just providing
a means of escape for Barnes.
Appellant also suggests that the court’s instruction allowed the jury to
unlawfully convict him even if it believed that appellant only learned of
Barnes’ plan to kill the victim after the fact. (Appellant’s brief at 18.)
However, appellant could still be found guilty as an accomplice where the
killing was done in furtherance of the predicate felony. The statute defining
second degree murder does not require that a homicide be foreseeable;
rather, it is only necessary that the accused engaged in conduct as a
- 10 - J. A34008/14
principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony. Whether evidence
sufficiently indicates that a killing was in furtherance of a predicate felony
can be a difficult question. Commonwealth v. Laudenberger, 715 A.2d
1156, 1160 (Pa.Super 1998). The question of whether the killing was in
furtherance of the conspiracy is a question of proof for the jury to resolve.
Commonwealth v. Middleton, 467 A.2d 841, 848 (Pa.Super. 1983). It
does not matter whether the appellant anticipated that the victim would be
killed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Id. Rather, the fact-finder
determines whether the appellant knew or should have known that the
possibility of death accompanied a dangerous undertaking. Id. No relief is
due.
Next, appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support his
convictions as the Commonwealth established no more than his presence at
the scene. Appellant argues that, at most, the evidence established his
intent to purchase drugs from the victim. (Appellant’s brief at 19, 22-23.)
Based on the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, we disagree.
In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we apply the following
well-settled principles:
The standard we apply 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 a reasonable doubt. In applying the above
- 11 - J. A34008/14
test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544, 559-560 (Pa.Super. 2011) (en
banc), quoting Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 947 A.2d 800, 805
(Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 980 A.2d 606 (Pa. 2009)
A defendant commits second-degree murder when he is a principal,
accomplice, or co-conspirator to a statutorily-enumerated felony and a
person is killed in the course of that felony’s commission. 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 2502(b); Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 732, 739 (Pa.Super. 2012),
appeal denied, 69 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2013). The defendant need not be a
party to a completed crime; rather, one perpetrates a felony when he
engages in or is an accomplice to a completed felony, an attempt to commit
a felony, or flight after committing or attempting to commit a felony. 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(d).
- 12 - J. A34008/14
Robbery is among the enumerated felonies that may satisfy the
predicate-offense element of second-degree murder. Id. A person commits
robbery where, inter alia, in the course of committing a theft, he inflicts or
threatens serious bodily injury on another, commits or threatens
immediately to commit any felony of the first or second degree, or takes or
removes property from the person of another by force however slight.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1). The evidence is sufficient to sustain a robbery
conviction where the defendant intentionally assists his cohort with the
robbery, even if he or she did not carry a weapon, employ threats, or cause
injury. E.g., Commonwealth v. Everett, 443 A.2d 1142, 1145 (Pa.Super.
1982).
The very nature of accomplice liability is that one who actively and
purposefully engages in criminal activity is criminally responsible for the
criminal actions of his/her co-accomplice which are committed in furtherance
of the criminal endeavor. However, in order to impose this form of criminal
liability, the individual “must be an active partner in the intent to commit [a
crime].” Commonwealth v. Fields, 333 A.2d 745, 747 (Pa. 1975).
Further, an accomplice “must have done something to participate in the
venture.” Commonwealth v. Flowers, 387 A.2d 1268, 1270 (Pa. 1978).
Such a finding cannot be based upon mere assumption or speculation.
“Mere presence at the scene is insufficient to support a conviction: evidence
- 13 - J. A34008/14
indicating participation in the crime is required.” Commonwealth v.
Keblitis, 456 A.2d 149, 151 (Pa. 1983).
We find that there was substantial evidence presented that appellant’s
role in the events giving rise to the charges was more extensive than merely
being present. First, during appellant’s first statement to the police, he lied
and stated he did not know anything about the victim’s death. Thereafter,
on March 6, 2012, appellant admitted to Detective Zimmerman, he was
present with Barnes from the time the call was placed to the victim to
arrange a meeting until the time when the victim was shot, and when the
victim was left dead on the roadway. However, when confronted with the
physical evidence, appellant changed his story again and stated that the
victim was shot outside of the car. Both appellant and Barnes fled the
scene, and appellant admitted that the men destroyed evidence. Two
different guns were used, and the victim sustained multiple gunshot wounds
from each weapon at close range. We find that a conspiratorial agreement
can be reasonably deduced from these facts. The jury was free to infer a
consciousness of guilt because appellant’s inconsistent statements and flight
were efforts to avert suspicion. See Commonwealth v. Donnelly, 653
A.2d 35 (Pa.Super. 1995), appeal denied, 663 A.2d 686 (Pa. 1995)(false
and contradictory statements by the accused are evidence from which a jury
may infer that they were made with the intent to mislead police and are
indicative of guilt); Commonwealth v. Coyle, 203 A.2d 782 (Pa. 1964)
- 14 - J. A34008/14
(flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt may form the basis in
connection with other proof from which guilt may be inferred). Appellant’s
girlfriend also testified that his behavior changed after the incident and he
asked her to lie for him; again, the jury was free to infer a consciousness of
guilt. All of this evidence supports appellant’s complicity in the crimes and
not an innocent bystander.
Appellant also argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove that
appellant carried a firearm without a license. (Appellant’s brief at 26.) It is
a crime in Pennsylvania to carry a firearm without a valid and lawfully issued
license. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1). The Commonwealth can prove
possession through the doctrine of constructive possession.
Commonwealth v. Duffy, 340 A.2d 869, 870 (Pa.Super. 1975). To do
this, the Commonwealth must present evidence to show that appellant had
both the power to control the firearm and the intent to exercise that control.
Again, through appellant’s own admission, he retrieved the gun that
fell out of the victim’s pocket when he allegedly pulled the victim out of the
car. Appellant also admitted that he drove Barnes home in the car with the
weapons. It was stipulated that appellant did not have a license to carry a
weapon. Thus, the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support
his conviction.
- 15 - J. A34008/14
Finally, appellant argues that the Commonwealth did not prove that
appellant tampered with evidence on the night in question. It is also a crime
in Pennsylvania where a defendant, believing that an official proceeding or
investigation is pending or about to be instituted, alters, destroys, conceals,
or removes anything with intent to impair its verity or availability in such a
proceeding or investigation. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4910(1). Appellant admitted to
collecting the spent shell casings, therefore removing evidence. The
statement appellant provided to the police also indicates that appellant and
Barnes flushed the casings down the toilet at appellant’s house. No relief is
The last issue presented is whether the trial court erred in denying his
motion to suppress his March 8, 2013 confession; appellant argues that his
statement should be suppressed because he asserted his right to remain
silent. We disagree.
Our standard of review in addressing a challenge to a trial court’s denial of a suppression motion is limited to determining whether the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are correct. Since the prosecution prevailed in the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the prosecution and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted when read in the context of the record as a whole. Where the record supports the factual findings of the trial court, we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error.
- 16 - J. A34008/14
Commonwealth v. Minnich, 874 A.2d 1234, 1236 (Pa.Super. 2005)
(citation omitted).
We briefly review the facts presented at the suppression hearing.
Detective Richard Iachini testified that on March 6, 2013, he was directed to
speak with appellant to see if he would agree to come to the police station to
speak with the police. (Notes of testimony 3/20/14 at 9-11.) The detectives
arrived, in plain clothes, to appellant’s home. Appellant agreed and
voluntarily got in the back seat of the unmarked police car; he was not
handcuffed or searched. Detective Iachini stated the mood was “nonchalant
. . . calm and laid back.” (Id. at 12.)
Detective Jeffrey Schriver was one of the detectives that interviewed
appellant on March 6, 2013; appellant was not Mirandized. (Id. at 39.)
Detective Schriver testified that the police had obtained the victim’s
telephone records and established that Barnes was the last person he spoke
to before he was shot. As Barnes had told the officers that he had been with
appellant the day of the homicide, the officers wanted to investigate Barnes’
alibi. (Id. at 36.) At this point, the officers had no reason to believe that
appellant was involved with the shooting death. (Id.) The detective asked
appellant about his whereabouts, and he was not questioned about his
involvement with the murder of the victim. The detective did not “ask
[appellant] any questions that in [his] mind . . . would elicit anything
- 17 - J. A34008/14
incriminating.” (Id. at 38.) Appellant agreed to have his statement tape
recorded; appellant then left. (Id. at 39.)
Officer Thomas Carter also testified at the suppression hearing.
Officer Carter explained that on March 8, 2013, appellant agreed to another
interview about his previous statements. (Id. at 24.) Officer Carter drove
appellant to the station and explained to him that he was not under arrest.
(Id. at 26.) Officer Carter testified that appellant was free to leave and was
not in custody at this time. (Id. at 27.) Appellant chose to sit and talk with
the officers.
Appellant met with Detective Zimmerman and Detective Schriver in an
interview room; the door was left open. (Id. at 40.) The purpose was to
speak with appellant about the discrepancies in his March 6 th statement.
(Id.) Appellant was told he was free to leave at any time and then he was
Mirandized; appellant signed a written waiver form. (Id. at 41-42.)
Thereafter, appellant’s statement was recorded.
Detective Zimmerman asked, “Are you willing to provide a statement
regarding the incident?” and appellant stated “no.” (Id. at 51.) Thereafter,
Detective Zimmerman began to ask appellant questions; he was not
re-Mirandized. (Id. at 51-52.) Detective Schriver, however, explained
that there was “some confusion.” (Id. at 51, 53.)
Well, prior to even starting this formal statement, we asked [appellant], are you willing to provide a formal statement. And he said yes. And we offered him three ways to do it. He could handwrite it, we could
- 18 - J. A34008/14
type it, or we could tape record it. He chose tape recorded. So, you know, I recall him saying no, but prior to that he indicated he would give us a statement. ... After he said no, Detective Zimmerman asked him two more times if he was willing to provide a statement and appellant said yes.
Id. at 53-54.
Herein, appellant came to and remained at the police station of his
own volition. He was repeatedly advised that he was free to leave at any
point. He was also advised of his Miranda rights while at the police station.
Thereafter, appellant agreed to provide a recorded statement.
We agree with the Commonwealth that the testimony presented at the
suppression hearing demonstrates that appellant’s initial response of “no”
caused confusion as he had just agreed moments earlier that he was going
to speak to the police and that he wanted the statement recorded. The
questions posed following the answer of “no” were intended to clarify
appellant’s desire to give a recorded statement. The follow-up questions
clarified appellant’s true intention to waive his right to remain silent as
appellant continued to answer the questions that followed. See
Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 529-530 (1987) (defendant’s
agreement to answer oral questions but not give any written statement
without counsel present was unequivocal waiver of his right to remain
silent).
- 19 - J. A34008/14
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 3/23/2015
- 20 -