Com. v. Woodall, J.
This text of Com. v. Woodall, J. (Com. v. Woodall, J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
J-S29013-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JASON MICHAEL WOODALL : : Appellant : No. 876 WDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0000746-2023
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: January 22, 2026
Appellant Jason Michael Woodall appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence imposed following his convictions for delivery a controlled substance
(cocaine) and possession of a controlled substance (cocaine).1 Appellant
raises numerous claims on appeal, including violations of the compulsory
joinder rule, improper venue, violation of his speedy trial rights, the instant
charges were barred by the statute of limitations, Brady2 violations, and
prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm.
The underlying facts and procedural history of this case are well known
to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 1-4; Trial Ct. Op. & Order,
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) and (16), respectively.
2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). J-S29013-25
1/26/24, at 4-8, 10, 12.3 Briefly, on March 2, 2021, a criminal complaint was
filed charging Appellant with six counts of delivery of a controlled substance
(cocaine) and six counts of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), in
connection with six narcotics transactions with one or more confidential
informants (CI). Appellant was arrested on April 14, 2023. Appellant filed a
counseled omnibus pretrial motion seeking to dismiss this matter based on
violations of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, as well as raising claims
that the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County was the improper
venue and lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied this
motion. Subsequently, after a hearing, the trial court granted Appellant’s
counsel leave to withdraw and allowed Appellant to proceed pro se. Appellant
filed several pro se pre-trial motions, which the trial court denied. Following
a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of all charges on April 11, 2024.
On July 15, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate
term of ten to twenty years’ incarceration. On July 22, 2024, Appellant
simultaneously filed a post-sentence motion (captioned as “sentence
manipulation/entrapment modification motion”), a notice of appeal, and a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence
3 The Honorable Jesse Pettit, who presided over Appellant’s trial and sentencing hearing, wrote the September 18, 2024 Rule 1925(a) opinion, as well as the March 14, 2024 opinion and order, and April 1, 2024 memorandum and order. The Honorable Valerie Costanzo, who presided over the hearings on Appellant’s counseled motion for bail and counseled omnibus pretrial motion, wrote the January 26, 2024 opinion and order.
-2- J-S29013-25
motion on September 17, 2024.4
The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s issues
and adopting the analysis set forth in the trial court’s January 26, 2024 opinion
and order, March 14, 2024 opinion and order, and April 1, 2024 memorandum
and order.5
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues, which we restate
verbatim:
1. Warrantless GPS usage.
2. Fabricated fraudulent evidence control logs.
3. Unconstitutional venue change lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
4. Double jeopardy clause pursuant to 18 Pa C.S. 110.
5. Rule 600 lack of due diligence.
6. Rule 600, 180 days of pretrial confinement.
7. Hearsay testimony during preliminary hearing.
8. Invalid affidavit & arrest warrant.
9. Invalid arrest warrant.
10. Stale charges.
4 Appellant’s notice of appeal was premature because he filed it simultaneously
with his post-sentence motion. See Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 219 A.3d 1207, 1210 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2019); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2); Pa.R.A.P. 108(d)(1), 903(c)(3). However, because the trial court subsequently denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion, we will treat Appellant’s notice of appeal as timely. See Muhammed, 219 A.3d at 1210 n.5.
5 The trial court did not order Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.
-3- J-S29013-25
11. Prosecutorial misconduct.
12. Unconstitutionally denied bail.
13. Compel confidential informant.
14. Suggestive single photo identification procedure.
15. Ineffective assistant of pretrial counsel.
Appellant’s Brief at 2, 18, 35, 43, 47, 59, 68, 71, 75, 77, 81, 89, 97, 100, 105
(unpaginated) (some formatting altered).6,7
Rule 1925(b) Waiver
Before we address the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must address
whether Appellant has preserved them for our review. See Commonwealth
v. Edmondson, 718 A.2d 751, 752 n.7 (Pa. 1998) (explaining that appellate
courts may raise the issue of waiver sua sponte).
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court concluded that Appellant
waived his claims for review because Appellant “has failed to follow the
requirements, relating to his Concise Statement, as set forth in Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(iv)[.]” Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5. Further, the trial court
6 We note that Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of questions presented as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4), 2116. We derive these issues from the headings in Appellant’s brief. Further, Appellant’s brief lacks a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review, a statement of the case, a summary of argument, and a statement of compliance with the word count limit of Pa.R.A.P. 2135. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (3), (5), (6), (12); 2135(a), (d).
7 Additionally, Appellant’s brief contains a section captioned “Addendum” which contains additional allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. See Appellant’s Brief at 108-19.
-4- J-S29013-25
explained that several of Appellant’s issues were too vague for the trial court
to address. See id. at 40 (explaining that Appellant’s claim that “he has a
‘standing objection’ to each side-bar ruling that was against his well-
established constitutional rights[]” was “waived for vagueness and lack of
development”); id. at 44 (stating that Appellant asserted in his Rule 1925(b)
statement that “the prosecutor at trial, engaged in ‘blatant and cumulative
prosecutorial misconducts’ throughout the case[,]” and that Appellant “fails to
cite to specific incidents to support his claim”).
“[T]he applicability of waiver principles . . . is a question of law, over
which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”
Commonwealth v. Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 954 (Pa. 2018) (citations
omitted).
Initially, we must determine whether Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S29013-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : JASON MICHAEL WOODALL : : Appellant : No. 876 WDA 2024
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 15, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0000746-2023
BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: January 22, 2026
Appellant Jason Michael Woodall appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence imposed following his convictions for delivery a controlled substance
(cocaine) and possession of a controlled substance (cocaine).1 Appellant
raises numerous claims on appeal, including violations of the compulsory
joinder rule, improper venue, violation of his speedy trial rights, the instant
charges were barred by the statute of limitations, Brady2 violations, and
prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm.
The underlying facts and procedural history of this case are well known
to the parties. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 1-4; Trial Ct. Op. & Order,
____________________________________________
1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30) and (16), respectively.
2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). J-S29013-25
1/26/24, at 4-8, 10, 12.3 Briefly, on March 2, 2021, a criminal complaint was
filed charging Appellant with six counts of delivery of a controlled substance
(cocaine) and six counts of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), in
connection with six narcotics transactions with one or more confidential
informants (CI). Appellant was arrested on April 14, 2023. Appellant filed a
counseled omnibus pretrial motion seeking to dismiss this matter based on
violations of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 and 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, as well as raising claims
that the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County was the improper
venue and lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court denied this
motion. Subsequently, after a hearing, the trial court granted Appellant’s
counsel leave to withdraw and allowed Appellant to proceed pro se. Appellant
filed several pro se pre-trial motions, which the trial court denied. Following
a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of all charges on April 11, 2024.
On July 15, 2024, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate
term of ten to twenty years’ incarceration. On July 22, 2024, Appellant
simultaneously filed a post-sentence motion (captioned as “sentence
manipulation/entrapment modification motion”), a notice of appeal, and a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence
3 The Honorable Jesse Pettit, who presided over Appellant’s trial and sentencing hearing, wrote the September 18, 2024 Rule 1925(a) opinion, as well as the March 14, 2024 opinion and order, and April 1, 2024 memorandum and order. The Honorable Valerie Costanzo, who presided over the hearings on Appellant’s counseled motion for bail and counseled omnibus pretrial motion, wrote the January 26, 2024 opinion and order.
-2- J-S29013-25
motion on September 17, 2024.4
The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s issues
and adopting the analysis set forth in the trial court’s January 26, 2024 opinion
and order, March 14, 2024 opinion and order, and April 1, 2024 memorandum
and order.5
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues, which we restate
verbatim:
1. Warrantless GPS usage.
2. Fabricated fraudulent evidence control logs.
3. Unconstitutional venue change lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
4. Double jeopardy clause pursuant to 18 Pa C.S. 110.
5. Rule 600 lack of due diligence.
6. Rule 600, 180 days of pretrial confinement.
7. Hearsay testimony during preliminary hearing.
8. Invalid affidavit & arrest warrant.
9. Invalid arrest warrant.
10. Stale charges.
4 Appellant’s notice of appeal was premature because he filed it simultaneously
with his post-sentence motion. See Commonwealth v. Muhammed, 219 A.3d 1207, 1210 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2019); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(A)(2); Pa.R.A.P. 108(d)(1), 903(c)(3). However, because the trial court subsequently denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion, we will treat Appellant’s notice of appeal as timely. See Muhammed, 219 A.3d at 1210 n.5.
5 The trial court did not order Appellant to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.
-3- J-S29013-25
11. Prosecutorial misconduct.
12. Unconstitutionally denied bail.
13. Compel confidential informant.
14. Suggestive single photo identification procedure.
15. Ineffective assistant of pretrial counsel.
Appellant’s Brief at 2, 18, 35, 43, 47, 59, 68, 71, 75, 77, 81, 89, 97, 100, 105
(unpaginated) (some formatting altered).6,7
Rule 1925(b) Waiver
Before we address the merits of Appellant’s claims, we must address
whether Appellant has preserved them for our review. See Commonwealth
v. Edmondson, 718 A.2d 751, 752 n.7 (Pa. 1998) (explaining that appellate
courts may raise the issue of waiver sua sponte).
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court concluded that Appellant
waived his claims for review because Appellant “has failed to follow the
requirements, relating to his Concise Statement, as set forth in Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(iv)[.]” Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5. Further, the trial court
6 We note that Appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of questions presented as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4), 2116. We derive these issues from the headings in Appellant’s brief. Further, Appellant’s brief lacks a statement of jurisdiction, a statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review, a statement of the case, a summary of argument, and a statement of compliance with the word count limit of Pa.R.A.P. 2135. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (3), (5), (6), (12); 2135(a), (d).
7 Additionally, Appellant’s brief contains a section captioned “Addendum” which contains additional allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. See Appellant’s Brief at 108-19.
-4- J-S29013-25
explained that several of Appellant’s issues were too vague for the trial court
to address. See id. at 40 (explaining that Appellant’s claim that “he has a
‘standing objection’ to each side-bar ruling that was against his well-
established constitutional rights[]” was “waived for vagueness and lack of
development”); id. at 44 (stating that Appellant asserted in his Rule 1925(b)
statement that “the prosecutor at trial, engaged in ‘blatant and cumulative
prosecutorial misconducts’ throughout the case[,]” and that Appellant “fails to
cite to specific incidents to support his claim”).
“[T]he applicability of waiver principles . . . is a question of law, over
which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”
Commonwealth v. Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 954 (Pa. 2018) (citations
omitted).
Initially, we must determine whether Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
statement complies with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is
well-established that any issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be
deemed waived for appellate review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii);
Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998).
This Court has held that when an appellant files a Rule 1925(b)
statement before the trial court orders one, “there is no need for the trial
court” to request one. Commonwealth v. Nobles, 941 A.2d 50, 52 (Pa.
Super. 2008). However, if the appellant fails to include a claim in a voluntarily
filed Rule 1925(b) statement, that claim is waived on appeal. See id. As the
Nobles Court reasoned, this Court will not encourage “‘sandbagging’ by
-5- J-S29013-25
[appellants] if they are allowed to quickly file a Rule 1925(b) statement and
then claim that nothing is waived because the Rule 1925(b) statement was
not in response to a formal request.” Id.
Rule 1925(b) also provides that an appellant’s concise statement must
“concisely identify each error that the appellant intends to assert with
sufficient detail to identify the issue to be raised for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b)(4)(ii). As this Court has explained, Rule 1925(b) “is a crucial
component of the appellate process because it allows the trial court to identify
and focus on those issues the parties plan to raise on appeal.”
Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2020)
(citation omitted).
Further, a Rule 1925(b) statement should only identify the errors made
by the trial court; it should not be a lengthy narrative of facts, procedural
history, explanations, or arguments. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv). “Our law
makes it clear that Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is not satisfied by filing any statement.
Rather, the statement must be ‘concise’ and coherent as to permit the trial
court to understand the specific issues being raised on appeal.”
Commonwealth v. Vurimindi, 200 A.3d 1031, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2018)
(citation omitted and some formatting altered). “The court’s review and legal
analysis can be fatally impaired when the court has to guess at the issues
raised.” Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011)
-6- J-S29013-25
“If a [Rule] 1925(b) statement is too outrageous, we have dismissed
the appeal without addressing any of the issues raised.” Vurimindi, 200 A.3d
at 1038 (citation omitted). However, this Court has recognized that “not all
lengthy [Rule] 1925(b) statements require dismissal of the appeal.” Id. at
1039. In Vurimindi, this Court held that the pro se defendant waived all of
the issues he attempted to raise by filing a fifty-three-page Rule 1925(b)
statement. See id. at 1040, 1043; see also Commonwealth v. Reynolds,
339 MDA 2025, 2025 WL 3514366, at *3 (Pa. Super. filed Dec. 8, 2025)
(unpublished mem.) (concluding that the defendant waived all of his issues
on appeal where the defendant’s thirty-page Rule 1925(b) statement was
“neither concise nor compliant with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)”).8
It is well-established that
pro se status does not relieve [a litigant] of his duty to follow the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing. Accordingly, pro se litigants must comply with the procedural rules set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Court; if there are considerable defects, we will be unable to perform appellate review.
Vurimindi, 200 A.3d at 1037-38 (citations omitted and some formatting
altered).
8 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (stating this Court may rely on unpublished decisions
of this Court filed after May 1, 2019, for their persuasive value).
-7- J-S29013-25
Here, Appellant did not include his challenges to the validity of the arrest
warrant in his Rule 1925(b) statement; therefore, those issues are waived on
appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Lord, 719 A.2d at 309; Nobles, 941
A.2d at 52.
Next, following our review, we agree with the trial court that Appellant’s
Rule 1925(b) statement does not comply with our Rules of Appellate
Procedure because Appellant failed to succinctly identify the issues he
intended to raise on appeal and several issues are too vague to identify . See
Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5, 40, 44; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv). Specifically,
Appellant filed a twenty-six-page Rule 1925(b) statement which included
twenty-four issues with a lengthy recitation of purportedly inconsistent
testimony and often vague allegations of misconduct by the police and the
Washington County District Attorney’s Office. See Rule 1925(b) Statement,
7/22/24, at 1-26 (unpaginated). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that
Appellant has waived his claims on appeal.9 See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv); ____________________________________________
9 In any event, even if Appellant properly preserved his issues for review, we
would affirm based on the trial court’s analysis of these claims with the exception of the trial court’s references to non-precedential decisions of this Court filed prior to May 1, 2019. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 5-52; Trial Ct. Mem. & Order, 4/1/24, at 1-6 (unpaginated); Trial Ct. Op. & Order, 3/14/24, at 1-4 (unpaginated); Trial Ct. Op. & Order, 1/26/24, at 2-19. Further, we note that the trial court’s opinions contain some typographical errors. On page 8 of the September 18, 2024 opinion, a citation should read “T.T., vol. I, 137, line 9-20, 4/9/24.” See Trial Ct. Op., 9/18/24, at 8. Further, on page 2 of the January 26, 2024 opinion and order; the citation should read “Commonwealth v Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 954 (Pa. 2018).” See Trial Ct. Op. & Order, 1/26/24, at 2. (Footnote Continued Next Page)
-8- J-S29013-25
Vurimindi, 200 A.3d at 1038-40; Hansley, 24 A.3d at 415; Reynolds, 339
MDA 2025, 2025 WL 3514366, at *3.
Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Application for post-submission
communication denied.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
DATE: 1/22/2026
The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinions in the event of further proceedings.
-9- Circulated 12/23/2025 10:41 AM
Copies to: to: District Attorney; Attorney; Public Public Defender; Defender; Defendant; Defendant; Superior Superior t>ourt uourt of PA
IN THE IN THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH OF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA, )) ) Appellee, Appellee, )) ) vs. vs. )) No. No. 876 876 WDA WDA 2024 2024 ) ) JASON JASON MICHAEL MICHAEL WOODALL, WOODALL, )) ) Appellant. Appellant. ))
Appeal from the Appeal from the Opinion Opinion and Orders entered and Orders entered on April 14, on April 2023; June 14, 2023; June 22, 22, 2023; December 15, 2023; December 15, 2023; January 2023; 26, 2024; January 26, 2024; March March 14, 14, 2024; 2024; March March 25, 25, 2024; April 1, 2024; April 2024; April 1, 2024; April 5, 5, 2024; 2024; May May 16, 16, 2024; June 2024; June 21, 21, 2024; 2024; and and July July 8, 2024 8, 2024 In the In the Court Court of of Common Common Pleas Pleas of of Washington Washington County County Criminal Division Criminal Division at at No: No: CP-63-CR-000746-2023 CP-63-CR-000746-2023
RULE 1925(a) RULE 1925{a) OPINION OPINION
Before Before the the Court Court is is the the Notice Notice of of Appeal Appeal filed on behalf filed on behalf of of Defendant/Appellant Defendant/Appellant Jason Jason
Michael Woodall Michael Woodall (hereinafter (hereinafter “Defendant”) "Defendant") in in the the above-captioned above-captioned case case at at Criminal Division Criminal Division
Docket No. Docket 746-2023. This No. 746-2023. opinion is This opinion is written written in in support support of of the the following following Opinions Opinions and and Orders: Orders:
April 14, 2023; April 14, 2023; June June 22, 22, 2023; 2023; December 15, 2023; December 15, 2023; January 26, 2024; January 26, 2024; March March 14, 14, 2024; 2024; March March
25, 2024; April 25, 2024; April 1, 2024; April 1, 2024; April 5, 5, 2024; 2024; May May 16, 2024; June 16, 2024; June 21, 2024; July 21, 2024; 8, 2024 July 8, 1; and 2024'; and July 15, July 15,
2024. 2024.
By way By way of of an an amended amended Bill Bill of of Information Information filed filed on on December December 20, 20, 2023, 2023, the the
Commonwealth Commonwealth charged charged Defendant Defendant with with six six counts counts of of Delivery Delivery of of aa Controlled Controlled Substance, Substance,
cocaine, cocaine, 35 35 P.S. P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), 780-113(a)(30), an an ungraded ungraded Felony; Felony; and and six six counts counts of of Possession Possession of of aa
Controlled Controlled Substance, Substance, cocaine, cocaine, 35 35 P.S. P.S. §$ 780-1 13(a)(l 6), ,an ungraded 780-113(a)16), ungraded Misdemeanor. Misdemeanor. M 7+557
1See See Sentencing Sentencing Hr’g Hr'g Tr, Tr, 7/5/2024. 1 7/5/2024. Defendant Defendant was was initially initially represented represented by by Attorney Attorney Adam Adam Yarussi Yarussi (hereinafter (hereinafter “Attorney "Attorney
Yarussi”). Attorney Yarussi Yarussi"). Attorney Yarussi filed filed aa Motion to Set Motion to Set Bail on May Bail on 16, 2023 May 16, and aa hearing 2023 and hearing was was set set for for
June 20, 2023. June 20, 2023. An order order denying denying bail bail was filed June was filed June 22, 2023. Attorney 22, 2023. Attorney Yarussi Yarussi then then filed filed an an
Omnibus Pretrial Omnibus Pretrial Motion on July Motion on July 27, 27, 2023, 2023, which which included included aa Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to to Rule Rule
600; Motion 600; to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to to 18 18 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §$ 110; Motion to 110; Motion Pursuant to Dismiss Pursuant to Dismiss to 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S.
§§ 5552(a); 5552(a); Motion Motion to to Dismiss: Dismiss: Improper Improper Venue Venue and and Lack Lack of of Subject Subject Matter Matter Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction; Motion Motion
to Reveal to Reveal Confidential Confidential Informant Informant Identity; Identity; Motion Motion to to Set Set Bail; Bail; and and Motion Motion to to Compel Discovery. Compel Discovery.
See Defendant’s See Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion, 7/27/2023. An Omnibus Motion, 7/27/2023. Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Hearing Hearing was was held held
on on October 13, 2023 October 13, 2023 and and the the Honorable Honorable Valarie Costanzo filed Valarie Costanzo filed an an Opinion Opinion and Order on and Order on January January
26, 2024?2 Defendant 26, 2024. Defendant filed filed multiple multiple pro se pleadings prose pleadings during period of this period during this of time while still time while being still being
represented?3 represented.
The Commonwealth filed The Commonwealth filed aa Motion Motion to Amend Criminal to Amend Criminal Information on December Information on 20, December 20,
2023. Attorney 2023. Attorney Yarussi Yarussi consented consented to to the the amendment of the amendment of the criminal criminal information, information, and and Judge Judge
Valarie Costanzo signed Valarie Costanzo signed the the consent consent order on December order on December 15, 15, 2023. 2023. An An Amended Amended Information Information was was
filed filed on on December 20, 2023. December 20, 2023. On On February February 14, 14, 2024, 2024, Attorney Attorney Yarussi Yarussi filed filed aa Motion Motion to to
Withdraw as Withdraw Counsel. 4 An as Counsel. An Order granting Attorney Yarussi ’s request Order grantingAttorneyYarussi's request to to withdraw withdraw was was filed filed on on
February 22, February 2024. Defendant 22, 2024. Defendant filed filed aa pro pro se se “Motion to Request "Motion to Request to to Proceed Proceed Pro Pro se” se" on on February February
23, 2024. 23, 2024. On On March March 5, 5, 2024, 2024, the the Court Court accepted accepted Defendant’s Defendant's waiver of counsel waiver of counsel and and appointed appointed
stand-by stand-by counsel counsel in in the the event event that termination of that termination of his his self-representation was necessary. self-representation was necessary.
2On On January 1, 2024, 2024, by by way way of of Administrative Administrative Order Order byby Washington Washington County County President President Judge Judge John John DiSalle DiSalle dated 2 January 1, dated November 29, 2023, November 29, 2023, the undersigned was the undersigned was assigned assigned toto the Washington County the Washington County Criminal Docket, which Criminal Docket, which included included the the above-captioned above-captioned case. case. Judge Judge Valarie Valarie Costanzo Costanzo was was reassigned reassigned to to the the Family Family Court Court and and Juvenile Juvenile Dependency Dependency Dockets. Dockets. 3Defendant’s Defendant's pro pro se se pleadings pleadings were were addressed addressed by by way way ofof letter letter addressed to Attorney Attorney Yarussi Yarussi explaining explaining that 3 addressed to that Defendant is not Defendant is not entitled entitled to to hybrid hybrid representation. representation. See Commonwealth v. See Commonwealth v. Ellis, Ellis, 626 626 A.2d A.2d 1137, 1139 (Pa. 1137, 1139 (Pa. 1993). 1993). Another Motion 4Another Motion toto Withdraw Withdraw asas Counsel Counsel was was filed February 15, 15, 2024. 2024. ItIt appears the only only change change was was aa change change in 4 filed February appears the in the presentation the presentation date. date.
2 Defendant Defendant requested requested his pro se pleadings, pleadings, which were were filed filed while he was was represented represented by counsel, counsel,
to be reinstated. reinstated. Defendant’s Defendant's request request was was denied; denied; however however he was was permitted to refile the
pleadings. pleadings. See See Court Court Order, Order, 3/5/2024. 3/5/2024.
Defendant Defendant filed filed several several motions motions prior to the commencement commencement of the jury trial. trial. Defendant Defendant
filed a prose se “Motion "Motion Pursuant Pursuant to Rule 600(B), 600(B), (D)(2) (0)(2) and (E)” (E)" on February 23, 23, 2024. 2024. A
hearing was was scheduled for March 12, 12, 2024 for the limited purpose of of determining whether whether
Defendant Defendant was was entitled to immediate immediate release on on nominal nominal bail bail since Judge Judge Costanzo’s Costanzo 's January 26, 26,
2024 Opinion and and Order Order previously addressed addressed the due due diligence issue raised by Defendant Defendant
regarding regarding Rule Rule 600. 600. Defendant’s Defendant's motion motion was was denied denied by by way way of of Opinion Opinion and and Order Order dated dated March March
14, 14, 2024. 2024.
Defendant Defendant filed filed an an “Omnibus "Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion Briefing” Briefing" on on March March 7, 7, 2024. 2024. On On March March 25, 25,
2024, 2024, aa Memorandum Memorandum and and Order Order was was filed filed denying denying Defendant’s Defendant's motion motion in in its its entirety. entirety.
Defendant Defendant also also filed filed aa pro se “Motion(s)-In-Limine” prose "Motion(s)-In-Limine" on on March March 7, 7, 2024. 2024. A A separate separate
Memorandum Memorandum and and Order Order was was filed filed April April 1,1, 2024, 2024, which which denied denied Defendant’s Defendant's motion motion in in its its
entirety. entirety. Defendant Defendant filed filed another another “Motion(s) "Motion(s) In In Limine” Limine" on on March March 19, 19, 2024, 2024, which which was was denied denied
by by way way of ofCourt Court Order Order dated datedApril April 5,5, 2024. 2024.
After After the the completion completion of ofaa pretrial pretrial conference conference on on March March 27, 27, 2024, 2024, this this case case was was scheduled scheduled
for for aajury jury trial trial during during the the April April 2024 2024 trial trial term. term. Another Another pretrial pretrial proceeding proceeding was was held held on onApril April 4, 4,
2024 2024 to to address address last-minute last-minute trial trial issues. issues. After After pre-trial pre-trial proceedings proceedings and andjury jury selection selection on onApril April 8,8,
2024, 2024, Defendant’s Defendant'sjury jury trial trial took took place placeApril April 9,9, 2024 2024 through throughApril April 11, 11, 2024. 2024. A Ahearing hearing was was held held
on onApril April 10, 10, 2024, 2024, outside outside of ofthe the presence presence of ofthe thejury, jury, to to address address Defendant’s Defendant's oral oral motion motion seeking seeking
dismissal dismissal of ofcharges charges relating relating to to the the issue issue of ofaa GPS GPS tracking tracking device. device. Defendant’s Defendant's oral oral motion motion was was
denied denied atat the the conclusion conclusion of ofthe the hearing. hearing. Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion Hr’g Hr'g Tr., Tr., 28, 28, 4/10/24. 4/10/24. Defendant Defendantwas was
33 found guilty guilty on April April 11, 2024 of six six counts of delivery of a controlled substance, substance, cocaine, cocaine, and
six six counts of possession possession of a controlled substance, substance, cocaine. cocaine. See Verdict Verdict Order, Order, 4/12/24. 4/12/24.
Before Defendant’s Defendant's sentencing, sentencing, Defendant Defendant filed filed three motions motions on April April 25, 25, 2024: 2024:
“Deceleration "Deceleration in in Support Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Forma Pauperis”, Pauperis", “Motion "Motion to Suppress Suppress Nunc Nunc
Pro Tunc”; Tunc"; and “Motion "Motion Requesting Transcripts Transcripts and Exhibits Exhibits Pursuant Pursuant to Pa. Pa. R. R. J. J. A. A. 4007(E).” 4007(E)."
Defendant’s Defendant's request request to proceed proceed in in forma pauperis pauperis was was granted via via a Court Court Order Order April April 29, 29, 2024. 2024.
Defendant’s Defendant's request request for transcripts and and exhibits exhibits was was granted on May May 10, 10, 2024. 2024. Defendant Defendant filed a
“Brief in Support "Brief in Support of of Motion Motion to Suppress Suppress Nunc Nunc Pro Time” Tune" on May May 7, 7, 2024. 2024. Defendant’s Defendant's motion motion
was was denied denied as as the the issue issue was was previously previously addressed addressed and and ruled on on after after an an evidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing held held
on on April April 10, 10, 2024. 2024. See See Court Court Order, Order, 5/16/2024. 5/16/2024.
On On June June 14, 14, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant filed filed aa “Brady "Brady Violations Violations Motions Motions to to Dismiss.” Dismiss." This This
motion motion was was denied denied by by way way of of Order Order entered entered on on June June 21, 21, 2024. 2024. Defendant’s Defendant's sentencing sentencing hearing hearing
was was originally originally scheduled scheduled for for July July 8, 8, 2024; 2024; however, however, the the hearing hearing was was continued continued for for one one (1) (1) week week
at at the the request request of ofthe the Commonwealth. Commonwealth. Defendant Defendant was was ultimately ultimately sentenced, sentenced, after after aa hearing, hearing, on on
July July 15, 15, 2024. 2024.
On On July July 22, 22, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant filed filed aa pro se Notice prose Notice of ofAppeal, Appeal, “1925(b) "1925(b) Concise Concise Statements”, Statements",
and and aa “Direct "Direct Appeal” Appeal" pleading, pleading, which which appears appears to to be be aa written written brief briefin in support support of ofthe the issues issues set set
forth in Defendant’s forth in Defendant's Concise Concise Statement. Statement.5 Defendant contemporaneously filed a “Sentence 5 Defendant contemporaneously filed a "Sentence
Manipulation/Entrapment Manipulation/Entrapment Modification Modification Motion” Motion" on on July July 22, 22, 2024. 2024.
• Defendant 5 Defendant argues argues inin his his “Direct "Direct Appeal” Appeal" brief brief that that transcripts transcripts were were withheld withheld from from him. him. This This Court Court granted granted Defendant’s request for transcripts via a May 10, 2024 Order. At the time of Defendant’s filing of this appeal, the Defendant's request for transcripts via a May 10, 2024 Order. At the time of Defendant's filing of this appeal, the transcripts transcriptsrelating relatingtotothe thejury jurytrial trialhad hadnot notbeen beencompleted completedby bythe thecourt courtreporter. reporter. This ThisCourt Courtfiled filedthe theRequest Requestfor forTrial Trial Transcript Transcripton onMay May 1,1,2024. 2024. Defendant Defendantchose chosetoto file filehis hisNotice Notice of ofAppeal, Appeal, Concise Concise Statement Statementand andDirect DirectAppeal Appealbrief brief on on July July 22, 22, 2024, 2024, which which waswas seven seven days days after after he he was was sentenced. sentenced. This This Court Court reviewed, reviewed, signed signed and and filed filed the the trial trial transcripts transcripts immediately immediatelyupon uponreceiving receivingthe thecompleted completedtranscripts transcripts from fromthe thecourt courtreporter. reporter.
44 Defendant Defendant has has failed failed follow follow the requirements, requirements, relating to his Concise Statement, Statement, as set set forth
in in Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv), 1925(b)4)(iv), (“The ("The Statement Statement should not not be redundant redundant or or provide provide lengthy
explanations explanations as to any error.”) error.") This This Court Court attempts attempts to address address each each issue raised in Defendant’s Defendant's
6 1925(b) 1925(b) Concise Statement, Statement, in order, order, which he he is is pursuing pursuing on on appeal, appeal, below. below.6
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
A. A. Untimely Untimely Filing Filing of of the the Instant Instant Charges Charges
1.1. Standard Standard of of Review Review
A A question question regarding regarding the the application application of ofthe the statute statute of oflimitations limitations isis aa question question of oflaw. law. See See
Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Russell, Russell, 938 938 A.2d A.2d 1082, 1082, 1087 1087 (Pa.Super.2007). (Pa.Super.2007). “Where "Where the the petitioner petitioner raises raises
questions questions of law, our oflaw, our standard standard of review isis de ofreview de novo novo and and our our scope scope of ofreview review plenary.” plenary."
Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Riding, Riding, 2013 2013 PA PA Super Super 141, 141, 68 68 A.3d A.3d 990, 990, 993 993 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2013). 2013).
2.2. Court’s Court's Analysis Analysis
Defendant Defendant argues argues that that counts counts seven seven through throughtwelve twelve of ofthe the Bill Bill of ofInformation Information should should have have
been been dismissed dismissed because becausethe the charges charges were were filed filedbeyond beyondthe the statute statute of oflimitations. limitations. Defendant, Defendant,
through through counsel, counsel, filed filed an anOmnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion Motionon onJuly July27, 27, 2023. 2023. Defendant Defendantdid didnot notinclude include
aaMotion Motionto to Dismiss Dismiss Pursuant Pursuanttoto 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §5552(a) §5552(a) in inhis his Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion. Motion.
Defendant, Defendant, however, however, attempted attemptedtotoraise raiseaamotion motionseeking seekingtoto dismiss dismiss counts counts seven seventhrough throughtwelve twelve
of ofthe theBill Bill of ofInformation, Information,pursuant pursuanttoto42 42Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §5552(a), §5552(a),ininhis hisbrief, brief,which whichwas wasfiled filedon on
December December 1,1,2023. 2023. Judge JudgeCostanzo Costanzodenied deniedthe themotion motiontotodismiss dismissby byway wayof ofOpinion Opinionand andOrder Order
dated datedJanuary January26, 26,2024. 2024. The Thereasons reasonsfor forthe theCourt’s Court'sJanuary January26, 26,2024 2024Order Orderalready alreadyappear appearof of
record recordininsaid saidOpinion Opinionand andOrder. Order.Therefore, Therefore,this this Court Courthereby herebyincorporates incorporatesthe thesame sameasasits its
6 6Defendant Defendantreferences references“Direct "DirectAppeal” Appeal"exhibits; exhibits;however, however,no noexhibits exhibitswere werefiled filedwith withthe theWashington WashingtonCounty CountyClerk Clerk of ofCourts CourtsOffice Officeregarding regardingthe the“Direct "DirectAppeal” Appeal"pleading. pleading.
55 Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) 1925(a) Opinion and attaches it hereto. hereto. For For the reasons set set forth in in the January 26, 26,
2024 Opinion Opinion and Order, Order, this Court Court respectfully submits submits that that its order order be affirmed on the merits
and Defendant’s Defendant's appeal appeal be dismissed. dismissed.
B. B. Improper Improper Venue Venue and and Lack Lack of of Subject Subject Matter Matter Jurisdiction Jurisdiction
1. 1. Standard of Review Review
“As "As this question [regarding subject subject matter matter jurisdiction] jurisdiction] is purely one one of law, law, our our standard
of review review is is de de novo, novo, and our our scope ofreview review is plenary.” plenary." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Jones, Jones, 929 A.2d
205, 205, 211 (Pa. (Pa. 2007) 2007) (internal (internal citations omitted). omitted).
“The "The standard standard of of review review for for aa denial denial of aa motion motion for for change change of of venue venue is is whether whether there there has has
been been an an abuse abuse of of discretion discretion on the the part part of the the trial trial judge.” judge." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Devries, Devries, 112 112 A.3d A.3d
663, 666 (Pa. 663,666 (Pa. Super. Super. 2015) 2015) (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted).
2. 2. Court’s Court's Analysis Analysis
Defendant Defendant next next argues argues that that this this Court Court lacked lacked subject subject matter matterjurisdiction jurisdiction over over the the
prosecution prosecution of ofthe the charges charges stemming stemming from from conduct conduct occurring occurring in in Allegheny Allegheny County County and, and,
furthermore, furthermore, venue venue was was improper improper in in Washington Washington County. County.
Defendant Defendant filed filed an an Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion on on July July 27, 27, 2023, 2023, which which included included aa Motion Motion
to to Dismiss Dismiss Improper Improper Venue Venue and and Lack Lack of of Subject Subject Matter Matter Jurisdiction Jurisdiction (Allegheny (Allegheny County County
Charges). Charges). Judge Judge Costanzo, Costanzo, following following the the October October 13, 13, 2023 2023 hearing, hearing, denied denied the the motion motion to to dismiss dismiss
by by way way of ofOpinion Opinion and and Order Order dated dated January January 26, 26, 2024. 2024. The The reasons reasons for for the the Court’s Court's January January 26, 26,
2024 2024 Order Order already already appear appear of ofrecord record in in said said Opinion Opinion and and Order. Order. Therefore, Therefore, this this Court Court hereby hereby
incorporates incorporates the the same same as as its its Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) 1925(a) Opinion Opinion and and attaches attaches itit hereto. hereto. For For the the reasons reasons
set set forth forth in in the the January January 26, 26, 2024 2024 Opinion Opinion and and Order, Order, this this Court Court respectfully respectfully submits submits that that its its order order
be be affirmed affirmed on on the the merits merits and and Defendant’s Defendant's appeal appeal be be dismissed. dismissed.
66 C. C. Warrantless Warrantless Use Use of of Mobile Mobile Tracking Tracking Device Device
Defendant Defendant next next appears appears to argue in in Section C of his Concise Statement Statement that that law law
enforcement enforcement utilized utilized a mobile tracking device during its investigation investigation without without a warrant warrant or court court
order. order. Defendant Defendant initially initially raised this argument argument at at trial. trial.
Defendant Defendant made made an oral oral motion prior prior to the commencement commencement of the second day of
trial trial seeking dismissal dismissal of the charges. charges. Pretrial Pretrial Motion Hr’g Hr'g Tr., Tr., 5, 5, 4/10/24. 4/10/24. Defendant Defendant asserted
that that the the evidence evidence presented by the Commonwealth Commonwealth to the jury on the first first day of trial trial
demonstrated that that law law enforcement enforcement utilized utilized a GPS GPS tracking device during during the course course of the
investigation, investigation, without without first first obtaining obtaining aa warrant. warrant. Defendant Defendant sought sought dismissal dismissal of of the the charges charges based based
on on the the fruit fruit of of the the poisonous poisonous tree tree doctrine. doctrine. Defendant, Defendant, in in support support of his his oral oral motion motion for for
immediate immediate dismissal dismissal of of the the charges, charges, argued argued that that Agent Agent Barna Barna testified testified at at trial trial that that the the Office Office of of
Attorney Attorney General General utilized utilized aa GPS GPS tracking tracking device device without without obtaining obtaining aa court court order order or or warrant. warrant.
Defendant’s Defendant's argument argument isis not not supported supported by by the the record record evidence. evidence.
Agent Agent Barna, Barna, during during cross-examination, cross-examination, testified testified as as follows: follows:
Q: Q: How How are are you you doing, doing, Agent Agent Barna? Barna? A: A: Good, Good, sir. sir. How How are are you? you? Q: Q: All All right. right. First, First, before before we we go go any any further, further, you you stated stated that that you you had had aa tracker tracker on on the the vehicle? vehicle? A: A: Yes. Yes. Q: Q: Did Did you you have have aa warrant warrant for for the the tracker? tracker? A: A: Yes. Yes. Q: Q: You You did? did? A: A: Yes. Yes. Q: Q: Why Why wasn’t wasn't itit in in the the discovery? discovery? A: A: We We didn’t didn't use use itit as as evidence evidence for for anything anything other otherthan than furthering furthering the the investigation. investigation.
77 TT, TT, vol. vol. I, 136, 136, line 4-15, 4-15, 4/9/24. 4/9/24.
The The Court, Court, based on Defendant’s Defendant's oral oral motion, motion, held an evidentiary hearing outside of the
jury during the second day of trial trial to further develop the record regarding Defendant’s Defendant's argument. argument.
Agent Agent Barna Barna testified testified at at the hearing. hearing. TT, TT, vol. vol. I,1, 37-206, 37-206, 4/9/24. 4/9/24. Agent Agent Barna Barna again testified that that
the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General General had obtained an appropriate court court order order under under the
Wiretap Act Act to place a tracking device on Defendant’s Defendant's vehicle during the course of the
investigation. investigation. Pretrial Pretrial Motion Hr’g Hr'g Tr., Tr., 22, 22, 4/10/24. 4/10/24. Agent Agent Barna Barna explained explained that, that, when when
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Office Office of Attorney General General narcotics narcotics agents agents utilize utilize aa tracking device, device, the the agents agents
“have "have to to have have aa court court order order and and appropriate appropriate paperwork paperwork with with the the Office of of Attorney Attorney General. General. It’s It's
aa very very formal formal process. process. So, So, yes, yes, we we had had aa warrant warrant signed signed by by aa judge.” judge." Id. Id. This This Court Court found found
Agent Agent Barna’s Barna's testimony testimony at at the the hearing hearing to to be be credible. credible. “A "A fact-finder fact-finder isis free free to to believe believe all, all, part, part,
or or none none of ofthe evidence evidence presented.” presented." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. James, James, 1223 1223 WDA WDA 2014, 2014, 2016 2016 WL WL
418146, 418146, at at 22 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. Feb. Feb. 3, 3, 2016) 2016) (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted). The The fact-finder fact-finder isis
exclusively exclusively tasked tasked with with assessing assessing the the credibility credibility of ofthe the witnesses witnesses or or evidence evidence presented presented at at trial. trial.
Id. Id. (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted).
Defendant Defendant was was permitted permitted an an opportunity opportunity to to cross-examine cross-examine Agent Agent Barna, Barna, both both at at trial trial and and
then then at at the the hearing hearing regarding regarding Defendant’s Defendant's motion, motion, regarding regarding details details surrounding surrounding the the warrant warrant the the
was was signed signed by by aajudge. judge. See See TT., TT., vol. vol. I,I, 4/9/24; 4/9/24; see see also also Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion Hr’g Hr'g Tr., Tr., 22, 22, 4/10/24. 4/10/24.
This This Court Court submits, submits, based based on on the the record recordevidence, evidence, that that Defendant’s Defendant's claim claim that that aa GPS GPS tracking tracking
device device was was utilized utilized during during the the course course of ofthe the investigation investigation without without aa warrant warrant and/or and/or court court order order isis
without without merit. merit. Furthermore, Furthermore, the the evidence evidence presented presented by by the the Commonwealth Commonwealth to to the thejury jury did did not not
include include testimony testimony or or evidence evidence that that aa GPS GPS tracking tracking device device was was utilized utilized by by law law enforcement enforcement
during during the the six six controlled controlledbuys buys which whichresulted resulted in in the the filing filing of ofcharges charges against against Defendant. Defendant.
88 Defendant’s Defendant's claim claim is not not supported by the record and should be dismissed. dismissed.
D. D. Use Use of Hearsay Testimony at at Preliminary Hearing
1. 1. Standard Standard of of Review Review
“The "The evidentiary sufficiency of the Commonwealth's Commonwealth's prima prima facie facie case case for for aa charged charged crime crime
is is aa question question of law law for for which our our standard standard of of review review is is de de novo novo and and our our scope scope of ofreview review isis
plenary.” plenary." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Harris, Harris, 2022 2022 PA PA Super Super 1,1,269 269 A.3d A.3d 534, 539 (Pa. 534,539 (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2022), 2022),
reargument reargument denied denied (Mar. (Mar. 14, 14, 2022), 2022), appeal appeal granted, granted, 285 285 A.3d A.3d 883 883 (Pa. (Pa. 2022), 2022), and and affd, aft'd, 315 315
A.3d A.3d 26 26 (Pa. (Pa. 2024), 2024), citing citing to to Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Wroten, Wroten, 257 257 A.3d A.3d 734, 734, 742 742 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2021) 2021)
(citation ( citation omitted). omitted).
Defendant Defendant appears appears to to argue argue that that his his constitutional constitutional rights rights were were deprived deprived because because the the
magisterial magisterial district districtjudge judge relied relied solely solely on on hearsay hearsay testimony testimony atat the the preliminary preliminary hearing hearing stage. stage.
Defendant Defendant raised raised this this argument argument in in aapleading pleading titled titled “Motion(s)-In-Limine” "Motion(s)-In-Limine" which whichwas was filed filed on on
March March 7,7, 2024. 2024. In In that thatpro pro se se motion motion in in limine, limine, Defendant Defendant challenged challengedthe the pretrial pretrial finding finding that thatthe the
Commonwealth Commonwealthpresented presented evidence evidenceto to establish establish aaprima prima facie facie case. case.
This This Court Courtheld heldaahearing hearing on onMarch March 12, 12, 2024 2024relating relatingtoto Defendant’s Defendant's motion. motion. ItItisis well well
established establishedunder underPennsylvania Pennsylvanialaw lawthat thatthe the Commonwealth Commonwealthmay maypresent presentadditional additional evidence evidenceto to
establish establishthat thatthe the defendant defendanthas has committed committedthe theelements elements of ofthe theoffenses offenses charged. charged. See See
Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Dantzler, Dantzler, 135 135A.3d A.3d 1109 1109(Pa.Super. (Pa.Super.2016); 2016);see seealso also Comm Commv.v. Karlson, Karlson,449 449Pa. Pa.
Super. Super. 378 378 (1996). (1996). At Atthe thecourt courtproceeding proceedingon onMarch March 12, 12,2024, 2024,the theCommonwealth Commonwealthsubmitted submitted
the thetranscript transcriptof ofthe theOctober October 13, 13,2023 2023 Omnibus OmnibusPretrial PretrialHearing Hearingasasadditional additionalproof proofthat thataaprim a prima
facie faciecase caseexists. exists. See SeeMotion MotionininLimine LimineHr’g, Hr'g,3/12/2024, 3/12/2024,Commonwealth’s Commonwealth'sEx. Ex.7.7. The Thetranscript transcript
included includedthe thetestimony testimonyof ofPennsylvania PennsylvaniaOffice Officeof ofAttorney AttorneyGeneral GeneralNarcotics NarcoticsAgent AgentJoseph Joseph
99 Barna, Barna, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General General Narcotics Agent Agent Justin Justin Shaffer, Shaffer, Monroeville
Police Detective Steven Maritz, Maritz, City of Washington Police Officer Officer Joseph Fichter, Fichter, Washington
County Drug Task Force Detective Richard Gluth, Gluth, City of Washington Police Detective Dan
Eberman, Eberman, and City of Washington Police Sergeant Sergeant Kent Kent Mitchell. Mitchell. Defendant Defendant was was afforded an
opportunity to cross-examine each witness, witness, through counsel, counsel, at at the October October 13, 13, 2023 hearing. hearing.
See Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Hr’g Hr'g Tr., Tr., 47-58; 47-58; 67-70; 67-70; 82-86; 82-86; 87-88; 87-88; 116-24; 116-24; 126-127; 126-127; 135-139; 135-139; 146- 146-
149; 149; 158- 158- 165, 165, 10/13/2023. 10/13/2023. This This Court Court denied the motion by way way of Memorandum Memorandum and Order Order
dated dated April April 1, 1, 2024. 2024.
The The reasons reasons for for the the Court’s Court's April April 1, 1, 2024 2024 Order Order already already appear appear of ofrecord in in said said
Memorandum Memorandum and and Order. Order. Therefore, Therefore, this this Court Court hereby hereby incorporates incorporates the the same same as as its its Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) 1925(a) Memorandum Memorandum and and attaches attaches itit hereto. hereto. For For the the reasons reasons set set forth forth in in the the April April 1, 1, 2024 2024
Opinion Opinion and and Order, Order, this this Court Court respectfully respectfully submits submits that that its its order order be be affirmed affirmed on on the the merits merits and and
Defendant’s Defendant's appeal appeal be be dismissed. dismissed.
E. E. Defendant Defendant Was Was Denied Denied and and Precluded Precluded From From Exculpatory Exculpatory Evidence Evidence of of Impeachment Impeachment During During Preliminary Preliminary Hearing Hearing
1.1. Standard Standard of ofReview Review
“The "The evidentiary evidentiary sufficiency sufficiency of ofthe the Commonwealth's Commonwealth's prima prima facie facie case case for for aa charged charged crime crime
isis aa question question of oflaw law for for which which our our standard standard of ofreview review isis de de novo novo and and our our scope scope of ofreview review isis
plenary.” plenary." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Harris, Harris, 2022 2022 PA PA Super Super 1,1, 269 269 A.3d A.3d 534, 534, 539 539 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2022), 2022),
reargument reargument denied denied (Mar. (Mar. 14, 14, 2022), 2022), appeal appeal granted, granted, 285 285 A.3d A.3d 883 883 (Pa. (Pa. 2022), 2022), and and affd, aff'd, 315 315
A.3d A.3d 26 26 (Pa. (Pa. 2024), 2024), citing citing to to Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Wroten, Wroten, 257 257 A.3d A.3d 734, 734, 742 742 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2021) 2021)
10 10 2. 2. Court's Analysis Court’s Analysis
to relevant citation to no citation with no argument, with legal argument, undeveloped legal entirely undeveloped an entirely forth an sets forth Defendant sets Defendant relevant
the preliminary at the evidence at exculpatory evidence suppressed exculpatory Commonwealth suppressed the Commonwealth that the authority, that legal authority, legal preliminary
hearing certain witnesses calling certain not calling by not stage by hearing stage testify at to testify witnesses to that hearing. at that Defendant argues hearing. Defendant that he argues that he
Commonwealth witnesses certain Commonwealth cross-examine certain to cross-examine opportunity to fair opportunity and fair full and afforded aa full not afforded was not was witnesses
cites to Defendant cites hearing. Defendant preliminary hearing. the preliminary at the testify at to testify called to not called were not they were because they because to
Commonwealth Bazemore, 531 Commonwealth v.v. Bazemore, Pa. 582 531 Pa. (1992) in 582 (1992) support of in support his argument. ofhis argument. In Bazemore, the In Bazemore, the
from aapreliminary testimony from priortestimony ofprior transcript of the transcript that the held that Court held Supreme Court Pennsylvania Supreme Pennsylvania preliminary
wherethe trialwhere admissible atattrial notadmissible was not witness was Commonwealthwitness unavailable Commonwealth anunavailable ofan hearing of hearing the
regardingthis evidenceregarding impeachmentevidence vitalimpeachment defensevital thedefense disclosetotothe to disclose failedto Commonwealthfailed Commonwealth this
onBazemore relianceon Defendant'sreliance hearing. Defendant’s preliminaryhearing. thepreliminary priortoto the witnessprior witness Bazemoretotosupport hisclaim supporthis claim
isisentirely entirelymisplaced. assertionsininthis Defendant'sassertions misplaced. Defendant’s sectionare thissection notreasoned arenot anddeveloped reasonedand legal developedlegal
thatthese suggeststhat Courtsuggests ThisCourt authority.This legalauthority. relevantlegal citationstotorelevant withcitations supportedwith argumentssupported arguments these
ofdevelopment. lackof forlack waivedfor claimisiswaived thisclaim andthis reviewable,and notreviewable, arenot assertionsare assertions development.
Furthermore, Defendantchallenged above,Defendant SectionDDabove, forthininSection setforth Furthermore,asasset sufficiencyof thesufficiency challengedthe the ofthe
transcriptof thetranscript submittedthe Commonwealthsubmitted TheCommonwealth hearing. The preliminaryhearing. thepreliminary presentedatatthe evidencepresented evidence of
caseexists. faciecase primafacie thata aprima proofthat additionalproof Hearingasasadditional PretrialHearing OmnibusPretrial 2023Omnibus 13,2023 October13, theOctober the exists.
Commonwealth'sEx. 3/12/2024,Commonwealth’s Hr'g,3/12/2024, LimineHr’g, MotionininLimine SeeMotion See Athe 7. At Ex.7. October13, theOctober 13,2023 2023
(7)law seven(7) testimonyofofseven thetestimony presentedthe Commonwealthpresented theCommonwealth Hearing,the PretrialHearing, OmnibusPretrial Omnibus law
enforcement officers,including enforcementofficers, includingPennsylvania OfficeofofAttorney PennsylvaniaOffice NarcoticsAgent GeneralNarcotics AttorneyGeneral Agent
JustinShaffer AgentJustin NarcoticsAgent GeneralNarcotics AttorneyGeneral OfficeofofAttorney PennsylvaniaOffice Barna,Pennsylvania JosephBarna, Joseph Shaffer,
Monroeville CityofofWashington Maritz,City StevenMaritz, DetectiveSteven PoliceDetective MonroevillePolice OfficerJoseph PoliceOfficer WashingtonPolice Fichter, JosephFichter,
WashingtonPolice CityofofWashington Gluth,City RichardGluth, DetectiveRichard ForceDetective taskForce Drugtask CountyDrug WashingtonCounty Washington Police
1111 Detective Dan Eberman, Eberman, and City of Washington Police Sergeant Sergeant Kent Kent Mitchell. Mitchell. Defendant Defendant was was
afforded afforded an an opportunity to to cross-examine cross-examine each each witness, witness, through through counsel, counsel, at at the the October October 113, 3, 2023 2023
hearing. hearing. See See Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Hr’g Hr'g Tr., Tr., 47-58; 47-58; 67-70; 67-70; 82-86; 82-86; 87-88; 87-88; 116-24; 116-24; 126-127; 126-127; 135- 135-
139; 139; 146-149; 146-149; 158- 158- 165, 165, 10/13/2023. 10/13/2023.
Defendant’s Defendant's claim claim lacks lacks merit merit and and should should be be dismissed. dismissed.
F. F. The The use use of of hearsay hearsay statements statements at at Preliminary Preliminary Hearing Hearing relating relating to to Confidential Confidential Informants Informants aa Direct Direct Violation Violation and and Deprivation Deprivation of of Defendant’s Defendant's Constitutional Constitutional Rights Rights
“The "The evidentiary evidentiary sufficiency sufficiency of ofthe the Commonwealth's Commonwealth's prima prima facie facie case case for for aa charged chargedcrime crime
isis aa question question of oflaw law for for which which our our standard standard of ofreview review isis de de novo novo and and our our scope scope of ofreview review isis
plenary.” plenary." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Harris, Harris, 2022 2022 PA PA Super Super 1,1,269 269 A.3d A.3d 534, 534, 539 539 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2022), 2022),
reargument reargument denied denied (Mar. (Mar. 14, 14, 2022), 2022), appeal appeal granted, granted, 285 285 A.3d A.3d 883 883 (Pa. (Pa. 2022), 2022), and and affd, aft'd, 315 315
A.3d A.3d26 26 (Pa. (Pa. 2024), 2024), citing citingtoto Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Wroten, Wroten, 257 257 A.3d A.3d 734, 734, 742 742 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2021) 2021)
(citation (citationomitted). omitted).
2.2. Court’s Court'sAnalysis Analysis
Defendant Defendantnext nextargues arguesthat thatititwas wasaaviolation violationof ofhis hisconstitutional constitutionalrights rightsfor forthe the
magisterial magisterialdistrict districtjudge judgetotorely relyon onhearsay hearsaystatements, statements,testified testifiedtotoby byOfficer OfficerFichter, Fichter,relating relatingtoto
confidential confidentialinformants informants(hereinafter "C.I.")utilized (hereinafter“C.I.”) utilizedby bylaw lawenforcement enforcementininthis thiscase. case.
Defendant'sargument Defendant’s argumentisissimilar similartotothe theone oneset setforth forthininSection SectionDDwhere wherehe hechallenges the challengesthe
use useof ofhearsay hearsaytestimony testimonyatataapreliminary preliminaryhearing. hearing. Defendant Defendantinitially initiallychallenged challengedthe theuse useof of
hearsay hearsayatatthe thepreliminary preliminaryhearing hearingininaapleading pleadingtitled titled“Motion(s)-In-Limine” "Motion(s)-In-Liminewhich whichwas wasfiled filedon on
March March7,7,2024. 2024. The TheCourt Courtissued issuedaaMemorandum Memorandumand andOrder Orderdated datedApril April1,1,2024. 2024. The Thereasons reasons
for forthe theCourt’s Court'sApril April1,1,2024 2024Order Orderalready alreadyappear appearofofrecord record ininsaid saidMemorandum Memorandumand andOrder. Order.
1212 Therefore, hereby incorporates Court hereby this Court Therefore, this same as the same incorporates the its Pa.R.A.P. as its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) and Memorandum and 1925(a) Memorandum
attaches it hereto. attaches hereto.
Defendant, "Direct Appeal” his “Direct in his Defendant, in further argues brief, further Appeal" brief, that the argues that identity of the identity the confidential of the confidential
informants 27, July 27, on July Motion on Pretrial Motion Omnibus Pretrial an Omnibus filed an Defendant filed revealed. Defendant been revealed. have been should have informants should
Judge Costanzo, Identity. Judge Informant Identity. Confidential Informant Reveal Confidential to Reveal Motion to included aa Motion which included 2023, which 2023, Costanzo,
following hearing, denied 2023 hearing, 13, 2023 October 13, the October following the motion to the motion denied the by way to by ofOpinion way of and Order Opinion and Order
dated reasons for The reasons 2024. The 26, 2024. January 26, dated January Court's January the Court’s for the 26, 2024 January 26, Order already 2024 Order appear of already appear of
as its same as the same incorporates the hereby incorporates Courthereby this Court Therefore, this Order. Therefore, and Order. Opinion and said Opinion in said record in record its
attaches itithereto. and attaches Opinion and 1925(a) Opinion Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Pa.R.A.P. hereto.
For well asas 2024, asaswell April 1,1,2024, datedApril Orderdated and Order Memorandumand theMemorandum forthininthe set forth reasons set thereasons Forthe
theJanuary the 2024 Opinion 26, 2024 January26, Order,this andOrder, Opinionand Courtrespectfully this Court thatits submitsthat respectfullysubmits ordersbe itsorders be
bedismissed. appealbe Defendant'sappeal andDefendant’s meritsand themerits onthe affirmedon affirmed dismissed.
ShouldHave GapsShould CustodyGaps ofCustody Chainof CocaineChain Fabrication,Cocaine andFabrication, Tamperingand EvidenceTampering G. Evidence G. Have Deemed Chain to be Deficient Deemed Chain to be Deficient
1.1. Standardof Standard ofReview Review
The of abuseof anabuse foran evidenceisisfor ofevidence admissionof theadmission relativetotothe reviewrelative ofreview "standardof The“standard
discretion." Commonwealth discretion.” Commonwealthv.v.Feliciano, PASuper 2013PA Feliciano,2013 117, Super1 A.3d19, 67A.3d 17, 67 27(Pa. 19,27 Super.Ct. (Pa.Super. Ct.
2013). 2013).
2.2. Court'sAnalysis Court’s Analysis
Defendant custodyregarding chainofofcustody thechain gapsininthe thatgaps arguesthat Defendantargues evidencepresented theevidence regardingthe presentedatat
deemedtotobebedeficient. beendeemed havebeen shouldhave trialshould trial deficient.
"While burdenofofdemonstrating theburden bearsthe Commonwealthbears theCommonwealth "Whilethe reasonable somereasonable demonstratingsome
connection thesanctity establishthe notestablish neednot evidence,ititneed trueevidence, thetrue andthe exhibitsand profferedexhibits theproffered betweenthe connectionbetween sanctity
notproduce neednot Commonwealthneed TheCommonwealth certainty.The moralcertainty. beyonda amoral exhibitsbeyond ofofitsitsexhibits produceevery individual everyindividual
1313 who who came came into into contact contact with with an an item item of of evidence, evidence, nor nor must must it it eliminate eliminate every every hypothetical hypothetical
possibility of tampering.” Commonwealth v.v. Cugnini, tampering." Commonwealth Cugnini, 307 Pa.Super. Pa.Super. 113 (1982) (1982) (internal (internal
citations citations omitted). omitted). A A completed completed chain chain is is “not "not required required so so long long as as the the Commonwealth's Commonwealth's evidence, evidence,
direct direct and and circumstantial, circumstantial, establishes establishes aa reasonable reasonable inference inference that that the the identity identity and and condition condition of of the the
exhibits exhibits have have remained remained the the same same from from the the time time they they were were first first received received until until the the time time of oftrial. trial.
Any Any gaps gaps in in testimony testimony regarding regarding the the chain chain of ofcustody custody go go to to the the weight weight to to be be given given the the testimony, testimony,
not not to to its its admissibility.” admissibility." Id. Id.
The The Commonwealth Commonwealth presented presented extensive extensive testimony testimony and and evidence evidence at at trial trial demonstrating demonstrating
the the chain chain of ofcustody custody of ofthe the cocaine cocaine relating relating to to the the six six controlled controlled buys. buys.
I.I. March March 27, 27, 2019 2019 Controlled Controlled Buy Buy
On OnMarch March 27, 27, 2019, 2019, the the record record evidence evidence demonstrates demonstrates that that law law enforcement enforcement checked checkedthe the
C.I.’s C.l.'s vehicle vehicle and andperson. person. TT, TT, vol. vol. I,I, 62, 62, 4/9/2024. 4/9/2024. Agent AgentJospeh JospehBarna Barnatestified testified that that law law
enforcement enforcement followed followedthe the C.I. C.I. toto the the controlled controlledbuy buy location, location, Garden GardenCity City Plaza, Plaza, and and observed observed
Defendant Defendantget getout outof ofhis hisgirlfriend’s girlfriend'svehicle vehicleand andenter enterinto intothe theC.I.’s C.I.'svehicle. vehicle. Id. Id. atat59, 59, 74. 74.
Defendant Defendantthen thenexited exitedthe thecar carand andlaw lawenforcement enforcementfollowed followedthe theC.I., C.I.,with withconstant constantsurveillance, surveillance,
totoaapredetermined predeterminedlocation. location. Id. Id.atat75. 75. The TheC.I. C.I.handed handedover overwhat whatlooked lookedtotobe beaahalf halfounce ounceof of
cocaine. cocaine. Id. Id.atat75-76. 75-76. Agent AgentBarna Barnacredibly crediblytestified testifiedthat thatno noone oneelse elseinteracted interactedwith withthe theC.I. C.I.oror
went wentinto intothe theC.I.’s C.I.'svehicle. vehicle. Id. Id.atat76. 76. The Thesubstance substancewas wasthen thentaken takenimmediately immediatelytotothe the
Monroeville MonroevillePolice PoliceDepartment. Department. Id. Id.atat81; 81;see seealso alsoJury JuryTrial, Trial,4/9/2024, 4/9/2024,Commonwealth’s Commonwealth'sEx. Ex.3.3.
The Thecocaine cocainewas wasentered enteredonto ontothe theevidence evidencereport reportlog. log. Id. Id.atat83-84; 83-84;see seealso alsoJury JuryTrial, Trial,4/9/2024, 4/9/2024,
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth'sEx. Ex.4.4. The Theevidence evidenceseized seizedfrom fromthe thecontrolled controlledbuy buywas wasput putininan anenvelope envelope
and andthen thenthe theenvelope envelopewas wassealed sealedwith withevidence evidencetape tapethat thatisistamperproof. tamperproof. Id. Id.atat131-132. 131-132. The The
1414 evidence remained sealed after it was was packaged on March 27, 27, 2019. 2019. Id. Id. at at 132; 132; see also Jury
Trial, Trial, 4/9/2024, 4/9/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 12. 12.
II. II. June 13, 13, 2019 Controlled Buy Buy
On On June June 13, 13, 2024, 2024, Agent Agent Bama Barna searched searched the C.I.’s C.I.'s vehicle vehicle and and person. person. Id. Id. at at 91-92. 91-92. The The
C.I. C.I. was was then then followed to to the the parking parking lot lot and and was was continued continued to to be be surveilled. surveilled. Id. Id. at at 97. 97.
Defendant Defendant arrived arrived at at the the Speedway Speedway gas gas station station in in Monroeville. Monroeville. Id. Id. at at 101. 101. He He got got into into the the C.I.’s C.I.'s
vehicle vehicle for for less less than than aa minute, minute, exited, exited, and and then then drove drove away. away. Id. Id. The The record record evidence evidence
demonstrates demonstrates that that the the C.I. C.I. was was then then followed followed to to aa predetermined predetermined location location where where the the C.I. C.I. was was
searched searched and and provided provided the the controlled controlled substance substance to to law law enforcement. enforcement. Id. Id. at at 103. 103. Agent Agent Bama Barna
testified testified that that no no one one else else interacted interacted with with the the C.I. C.I. or or went went into into the the C.I.’s C.I.'s vehicle. vehicle. Id. Id. at at 1 1-1 12. 111-112.
The The substance substance was was then then taken taken back back to to Monroeville Monroeville Police Police Department. Department. Id. Id. atat 105; 105; see see also also Jury Jury
Trial, Trial, 4/9/2024, 4/9/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 7 7.. The The controlled controlled substance substance was was placed placed in in aa sealed sealed
envelope envelope and and entered entered into into evidence evidence that that day. day. Id. Id. at at 108, 108, 133; 133; see see also also Jury Jury Trial, Trial, 4/9/2024, 4/9/2024,
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 13. 13.
III. III. July17. July 17, 2019 2019 Controlled ControlledBuy Buy
On OnJuly July 17, 17, 2019, 2019, aacontrolled controlledbuy buytook tookplace place atatthe theExxon Exxonnear nearthe thezoo zoo in inAllegheny Allegheny
County. County. Id. Id. atat 115-116. 115-116. The Thedetectives detectives searched searchedthe theC.I.’s C.I.'sperson personand andvehicle. vehicle. Id. Id. atat 113-114. 113-114.
The The detectives detectives then thenfollowed followedthe theC.I. C.I. totothe thelocation. location. Id. Id. atat 118. The 118. TheC.I. C.I. did didnot notinteract interactwith with
anyone anyoneelse elsebesides besides Defendant. Defendant. Id. Id. atat 122-123. 122-123. The Thecontrolled controlledbuy buyoccurred occurredand andthe theC.I. C.I.
returned returnedtotoaapredetermined predeterminedlocation. location. Id. Id.atat 123. 123. The Thesuspected suspectedcocaine cocainewas wascollected collectedby bylaw law
enforcement, enforcement,placed placedininaasealed sealedevidence evidenceenvelope envelopeand andentered enteredinto intoevidence evidencewith withthe the
Monroeville MonroevillePolice PoliceDepartment Departmenton onthe thesame sameday. day. Id. Id.atat 125, 125, 134-135; 134-135;see seealso alsoJury JuryTrial, Trial,
4/9/2024, 4/9/2024,Commonwealth’s Commonwealth'sEx. Ex. 10 10and and14. 14.
1515 IV. IV. Evidence Maintained at at Monroeville Police Department Department
Detective Robert Robert Renk testified that that the evidence from from the March 27, 27, 2019, 2019, June June 13, 13,
2019 and July 17, 17, 2019 controlled buys buys were were sealed sealed in envelopes envelopes with with tamperproof evidence
tape. tape. Id. Id. at at 278. 278. Detective Detective Renk Renk further further testified testified that that evidence evidence maintained maintained at at the the Monroeville Monroeville
Police Police Department Department was was placed placed in in aa “slam "slam locker,” locker," which which locks locks after after itit isis shut. shut. Id. Id. at at 277. 277. The The
slam slam locker locker can can only only be be opened opened by by the the evidence evidence custodian custodian from from inside inside the the evidence evidence room. room. Id. Id.
Once Once closed, closed, the the slam slam locker locker cannot cannot be be opened opened from from the the outside. outside. Id. Id. The The evidence evidence remains remains in in the the
evidence evidence room room until until itit isis signed signed out. out. Id. Id. at at 275-276. 275-276.
V. V. Evidence Evidence Transferred Transferred to to Washington Washington County County District District Attorney Attorney Drug Drug Task Task Force Force Office Office
Agent Agent Barna Barna testified testified that, that, on on February February 4, 4, 2021, 2021, he he signed signed the the three three items items of ofevidence evidence out out
of ofthe the Monroeville Monroeville Police Police Department Department evidence evidence room. room. Id. Id. atat 87. 87. Agent Agent Barna Barna drove drove the the
evidence evidence down down to to Washington Washington County County where where he he immediately immediately signed signed and and completed completed aa form form
transferring transferring the the evidence evidence over over to to Detective Detective Fichter. Fichter. Id. Id. atat 88. 88. Detective Detective Fichter Fichter also also sisigned gn ed the the
form. form. Id.,- Id.; see see also also Jury Jury Trial, Trial, 4/9/2024, 4/9/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 11. 11.
Detective’ Detective' Fichter Fichtertestified testifiedthat, that, on onFebruary February4,4, 2021, 2021,Agent AgentBarna Barnabrought broughtthe the evidence evidence
from fromthe theMarch March 27, 27, 2019, 2019, June June 13, 13, 2019 2019 and andJuly July 17, 17, 2019 2019 controlled controlledbuys buystotothe theWashington Washington
County CountyDrug DrugTask TaskForce Forceoffice officewhere whereDetective DetectiveFichter Fichterthen thentook tookcustody custodyof ofit.it. TT, TT, vol. vol. II, II,472, 472,
4/10/2024. 4/10/2024. After Aftertaking takingcustody custodyof ofthe theevidence, evidence,Detective DetectiveFichter Fichterplaced placedevidence evidencetags tagson onthe the
items items and andthen thenhe heplaced placedthe theevidence evidenceininthe thetemporary temporaryholding holdinglocker. locker. Id. Id. Detective DetectiveFichter Fichter
explained explainedthat thatthere thereisisaalog logthat thathas hastotobeen beencompleted completedwhen whenevidence evidenceisisplaced placedininthe thetemporary temporary
holding holdinglocker. locker. Id. Id. atat466. 466. He Heexplained explainedthat thataavery veryrudimentary rudimentarylog logisisutilized utilizedwhich whichincludes includes
the theincident incidentnumber, number,the theofficer’s officer'sname, name,and andaashort shortdescription descriptionof ofthe theevidence evidencethat thatisisbeing being
placed placedininthe thetemporary temporarylocker. locker. Id. Id.atat467. 467. Detective DetectiveFichter Fichtertestified testifiedthat thatthe theevidence evidencereceived received
16 16 from from Agent Agent Barna was was placed in in the temporary locker and logged onto a log log sheet sheet to denotate
that that he received three evidence bags bags relating to Jason Woodall's oodall's case from from the Attorney
General’s General's Office. Office. Id. Id. at at 468; 468; see also Jury Trial, Trial, 4/10/2024, 4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 25. 25. Since
there was was no incident, incident, it was was placed into the temporary locker locker on the same same day and time that that
Agent Agent Barna dropped it off. off. Id. Id. at at 472. 472.
Detective Richard Gluth, Gluth, director of the Washington Washington County District District Attorney Drug Drug Task
Force, Force, testified at at trial. trial. TT, TT, vol. vol. Ill, III, 681-747, 681-747, 4/11/2024. 1/2024. Part Part of Detective Gluth’s Gluth's duties duties
include serving serving as as an evidence evidence custodian. custodian. Id. Id. at at 682. 682. Generally, Generally, Detective Detective Gluth either directly
signs signs the the packaged item item into into evidence evidence or or at at his his next next available available opportunity, opportunity, withdraws withdraws the the
evidence evidence from from the the receiving receiving locker. locker. Id. Id. He He examines examines it, it, corrects corrects any any mistakes mistakes made made on on it, it, and and
ensures ensures its its packaged packaged properly properly and and labeled labeled properly. properly. Id. Id. at at 682-683. 682-683. He He then then completes completes an an
evidence evidence log, log, which which lists lists the the items items of of evidence evidence and and some some basic basic information infonnation on on the the evidence evidence log. log.
Id. Id. at at 683. 683. Detective Detective Gluth Gluth then then enters enters the the evidence evidence into into the the BEAST, BEAST, aa state state computer computer system system
used used to to log log evidence evidence for for laboratory laboratory analysis. analysis. Id. Id. After After pre-log pre-log isis completed, completed, Detective Detective Gluth Gluth
signs signs itit into into evidence evidence with with the the date date and and places places itit into into their their evidence evidence room. room. Id. Id.
The The evidence evidence received received by by the the Washington Washington County County Drug Drug Task Task Force, Force, from from Agent Agent Barna Barna
on on February February 4, 4, 2021, 2021, was was assigned assigned another another label label with with Washington Washington County’s County's incident incident number. number. Id. Id.
at at 684; 684; see see also also Jury Jury Trial, Trial, 4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 37. 37. The The evidence evidence stayed stayed in in the the
temporary temporary secured
Detective Detective Gluth
into secured locker locker from
Gluth entered
into evidence, from February
entered all
evidence, Gluth Gluth placed February 4,
all three
placed the 4, 2021
three items
the evidence 2021 to
items into to February February 12,
into evidence
evidence in evidence on
in aa box 12, 2021. 2021. Id.
on February
box with Id. at
February 12,
with the at 689-690.
12, 2021.
the completed completed lab 689-690.
2021. Id. Once
lab submission I. Once entered entered
submission reports reports for for
purposes purposes of oftransferring transferring the the evidence evidence to to the the crime crime lab lab for fortesting. testing. Id. Id. atat 692; 692; see see also also Jury Jury Trial, Trial,
4/11/2024, 4/11/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 38 38 and and 39. 39.
17 17 VI. VI. Evidence Submitted Crime Crime Laboratory
Detective Gluth testified that that he he signed out out the evidence evidence from from the March 27, 27, 2019, 2019, June June
13, 13, 2019 and July 17, 17, 2019 controlled buys buys and transported transported the items items to the Greensburg Regional Regional
Laboratory (also known known as as the Pennsylvania State State Police Police Crime Crime Laboratory) Laboratory) on February February 17, 17,
2021. 2021. Id. Id. at at 698; 698; see see also also Jury Jury Trial, Trial, 4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 40. 40.
VII. VII. Evidence Evidence Tested at at Crime Crime Laboratory Laboratory
Sara Sara Lundolh Lundolh testified testified at at trial. trial. TT, TT, vol. vol. II, II, 556, 556, 4/10/2024. 4/10/2024. She She isis aa forensic forensic scientist scientist
who who specializes specializes in in drug drug identification. identification. Id. Id. Lundolh Lundolh was was employed employed by by the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State State
Police Police in in 2021. 2021. Id. Id. Lundolh Lundolh testified, testified, while while working working at at the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State State Police Police Crime Crime
Laboratory, Laboratory, that that she she received received evidence evidence envelopes envelopes relating relating to to the the March March 27, 27, 2019, 2019, June June 13, 13, 2019 2019
and and July July 17, 17, 2019 2019 controlled controlled buys. buys. Id. Id. at at 559-560. 559-560. Lundolh Lundolh performed performed testing testing on on each each item item of of
evidence. evidence. Id. Id. Each Each of ofthe the three three items items tested tested was was identified identified as as cocaine. cocaine. Id. Id. atat 562, 562, 565, 565, 567. 567.
Lundolh Lundolh testified testified that that when when she she concluded concludedher hertesting testing on on all all three three items items of ofevidence, evidence, she she sealed sealed
the the envelopes envelopes at at the the bottom, bottom, using using blue blue tape. tape. Id. Id. atat 567-568. 567-568. Lundol, Lundol, who who inspected inspectedthe the
envelopes envelopes atat trial, trial, testified testifiedthat that envelopes envelopes remained remained in inthe the same same sealed sealed condition condition atattrial trial as as when when
they theywere were sent sentback backto to the theWashington WashingtonCounty CountyDrug DrugTask TaskForce. Force. Id. Id.
VIII. VIII. Evidence Evidence Returned ReturnedtotoWashington WashingtonCounty CountyDrug DrugTask TaskForce Force
On OnApril April 13, 13, 2021, 2021, Detective DetectiveGluth Gluthobtained obtainedthe theevidence evidencefrom fromthe thelaboratory, laboratory,
transported transportedititback backtotothe theWashington WashingtonCounty CountyDrug DrugTask TaskForce Forceoffice officeand andsigned signedititback backinto into
evidence. evidence.Id. Id. atat699. 699.
IX. IX. Evidence EvidencePresented PresentedatatTrial Trial
18 18 Detective Gluth testified testified that that on April April 9, 9, 2024, 2024, he signed out out the evidence and transported
the items items to the courtroom courtroom for the jury trial. trial. Id. Id. at at 699, 699, 717, 717, 727; 727; see also Jury Trial, Trial, 4/1 1/2024, 4/11/2024,
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 40. 40.
X. X. August August 31, 31, 2019 Controlled Controlled Buy Buy
On On August August 31, 31, 2019, 2019, the the C.I. C.I. was was searched searched by by Detective Detective Fichter. Fichter. TT, TT, vol. vol. II, II, 412, 412,
4/10/2024. 4/10/2024. The The C.I. C.I. stayed stayed within within view view of ofthe the detectives detectives at at all all times. times. Id. Id. Defendant Defendant showed showed up up
to to the the residence residence and and the the C.I. C.I. got got into into Defendant’s Defendant's vehicle. vehicle. Id. Id. at at 414. 414. The The detectives detectives observed observed aa
hand-to-hand hand-to-hand exchange. exchange. Id. Id. at at 416. 416. The The C.I. C.I. then then exited exited the the vehicle vehicle and and Defendant Defendant left. left. Id. Id.
Detective Detective Fichter Fichter testified testified that thatthe the narcotics narcotics were were secured secured from from the the C.I. C.I. Id. Id. The The controlled controlled
substances substances were were returned returned to to the the District District Attorney’s Attorney's Drug Drug Task Task Force Force Office Office to to process process the the
evidence. evidence. Id. Id. at at 417. 417. The The evidence evidence was was put put in in aa plastic plastic bag bag and and sealed sealed with with evidence evidence tape tape and and
secured secured into into aa temporary temporary evidence evidence locker. locker. Id. Id. at at 418. 418. Detective Detective Fichter Fichter testified testified that that the the
temporary temporary locker locker isis aa locker locker with with aapadlock padlockthat that only only the the supervisor, supervisor, Chief ChiefGluth, Gluth, has has access access to. to.
Id. Id. Chief ChiefGluth Gluth isis responsible responsible for forplacing placing evidence evidence into into the themain main evidence evidence room. room. Id. Id. atat418-419; 418-419;
see see also also Jury Jury Trial, Trial, 4/10/2024, 4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth'sEx. Ex. 16 16 and and 18. 18. Detective Detective Fichter Fichter explained explainedthat that
there there isis aa log logthat thathas has to tobeen beencompleted completedwhen when evidence evidence isisplaced placedin inthe thetemporary temporaryholding holding
locker. locker. TT, TT, vol. vol. II, II, 460, 460, 4/10/2024. 4/10/2024. He Heexplained explainedthat thataavery veryrudimentary rudimentarylog logisisutilized utilizedwhich which
includes includesthe the incident incidentnumber, number,the theofficer officername, name, and andaashort shortdescription descriptionof ofthe theevidence evidencethat thatisis
being beingplaced placedininthe thetemporary temporarylocker. locker. Id:, Id.;see seealso alsoJury JuryTrial, Trial,4/10/2024, 4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth'sEx. Ex.
25. 25.
On OnSeptember September3,3,2019, 2019,Detective DetectiveGluth Gluthentered enteredthe thecocaine cocaineinto intoevidence. evidence.TT, TT,vol. vol.Ill, III,
712, 712,4/1 1/2024; see 4/11/2024; seealso alsoJury JuryTrial, Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sEx. Ex.45. 45. The Theevidence evidencewas was
signed signedout outby byGluth Gluthand andtransported transportedtotothe thecrime crimelaboratory laboratoryon onSeptember September24, 24,2019. 2019. Id. Id.atat714. 714.
19 19 On January January 29, 29, 2020, 2020, Gluth retrieved retrieved the evidence from from the crime laboratory after it was was tested tested
and signed signed it back into evidence at at the Washington County Drug Task Force office. office. Id. Id. at at 717; 717;
see also Jury Jury Trial, Trial, 4/11/2024, 1/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 48. 48. On On April April 9, 9, 2024, 2024, Detective Gluth
signed signed the evidence and transported it to the courthouse for the jury trial. trial. Id. Id.
XL XI. September September 18, 18, 2019 Controlled Buy Buy
On On September September 18, 18, 2019, 2019, Detective Fichter Fichter testified that that the C.I.’s C.I.'s person and vehicle was was
searched. searched. TT, TT, vol. vol. II, II, 432, 432, 4/10/2024. 4/10/2024. The The team team set set up surveillance surveillance of the location of the buy. buy.
Id. Id. at at 433. 433. The The C.I. C.I. stepped stepped out out of of his his vehicle when when Defendant Defendant arrived. arrived. Id. Id. at at 434. 434. Defendant Defendant
opened opened the the C.I.’s C.1.'s passenger passenger door, door, placed something something in in the the vehicle vehicle and and then then aa hand-to-hand hand-to-hand
interaction interaction was was observed observed between the the C.I. C.I. and and Defendant. Defendant. Id. Id. At At no no point point did did the the C.I. C.I. leave leave
Detective Detective Fichter’s Fichter's sight. sight. Id. Id. at at 434-435. 434-435. Detective Detective Fichter Fichter was was able able to to positively positively identify identify
Defendant. Defendant. Id. Id. at at 437. 437. After After Defendant Defendant left left the the area, area, Detective Detective Fichter Fichter search search the the C.I.’s C.I.'s vehicle vehicle
and and recovered recovered cocaine cocaine that that was was placed placed in in the the center center console console by by Defendant. Defendant. Id. Id. at at 440. 440. The The
cocaine cocaine was was brought brought back back to to the the Washington Washington County County Drug Drug Task Task Force Force Office, Office, packaged packaged in in an an
evidence evidence envelope envelope and and placed placed in in the the temporary temporary locker. locker. Id. Id. at at 440-441; 440-441; see see also also Jury Jury Trial, Trial,
4/10/2024, 4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 19, 19, 20, 20, and and 25. 25.
On On September September 22, 22, 2019, 2019, Detective Detective Gluth Gluth entered entered the the cocaine cocaine into into evidence. evidence. TT, TT, vol. vol. Ill, III,
720, 720, 4/1 1/2024; see 4/11/2024; see also also Jury Jury Trial, Trial, 4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 49. 49. The The evidence evidence was was
signed signed out out by by Gluth Gluth and and transported transported to to the the crime crime laboratory laboratory for for testing testing on on September September 24, 24, 2019. 2019.
Id. Id. at at 721-722; 721-722; see see also also Jury Jury Trial, Trial, 4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 51. 51. On On January January 29, 29, 2020, 2020,
Gluth Gluth retrieved retrieved the the evidence evidence from from the the crime crime laboratory laboratory after after itit was was tested tested and and signed signed itit back back into into
evidence evidence atat the the Washington Washington County County Drug Drug Task Task Force Force Office. Office. Id. Id. atat 722; 722; see see also also Jury Jury Trial, Trial,
4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 49. 49. On On April April 9,9, 2024, 2024, Detective Detective Gluth Gluth signed signed the the evidence evidence and and
20 20 transported it to the courthouse for the jury trial. trial. Id.; Id.; see see also also Jury Trial, 1/2024, Trial, 4/11/2024,
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 52. 52.
XII. XII. September September 23, 23, 2019 Controlled Buy Buy
On On September September 23, 23, 2019, 2019, law law enforcement enforcement searched searched the the C.I. C.I. TT, TT, vol. vol. II, II, 449, 449, 4/10/2024. 4/10/2024.
Surveillance Surveillance was was set set up up of of the the GetGo GetGo in in Washington Washington County. County. Id. Id. at at 451. 451. The The C.I. C.I. was was followed followed
by by law law enforcement enforcement to to the the location. location. Id. Id. Once Once Defendant Defendant arrived, arrived, the the C.I. C.I. got got into into Defendant’s Defendant's
vehicle. vehicle. Id. Id. There There was was an an exchange exchange then then both both individuals individuals got got out out of ofDefendant’s Defendant's vehicle. vehicle. Id. Id. at at
452. 452. The The C.I. C.I. was was followed followed by by law law enforcement enforcement to to aa predetermined predetermined location location where where Detective Detective
Fichter Fichter obtained obtained cocaine cocaine which which the the C.I. C.I. had had purchased purchased from from Defendant. Defendant. Id. Id. at at 454. 454. The The
evidence evidence was was then then packaged packaged and and placed placed into into the the lockers lockers that that could couldnot not be be re-accessed. re-accessed. Id. Id. atat
459-460; 459-460; see see also also Jury Jury Trial, Trial, 4/10/2024, 4/10/2024, Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Ex. Ex. 22, 22, 23, 23, 24, 24, and and45. 45.
On On September September26, 26, 2019, 2019, Detective Detective Gluth Gluthremoved removedthe the cocaine cocaine from fromthe thetemporary temporary
evidence evidence locker locker and andentered enteredthe theitem iteminto into evidence. evidence. TT, TT, vol. vol. Ill, III, 724, 724, 4/1 1/2024; see 4/11/2024; see also also Jury Jury
Trial, Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sEx. Ex. 53. 53. The The evidence evidencewas was signed signedout outby byGluth Gluthand and
transported transportedtotothe thecrime crimelaboratory laboratoryfor fortesting testingon onOctober October28, 28,2019. 2019. Id. Id. atat726; 726;see seealso alsoJury Jury
Trial, Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sEx. Ex. 55. 55. On OnJanuary January29, 29,2020, 2020,Gluth Gluthretrieved retrievedthe theevidence evidence
from fromthe thecrime crimelaboratory laboratoryafter afterititwas wastested testedand andsigned signedititback backinto intoevidence evidenceatatthe theWashington Washington
County CountyDrug DrugTask TaskForce ForceOffice. Office.Id. Id.atat727; 727;see seealso alsoJury JuryTrial, Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sEx. Ex.
56. 56. On OnApril April9,9,2024, 2024,Detective DetectiveGluth Gluthsigned signedthe theevidence evidenceand andtransported transporteditittotothe thecourthouse courthouse
for forthe thejury jurytrial. trial.Id. Id.atat727; 727;see seealso alsoJury JuryTrial, Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth's56. 56.
Evidence EvidenceReceived Receivedby byCrime CrimeLaboratory Laboratory
Casey CaseyCastle, Castle,aalab labtechnician technicianfor forthe thePennsylvania PennsylvaniaState StatePolice PoliceCrime CrimeLab, Lab,received receivedand and
tested testedthe theevidence evidencerelating relatingtotothe theAugust August31, 31,2019, 2019,September September18, 18,2019 2019and andSeptember September23, 23,2019 2019
2121 controlled controlled buys. buys. TT, TT, vol. vol. Ill, III, 540-541, 540-541, 4/1 1/2024; see 4/11/2024; see also also Jury Jury Trial, Trial, 4/1 1/2024, 4/11/2024,
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Exhibit Exhibit 18, 18, 20, 20, 24. 24. Castle Castle testified testified that that the the evidence evidence received received by by the the crime crime
laboratory laboratory which which she she tested tested was was submitted submitted by by Detective Detective Gluth. Gluth. Id. Id. at at 541. 541. Castle Castle explained explained that that
one one of of the the first first things things she she does does when when she she receives receives evidence evidence is is to to look look to to make make sure sure that that there there is is aa
seal seal with with the the proper proper signature. signature. Id. Id. Typically, Typically, the the laboratory laboratory technicians technicians check check the the case case
information information to to make make sure sure that that itit isis consistent consistent with with the the request request form form that that they they received. received. Id. Id. In In this this
case, case, all all three three exhibits exhibits that that she she tested tested were were sealed sealed with with the the red red tamperproof tamperprooftape. tape. Id. Id. Castle Castle
testified testified that that she she would would have have noted noted if there was ifthere was any any improper improper seal seal or or problems problems with with packaging. packaging.
Id. Id. at at 542. 542. Castle Castle further further testified testified that that the the evidence evidence envelopes envelopes showed showed no no signed signed that that they they had had
been been tempered tempered with. with. Id. Id.
Castle Castle explained explainedthat thatwhen when evidence evidence isis received receivedby by the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State State Police Police Crime Crime
Laboratory, Laboratory, itit isis assigned assigned aa lab lab number number set set forth forthon on aayellow yellow label label and andhas has Bureau Bureau of ofForensic Forensic
Service Servicetape tapeused usedto to seal sealthe thebottom bottomof ofthe the envelope envelopewhich whichbears bears Castle’s Castle's signature^ signature, along alongwith with
the thedate dateand andtime. time. Id. Id. atat543-544. 543-544.
Castle Castleopened openedthe thesealed sealedevidence evidenceenvelopes envelopeswhile whileon onthe thewitness witnessstand standrelating relatingtotothe the
August August31, 31,2019, 2019, September September18, 18,2019 2019and andSeptember September23, 23,2019 2019controlled controlledbuys. buys. Id. Id. atat544, 551, 544,551,
553; 553;see seealso alsoJury JuryTrial, Trial,4/1 1/2024, Commonwealth’s 4/11/2024, Commonwealth'sExhibit Exhibit 18, 18,20, 20,and and24. 24. She Shetestified testifiedthat that
she sheconducted conductedtesting testingon onthe theitems itemsinside insidethe theenvelopes. envelopes. Id. Id. The Theitems itemsininthe thethree threeevidence evidence
envelopes envelopeswere wereall allfound foundtotobe becocaine. cocaine. Id. Id.atat545, 545,552, 552,554; 554; see seealso alsoJury JuryTrial, Trial,4/1 1/2024, 4/11/2024,
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth'sEx. Ex.27, 27,28, 28,and and29. 29. Ms. Ms.Castle Castlepersonally personallyre-seals re-sealsthe theenvelopes envelopesafter aftertesting. testing.
Id. Id.atat555. 555.Afterwards, Afterwards,the theenvelope envelopegoes goesback backtotothe theevidence evidencetechnician technicianwho whoplaces placesititininaa
secure securevault vaultwhere whereititawaits awaitspick pickup upfrom fromthe thesubmitting submittingagency. agency. Id. Id. The Theenvelopes envelopeswere wereininthe the
22 22 same same condition as when Castle sent sent them them back to the Washington County Drug Task Force. Force. Id. Id.
at at 551, 553, 561. 551,553,561.
The The Commonwealth's Commonwealth's extensive evidence presented presented at at trial, trial, as as set set forth in detail detail above, above,
establishes a reasonable inference that that the the identity identity and and condition condition of of the the cocaine cocaine remained remained the the
same same from from the the time time itit was was first first received received until until the the time time of of trial. trial.
Defendant Defendant argues argues that that the the Commonwealth's Commonwealth's witnesses, witnesses, specifically specifically law law enforcement enforcement
officers officers involved involved in in the the investigation, investigation, are are not not credible credible witnesses witnesses and and evidence, evidence, such such as as the the control control
logs, logs, are are not authentic. ItIt isis well not authentic. well established established under under Pennsylvania Pennsylvania law law that that "[t]he "[t]he weight weight of ofthe the
evidence evidence isis exclusively exclusively for for the the finder finder of offact, fact, who who isis free free to to believe believe all, all, none none or or some some of ofthe the
evidence evidence and and to to determine detennine the the credibility credibility of ofwitnesses." witnesses." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Fuentes, Fuentes, 2022 2022 PA PA
Super Super 43, 43, 272 272 A.3d A.3d 51 1, 516 511, 516 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2022); 2022); see see also also Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Ghrist, Ghrist, 873 873 WDA WDA
2015, 2015, 2016 2016 WL WL 5173526, 5173526, at at 66 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. July July 13, 13, 2016). 2016).
Defendant Defendant sets sets forth forth in in his his Concise Concise Statement Statement aa broad broad assertion assertion that that documents documents presented presented
by by the the Commonwealth Commonwealth atat trial trial relating relatingto to chain chainof ofcustody custody were were fabricated fabricated and and fraudulent. fraudulent. This This
Court Court finds finds the the statement statementwholly wholly inadequate inadequate to to state state aa challenge challengeto to the the evidence evidencepresented presented atat
trial. trial. Defendant Defendanthas has failed failedto to develop developmeaningful meaningful argument argumentwith with specific specificreference referencetoto the therecord record
to to support supporthis his claim claimon onappeal appealthat thatthe theevidence evidencepresented presentedatattrial trialregarding regardingevidence evidence control controllogs logs
were were fabricated fabricated or fraudulent. ItItisis suggested orfraudulent. suggestedthat thatDefendant Defendanttherefore thereforehas haswaived waivedreview reviewof ofthe the
claims. claims.
23 23 H. H. Rule Rule 600, 600, 180 Days Days of Pretrial Pretrial Confinement Confinement
"In evaluating Rule “In Rule [600] [600] issues, issues, our our standard of review review of a trial trial court's court's decision is is
whether whether the the trial trial court court abused its its discretion.” discretion." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Hunt, Hunt, 858 858 A.2d A.2d 1234, 1234, 1238 (Pa. (Pa.
Super. Super. 2004) 2004) (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted).
Defendant Defendant argues argues that that he he was was “deprived "deprived of of Rule Rule 600(B), 600(B), (D)(2) (D)(2) & & (E) (E) after after 180 180 days days of of
pretrial pretrial confinement.” confinement." See See Defendant’s Defendant's Concise Concise Statement, Statement, 7/22/2024. 7/22/2024.
Defendant Defendant filed filed aa pro se “Motion prose "Motion Pursuant Pursuant to to Rule Rule 600(B), 600(B), (D)(2) (D)(2) and and (E)” (E)" on on February February
23, 23, 2024 2024 and and presented presented the the Motion Motion to to this this Court Court on on March March 5, 5, 2024. 2024. This This Court Court held held an an
evidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing on on March March 12, 12, 2024 2024 for for the the limited limited purpose purpose of ofdetermining determining whether whether
Defendant Defendant isis entitled entitled to to immediate immediate release release on on nominal nominal bail bailpursuant pursuant to to Rule Rule 600(B), 600(B), (D)(2) (D)(2) and and
(E). (E). See See Rule Rule 600 600 Nominal Nominal Bail Bail Hr’g Hr'g Tr., Tr., 3/12/2024. 3/12/2024. Defendant’s Defendant's motion motion was was denied deniedby by way way of of
Opinion Opinion and and Order Order dated datedMarch March 14, 14, 2024. 2024.
The The reasons reasons for forthe the Court’s Court's March March 14, 14, 2024 2024 Order Orderalready already appear appearof ofrecord record in in said said
Opinion Opinion and andOrder. Order. Therefore, Therefore, this this Court Courthereby hereby incorporates incorporatesthe the same same as as its itsPa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) 1925(a)
Opinion Opinionand and attaches attaches itithereto. hereto. For Forthe thereasons reasonsset setforth forthininthe theMarch March 14, 14,2024 2024 Opinion Opinionand and
Order, Order, this this Court Courtrespectfully respectfullysubmits submitsthat thatits itsorder orderbe beaffirmed affirmedon onthe themerits meritsand andDefendant’s Defendant's
appeal appealbe bedismissed. dismissed.
I.I. Unconstitutionally UnconstitutionallyDenied DeniedBail Bail
Defendant Defendantargues arguesthat thathe hewas wasillegally illegallydeprived deprivedan anopportunity opportunitytotopost postbail bailand andJudge Judge
Valerie ValerieCostanzo Costanzoblatantly blatantlyfailed failedtotostate stateon onthe therecord recordwhy whyshe shedenied deniedDefendant Defendantan anopportunity opportunity
atatbail bailpursuant pursuanttotoPa. Pa.R. R.Crim. Crim.P.P.521(c). 521(c).
24 24 The was initially bail was Defendant's bail that Defendant’s demonstrates that record demonstrates The record by Magisterial denied by initially denied District Magisterial District
Judge 2023. The 14, 2023. April 14, on April Kanalis on Joshua Kanalis Judge Joshua district judge magisterial district The magisterial did not judge did set bail not set on the bail on the
basis made ten had made detectives had (2) detectives two (2) that two basis that attempts to (10) attempts ten (10) arrest Defendant to arrest at his Defendant at residence and his residence and
present. See never present. was never Defendant was Defendant Woodall, MJ-27 Commonwealth v Woodall, See Commonwealth » 01 -CR-00001 14-2021, MJ-27101-CR-0000114-2021,
an evidentiary and an 2023 and 16, 2023 May 16, on May Bail on Set Bail to Set Motion to filed aa Motion Defendant filed Docket. Defendant Criminal Docket. Criminal evidentiary
Barna, and Agent Barna, Defendant, Agent Costanzo. Defendant, Valarie Costanzo. Judge Valarie before Judge 2023 before 20, 2023 June 20, on June held on was held hearing was hearing and
Hr'g Tr., Bail Hr’g Set Bail to Set Motion to Defendant's Motion See Defendant’s hearing. See the hearing. at the testified at Fichter testified Detective Fichter Detective Tr.,
forth aa set forth hearing, set the hearing, presented atat the evidence presented the evidence on the based on Commonwealth, based The Commonwealth, 6/20/2023. The 6/20/2023.
agreedwith Costanzo agreed Judge Costanzo risk. Judge flightrisk. be aaflight maybe Defendantmay whyDefendant Courtwhy the Court to the argumentto detailed argument detailed with
theevidentiary afterthe Bail, after SetBail, Motiontoto Set Defendant'sMotion denyingDefendant’s bydenying argumentby Commonwealth's argument the Commonwealth’s the evidentiary
22, 2023. June22, onJune enteredon orderentered byorder hearing,by hearing, 2023.
Defendant onJuly Motionon PretrialMotion OmnibusPretrial anOmnibus filedan Defendantfiled 2023,which 27,2023, July27, includedaaMotion whichincluded Motion
deniedDefendant’s hearing,denied 2023hearing, 13,2023 October13, theOctober followingthe Costanzo,following JudgeCostanzo, Bail. Judge SetBail. totoSet Defendant's
devoidof entirelydevoid recordisisentirely "therecord stating,“the Opinion,stating, 2024Opinion, 26,2024 January26, herJanuary Bailininher SetBail ToSet MotionTo Motion of
Motionthat PretrialMotion OmnibusPretrial hisOmnibus onhis hearingon thehearing Defendantatatthe byDefendant presentedby waspresented thatwas evidencethat anyevidence any that
indicatesany indicates circumstancesfollowing changeinincircumstances anychange denialof thedenial followingthe Defendant'sinitial ofDefendant’s motiontotoset initialmotion set
amount."See bailamount.” Defendanttotoaabail entitleDefendant nowentitle wouldnow thatwould bailthat bail SeeOpinion andOrder, Opinionand 16,1/26/2024. Order,16, 1/26/2024.
Defendant,ininsupport Defendant, hisargument, ofhis supportof Pa.R.Crim.P.521(c), citestotoPa.R.Crim.P. argument,cites whichrelates 52l(c),which bail relatestotobail
forththat settingforth authoritysetting legalauthority anylegal citetotoany notcite doesnot Defendantdoes guilt.Defendant findingofofguilt. aftera afinding after that
herJune Costanzo,ininher JudgeCostanzo, thatJudge determinedthat overturnedififititisisdetermined shouldbebeoverturned convictionshould Defendant'sconviction Defendant’s June
fordenying reasonsfor thereasons specifythe adequatelyspecify notadequately didnot Order,did 2023Order, 22,2023 22, Defendant's“Direct bail. Defendant’s denying.bail. "Direct
overturnthe argumentotooverturn hisargument supporthis notsupport doesnot thatdoes caselawthat irrelevantcaselaw citestotoirrelevant briefcites Appeal"brief Appeal the
thiscase. convictionininthis conviction case.
2525 The Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Supreme has clearly Court has Supreme Court that even stated that clearly stated if bail even if was improperly bail was set improperly set
no prophylactic is no there is trial, there to trial, prior to prior rule that prophylactic rule new trial that aa new is required. trial is See Commonwealth required. See Commonwealth vv
537 (1981). Pa. 537 494 Pa. Floyd, 494 Floyd, (1981).
The Order already 2024 Order 26, 2024 January 26, Court's January the Court’s for the reasons for The reasons already appear in said ofrecord in appear of said
Opinion Court hereby this Court Therefore, this Order. Therefore, and Order. Opinion and hereby incorporates same as the same incorporates the as part its Pa.R.A.P. ofits part of Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) Opinion. 1925(a) the reasons For the Opinion. For set forth reasons set above, this forth above, Court submits this Court that Defendant’s submits that claim Defendant's claim
be dismissed. should be should dismissed.
J.J. Defendant precluded Defendant from entering precluded from evidence for entering evidence trialpurposes fortrial to show purposes to show motive targetDefendant suggestively target motive of law enforcement wanting to suggestively of law enforcement wanting to Defendant
“In theadmissibility onthe rulingon court's ruling trial court's reviewingaatrial "Inreviewing evidence, [the] ofevidence, admissibilityof of standardof [the] standard
review Commonwealthv.v.Thompson, deference. Commonwealth ofdeference. oneof reviewisisone PASuper 2014PA Thompson,2014 106A.3d 273, 106 Super273, 742(Pa. A.3d742 (Pa.
Super. theadmissibility concerningthe Questionsconcerning 2014). Questions Ct.2014). Super. Ct. evidenceare ofevidence admissibilityof within“the arewithin sound "thesound
discretion andits court,and trialcourt, thetrial ofthe discretionof willnot discretionwill itsdiscretion bereversed notbe absentaaclear reversedabsent abuseof clearabuse of
discretion."Id. discretion.” Id.
Defendant objection, Commonwealth'sobjection, theCommonwealth's sustainingthe erredininsustaining Courterred theCourt arguesthe nextargues Defendantnext
motiveofoflaw showedmotive arguesshowed Defendantargues thatDefendant evidencethat offeringevidence fromoffering himfrom precludinghim therebyprecluding thereby law
targetDefendant. suggestivelytarget wantingtotosuggestively enforcementwanting enforcement Defendant.
Defendant soughta apretrial Defendantsought pretrialruling Commonwealth'sobjections regardingCommonwealth’s rulingregarding relatingtoto objectionsrelating
several trial.See presentatatrial. wantedtotopresent Defendantwanted thatDefendant documenthat severaldocument ConferenceHr’g PretrialConference SeePretrial 22, Tr.,22, Hr'gTr.,
In.In.13-21; 33,In.In.11-18, 13-21;33, 4/8/2024. Defendant 11-18,4/8/2024. setforth Defendantset thatheheintended forththat establishatatrial intendedtotoestablish trialthat that
law retaliation. formofofretaliation. donesosoasasa aform haddone case,had instantcase, theinstant chargesininthe thecharges filingthe enforcement,ininfiling lawenforcement,
Defendantexplained Defendant couldestablish thathehecould explainedthat retaliationthrough establishretaliation severaldocuments throughseveral whichhehe documentswhich
2626 wanted wanted to to present present at at trial trial and and have have admitted admitted into into evidence. evidence. Id. Id. at at 17. 17. Defendant Defendant asserted asserted that that the the
exhibits exhibits he he sought sought to to use use at at trial trial were were self-authenticating self-authenticating documents. documents. Defendant Defendant further further stated stated
that that he he did did not not intend intend on on calling calling any any witnesses witnesses to to testify testify at at trial trial to to authenticate authenticate the the documents documents or or
further further develop develop his his claim claim regarding retaliation. retaliation. Id. Id. at at 21. 21.
The The Commonwealth Commonwealth did did not not stipulate stipulate to to the the issue issue of of authentication. authentication. “Unless "Unless stipulated, stipulated, to to
satisfy satisfy the the requirement requirement of of authenticating authenticating or or identifying identifying an an item item of of evidence, evidence, the the proponent proponent must must
produce produce evidence evidence sufficient sufficient to to support support aa finding finding that that the the item item isis what what the the proponent proponent claims claims itit is.” is."
Pa.R.E. Pa.R.E. 901. 901.
The The Court, Court, in in an an attempt attempt to to fully fully develop develop the the record, record, reviewed reviewed each each exhibit exhibit in in detail detail with with
the the parties parties and and ruled ruled on on objections objections made made by by the the Commonwealth. Commonwealth. Id. Id. atat 25 25 -54. -54.
Defendant Defendant sought sought to to use use atat trial trial aa copy copy of ofaa document documenttitled titled Initial Initial Complaint. Complaint. Defendant Defendant
explained explainedthat thatthe the document document isis aa copy copy of ofaa civil civil complaint complaintdated dated September September 13, 13, 2018 2018 which whichhe he
filed filedagainst againstMonroeville MonroevillePolice Police Officer OfficerLouis Louis Curio Curio and andPennsylvania Pennsylvania Office Officeof ofAttorney Attorney
General GeneralAgent AgentKuneo. Kuneo. Id. Id. atat25; 25;see seealso alsoDefendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial PretrialMotion MotionBriefing, Briefing,
3/7/2024, 3/7/2024,Exhibit ExhibitI.I. Defendant Defendantacknowledged acknowledgedthat thatOfficer OfficerCurio Curio and andAgent AgentKuneo Kuneowere werenot not
directly directlyrelated relatedtotothe thepresent presentcase. case. Id. Id. atat20, 20,In. In. 11-14. 11-14. The TheCommonwealth Commonwealthobjected objectedtotothe the
document documentbeing beingpresented presentedatattrial trialand andargued arguedthe thedocument documentwas wasirrelevant irrelevantsince sinceititdid didnot notrelate relate
totothe thepresent presentcase caseand andthe theofficers officersreferenced referencedininthe thecivil civilcomplaint complaintwere werenot nottestifying testifyingatattrial. trial.
The TheCommonwealth Commonwealthfurther furtherargued arguedthat thatthe thedocument documentwould wouldbe beconfusing confusingtotothe thejury. jury. Id. Id.atat26. 26.
The TheCourt Courtsustained sustainedthe theCommonwealth’s Commonwealth'sobjection, objection,ruling rulingthat thatthe theexhibit exhibitwas wasirrelevant irrelevant
totothe thepresent presentcase caseand andwould wouldbe behighly highlyconfusing confusingtotothe thejury. jury. Id. Id.atat34. 34. Upon Uponreview reviewof ofthe the
27 27 record, the Court record, the Court is is satisfied satisfied with with its its decision decision to to sustain, sustain, and and explanation for sustaining, explanation for sustaining, the the
7 Commonwealth's relevance Commonwealth's relevance objection. objection.7
Defendant sought Defendant to introduce sought to introduce into into evidence evidence aa Monroeville Monroeville Police Police Department Department
Investigation report Investigation regarding aa fraud report regarding fraud investigation. investigation. Id. at 32, Id. at ln. 21-25; 32, In. 21-25; see see also Defendant's also Defendant’s
Omnibus Pretrial Omnibus Pretrial Motion Motion Briefing, Briefing, 3/7/2024, 3/7/2024, Defendant’s Defendant's Ex. Ex. B. The Commonwealth B. The Commonwealth objected objected
to the to the document document on on grounds grounds of ofrelevance relevance and andargued arguedthe the document documentwould wouldbe beconfusing confusingtotothe the
jury. "Relevance jury. Relevance isisthe thethreshold thresholdfor foradmissibility ofevidence.” admissibilityof evidence." Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Tyson, 119 Tyson, 119
A.3d353, A.3d 353,358 358(Pa. (Pa. Super. Super.2015). 2015). Pursuant PursuanttotoRule Ruleof ofEvidence Evidence401, 401,evidence evidenceisisrelevant relevantif:if:“(a) "(a)
itithas hasany tendencytotomake anytendency makeaafact factmore moreororless lessprobable thanititwould probablethan wouldbe bewithout withoutthe theevidence evidence
and(b) and thefact (b)the factisisof ofconsequence consequenceinindetermining determiningthe theaction.” action." Pa.R.E. Pa.R.E.401. 401. Moreover, Moreover,
"[e]vidence [e]videnceisisrelevant relevantififititlogically tendstotoestablish logicallytends establishaamaterial materialfact factininthe thecase, case,tends tendstotomake makeaa
factatatissue fact issuemore moreororless lessprobable probableororsupports supportsaareasonable reasonableinference inferenceororpresumption presumptionregarding regardinga a
materialfact. material fact."Tyson, 119A.3d Tyson,119 A.3datat358. 358. However, However,“[t]he courtmay "[t]hecourt excluderelevant mayexclude relevantevidence evidenceitit
itsitsprobative probativevalue valueisisoutweighed outweighedby bythe thedanger of... unfairprejudice, dangerof...unfair confusingthe prejudice,confusing theissues, issues,
misleadingthe misleading thejury, unduedelay, jury,undue delay,wasting time,ororneedlessly wastingtime, needlesslypresenting cumulativeevidence.” presentingcumulative evidence."
RuleofofEvidence Rule Evidence403. 403. This ThisCourt Courtsustained sustainedthe theCommonwealth’s Commonwealth'srelevance relevanceobjection objectionasasthe the
MonroevillePolice Monroeville PoliceDepartment Investigationreport DepartmentInvestigation wasentirely reportwas unrelatedtotothe entirelyunrelated thepresent case. presentcase.
Defendantsought Defendant soughttotointroduce introduceinto intoevidence evidencecopies copiesofofemails emailsbetween betweenthird thirdparties partiesnot not
testifyingatattrial. testifying trial.Pretrial PretrialConference ConferenceHr’g 31,In.In.3-11; Hr'gTr.Tr.atat31, 3-11;44-47; 44-47;53-54; 53-54;see seealso Pretrial alsoPretrial
Conference,4/8/2024, Conference, 4/8/2024,Ex. Ex.C(B). C(B).Defendant Defendantadvised advisedthe theCourt Courtthat thathehedid didnot notintend intendonon
presentingany presenting witnessestototestify anywitnesses testifyregarding regardingthethemail emailcommunications. communications.Id.Id.at at45,45,In.ln.4-13. 4-13.
7 Defendant also sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a receipt from Monroeville Messenger Service to 7Defendant also sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a receipt from Monroeville Messenger Service to establish establish that that thethe civil civil complaint complaint hadhad been been notarized.Id.Id. notarized. at at 30,30, In. ln. 3-24.The 3-24. The Court Court sustained sustained thethe Commonwealth's Commonwealth’s objection, objection, ruling ruling that that thethe exhibit exhibit was was irrelevant irrelevant to to thethe present present case case andand would would be be confusing confusing to to thethe jury.Id.Id. j’ury. at 39-40. at 39-40.
2828 lodged aa Commonwealth lodged The Commonwealth self-authenticating. The were self-authenticating. emails were the emails that the argued that Defendant argued Defendant
relevance to lack objected to also objected and also objection, and relevance objection, authentication. Id. of authentication. lack of at 44, Id. at ln. 16-23. 44, In. The Court 16-23. The Court
sustained Commonwealth's objection the Commonwealth’s sustained the and precluded objection and from entering Defendant from precluded Defendant the documents entering the documents
and adequately foundation and proper foundation lay aa proper to lay witness to presenting aa witness without presenting trial without at trial evidence at into evidence into adequately
authenticate 901. See Rule 901. with Rule accordance with in accordance documents, in the documents, authenticate the Commonwealth v.v. Koch, See Commonwealth PA 2011 PA Koch, 2011
with personal witness with ofaa witness (Testimony of 2011) (“Testimony Ct. 2011) Super. Ct. (Pa. Super. 1002 (Pa. 996, 1002 A.3d 996, 39 A.3d 201, 39 Super 201, Super personal
The email sufficient.") The be sufficient.”) can be be can to be claimed to what itit isis claimed matter isis what that aa matter knowledge that knowledge email
communications Defendant sought communications Defendant have admitted to have sought to arenot admittedare self-authenticating documents. not self-authenticating documents.
Pa.R.E. prerequisitetoto admissibility.” document] isis aaprerequisite [ofaadocument] "Authentication [of 902. “Authentication Pa.R.E. 902. 1005. Koch atat 1005. admissibility." Koch
The statementsby hearsaystatements containedhearsay communication contained email communication The email thirdparties bythird werenot whowere partieswho testifying nottestifying
irrelevantasasthey wereirrelevant communicationswere emailcommunications the email Furthermore,the trial. Furthermore, atattrial. notrelate didnot theydid theissue relatetotothe issue
Courtisis theCourt record,the therecord, ofthe reviewof Uponreview case. Upon presentcase. thepresent regardingthe innocenceregarding orinnocence guiltor ofguilt of
theCommonwealth's sustaining,the forsustaining, explanationfor andexplanation sustain,and decisiontotosustain, itsdecision withits satisfiedwith satisfied Commonwealth's
objection ConferenceHr’g PretrialConference relevance. Pretrial andrelevance. authenticationand ofauthentication groundsof ongrounds objectionon 46,In. Tr.,46, Hr'gTr., 6-19, ln.6-19,
4/8/2024. 4/8/2024.
Defendant regardingaa sheetregarding docketsheet civildocket copyofofaacivil evidenceaacopy intoevidence introduceinto soughttotointroduce Defendantsought
federal Pennsylvaniaatat DistrictofofPennsylvania WesternDistrict Court,Western DistrictCourt, StatesDistrict UnitedStates theUnited filedininthe actionfiled civilaction federalcivil
Docket 16-22;36, 29,In.ln.16-22; Id.atat29, 2:23-CV-01370-LPL. Id. No.2:23-CV-01370-LPL. DocketNo. 36,In.ln.9-11; 9-11;see seealso Defendant's alsoDefendant’s
Omnibus action civilaction relatestotoa acivil sheetrelates docketsheet Thedocket ExhibitD.D.The 3/7/2024,Exhibit Briefing,3/7/2024, MotionBriefing, PretrialMotion OmnibusPretrial
filed defendant. nameddefendant. Moritzisisa anamed StevenMoritz OfficerSteven whichOfficer 1983ininwhich U.S.C.§ §1983 under4242U.S.C. Defendantunder byDefendant filedby
The relevancegrounds exhibitononrelevance theexhibit presentationofofthe thepresentation objectedtotothe Commonwealthobjected TheCommonwealth andargued groundsand argued
that thejury thathe issuesthat theissues confusethe wouldconfuse documentwould thedocument thathe wasresponsible jurywas deciding.Id.Id.atat36, fordeciding. responsiblefor 36,
In.ln.9-15. TheCommonwealth 9-15.The furtherexplained Commonwealthfurther OfficerMoritz thatOfficer explainedthat wouldnot Moritzwould calledtototestify notbebecalled testify
2929 at trial as he is active military and was deployed on at trial as he is active military and was deployed on aa ship. Id. at ship. Id. at 37. 37. Defendant Defendant argued that the argued that the
document related to Officer Moritz's credibility. Id. The Court agreed with Defendant that the document related to Officer Moritz’s credibility. Id. The Court agreed with Defendant that the document may be document may be relevant relevant if ifOfficer Officer Moritz Moritz testified testified at at trial. trial. Id. Id. atat 37-38, 37-38, In. ln. 38-3. 38-3. The The Court Court
withheld making a pretrial ruling regarding the Commonwealth's objections to the admissibility withheld making a pretrial ruling regarding the Commonwealth’s objections to the admissibility
of ofthe thecivil civildocket docketsheet. sheet. Id. Id.
Defendant sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a Common Pleas of Allegheny Defendant sought to introduce into evidence a copy of a Common Pleas of Allegheny County Docket Sheet for Docket No. 8529-2019. Id. at 40, ln. 4-5. Defendant asserted that this County Docket Sheet for Docket No. 8529-2019. Id. at 40, In. 4-5. Defendant asserted that this document was relevant as it related to the credibility of Washington County Assistant District document was relevant as it related to the credibility of Washington County Assistant District AttorneyRachel Attorney RachelWheeler Wheeler(hereinafter (hereinafter“ADA "ADAWheeler”) Wheeler")and andthe thecredibility credibilityofofthe the
Commonwealth's witnesses who, at a prior bail hearing, argued that Defendant was a flight risk. Commonwealth’s witnesses who, at a prior bail hearing, argued that Defendant was a flight risk.
Id. 40,In.ln.19-25; Id.atat40, 19-25;see seealso alsoDefendant’s Defendant'sMotion MotiontotoSet SetBail BailHr’g Hr'gTr., Tr.,6/20/2023. 6/20/2023.Defendant Defendant
furtherargued further arguedthat thatthis thisdocument documentwould wouldestablish establishthat thatDefendant Defendantwas wasnot nota aflight flightrisk. risk.The The
Commonwealth objected to the presentation of the exhibit on relevance grounds and argued that Commonwealth objected to the presentation of the exhibit on relevance grounds and argued that the document would confuse the issues that the jury was responsiblefor the document would confuse the issues that the jury was responsible fordeciding. deciding.Id.Id.atat40, 40,In.ln.
11-18. "Admission of evidence ... rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which must 11-18. “Admission of evidence ... rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which must balance evidentiary value against the potentialdangers balance videntiary value against the potential dangersofof unfairly prejudicingthetheaccused, unfairly prejudicing accused,
inflaming the passions of the jury,oror inflaming the passions of the jury, confusing confusing the jury."Commonwealth the jury.” Commonwealthv. v.Brown, Brown,212 212 A.3d A.3d 1076 (Pa.Super. 2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218 (2013); see also Pa.R.E. 1076 (Pa.Super. 2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218 (2013); see also Pa.R.E. 403 ("The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger 403 (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.") The trial court's undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”) The trial court's ability must be trusted "to oversee the presentation ability must be trusted “to oversee the presentation of evidence 'so that overtly of evidence ‘so that overtly passionate, passionate, intentionally biased and inflammatory material is kept out of the courtroom."' Brown, 212 A.3d intentionally biased and inflammatory material is kept out of the courtroom.’” Brown, 212 A.3d
30 30 at 1086 (internal citations omitted). An appellant bears at 1086 (internal citations omitted). An appellant bears the the “heavy burden" to "heavy burden” to demonstrate demonstrate the the
trial court trial court abused abused its its discretion discretion on on an an evidentiary evidentiary ruling. Id. The ruling. Id. The Court Court sustained sustained the the
Commonwealth's objection, ruling that the exhibit was irrelevant as it was not related to the Commonwealth s objection, ruling that the exhibit was irrelevant as it was not related to the issue of guilt or innocence in the present case and would be highly confusing to the jury. Id. at issue of guilt or innocence in the present case and would be highly confusing to the jury. Id. at
44, 44, In. ln. 9-15. 9-15.
K. Defendant Precluded From Questioning Officer Fichter Regarding Arrest K. Defendant Precluded From Questioning Officer Fichter Regarding Arrest Warrant ServiceLog. Warrant Service Log.
Defendant next argues that the court erred in sustaining the Commonwealth's relevance Defendant next argues that the court erred in sustaining the Commonwealth's relevance objection and precluding him from questioning Officer Fichter regarding a document relating to objection and precluding him from questioning Officer Fichter regarding a document relating to
service serviceofofthe thearrest arrestwarrant. warrant.
"Admission of evidence ... rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which must Admission of evidence ... rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which must balance evidentiary value against the potentialdangers balance evidentiary value against the potential dangersofofunfairly unfairlyprejudicing theaccused, prejudicingthe accused,
inflaming the passions of the jury, or confusing the jury.” Commonwealthv. v.Brown, inflaming the passions of the jury, or confusing the jury."Commonwealth Brown,212 212A.3d A.3d
1076 (Pa.Super. 2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218 (2013); see also Pa.R.E. 1076 (Pa.Super. 2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Bryant, 620 Pa. 218 (2013); see also Pa.R.E. 403, ("The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger 403, (‘The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice,confusing of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, theissues, confusingthe issues,misleading misleadingthethe jury, jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.") The trial court's undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”) The trial court's ability must be trusted "to oversee the presentation ability must be trusted “to oversee the presentation of evidence 'so that overtly passionate, of evidence ‘so that overtly passionate, intentionally biased and inflammatory material is kept out of the courtroom."' Brown, 212 A.3d intentionally biased and inflammatory material is kept out of the courtroom.’” Brown, 212 A.3d at 1086 (internal citations omitted). An appellant bears the "heavy burden" to demonstrate the at 1086 (internal citations omitted). An appellant bears the “heavy burden” to demonstrate the trial trial court court abused abused itsits discretion discretion onon anan evidentiary evidentiary ruling.Id.Id. ruling.
This Court recognizes that "the scope of cross-examination falls within a trial court's This Court recognizes that “the scope of cross-examination falls within a trial court's authority, and the trial court's rulings thereon will not be reversed in the absence of a clear and authority, and the trial court's rulings thereon will not be reversed in the absence of a clear and manifest abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 577 Pa. 421, 846 A.2d 75, 96 (Pa. manifest abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Boczkowski, 577 Pa. 421, 846 A.2d 75, 96 (Pa
31 31 2004). The trial court may place reasonable limits on defense counsel's cross-examination of a 2004). The trial court may place reasonable limits on defense counsel's cross-examination of a prosecution witness "based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, prosecution witness “based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant." Commonwealth v. Rosser, 135 A.3d 1077 (Pa.Super. 2016), quoting Delaware v. Van relevant.” Commonwealth v. Rosser, 135 A.3d 1077 (Pa.Super. 2016), quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall,475 Arsdall, 475U.S. U.S. 673, 673, 678 678 (1986). (1986).
In the present case, Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion which included a Motion In the present case, Defendant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion which included a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim. Rule 600 (Lack of Due Diligence) on July 27, 2023. The to Dismiss Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim. Rule 600 (Lack of Due Diligence) on July 27, 2023. The Court held a hearing on October 13, 2023 in which Officer Fichter testified regarding attempts to Court held a hearing on October 13, 2023 in which Officer Fichter testified regarding attempts to serve the warrant. See Omnibus Pre-Trial Hr'g Tr., 129-130, 10/13/2024. The arrest warrant serve the warrant. See Omnibus Pre-Trial Hr’g Tr„ 129-130, 10/13/2024. The arrest warrant was entered into evidence at the hearing. Omnibus Pretrial Hr'g Tr., 107, 10/13/2023; see also was entered into evidence at the hearing. Omnibus Pretrial Hr’g Tr., 107, 10/13/2023; see also Omnibus Pretrial Hr'g, 10/13/2023, Commonwealth's Ex. 3. Officer Fichter documented Omnibus Pretnal Hr’g, 10/13/2023, Commonwealth’s Ex. 3. Officer Fichter documented attempts to serve the warrant by writing the list of dates on the inside of his case file. Omnibus attempts to serve the warrant by writing the list of dates on the inside of his case file. Omnibus Pretrial Hr'g Tr., 108-109, 10/13/2023. Defendant references this list of attempts to serve the Pretnal Hr’g Tr., 108-109, 10/13/2023. Defendant references this list of attempts to serve the warrantasasananarrest warrant arrestwarrant warrantservice servicelog. TT,vol. log.TT, vol.I, I,232, 232,4/9/24. 4/9/24.
Defendant, at trial, sought to impeach Officer Fichter with a copy of the arrest warrant Defendant, at trial, sought to impeach Officer Fichter with a copy of the arrest warrant service log. TT, vol. II, 504-505, 4/10/2024. The arrest warrant serve log had not been service log. TT, vol. II, 504-505, 4/10/2024. The arrest warrant serve log had not been presented by the Commonwealth during trial or admitted into evidence. Id. Furthermore, presented by the Commonwealth during trial or admitted into evidence. Id. Furthermore, Officer Fichter did not testify to any issue relating to the service of the arrest warrant or arrest Officer Fichter did not testify to any issue relating to the service of the arrest warrant or arrest warrant warrant serve serve loglog during during direct direct examination.Id.Id. examination. at at 386-474. 386-474.
This Court precluded the line of questioning in response to an objection raised by the This Court precluded the line of questioning in response to an objection raised by the Commonwealth. Id. at 505. Defendant's line of questioning was precluded based on concerns Commonwealth. Id. at 505. Defendant’s line of questioning was precluded based on concerns that it would confuse the issues for the jury. The line of questioning was also irrelevant to the that it would confuse the issues for the jury. The line of questioning was also irrelevant to the issue issue of guilt of guilt or innocence. or innocence.
32 32 For the reasons set forth above, this Court submits that it was not error to limit For the reasons set forth above, this Court submits that it was not error to limit Defendant'ss cross-examination Defendant cross-examination regarding the arrest regarding the arrest warrant warrant service service log. log.
L. Defendant Not Informed On The Record of Right to File Interlocutory L. Defendant Not Informed On The Record of Right to File Interlocutory Appeal Appeal
Defendant argues that it is a direct violation of his right to Due Process that he was not Defendant argues that it is a direct violation of his right to Due Process that he was not informed by Judge Costanzo, in her January 26, 2024 Opinion and Order in which Defendant's informed by Judge Costanzo, in her January 26, 2024 Opinion and Order in which Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion was denied in its entirety, of his right to file an interlocutory appeal. Omnibus Pretrial Motion was denied in its entirety, of his right to file an interlocutory appeal. Defendantargument Defendant argumentisisnot notdeveloped andsupported developedand withcitations supportedwith citationstotolegal legalauthority. authority.
Furthermore, the Court notes that Defendant was represented by attorney Adam Y arussi, Esquire Furthermore, the Court notes that Defendant was represented by attorney Adam Yarussi, Esquire when the January 26, 2024 Opinion and Order was entered by Judge Costanzo. Attorney Y arussi when the January 26, 2024 Opinion and Order was entered by Judge Costanzo. Attorney Yarussi withdrewfrom withdrew fromthe thecase caseon onFebruary February22, 22,2024. SeeCourt 2024.See CourtOrder, Order,2/22/24. 2/22/24.
This Court submits that Defendant's claim under Section Lis meritless and is waived for This Court submits that Defendant’s claim under Section L is meritless and is waived for
lack lackofofdevelopment. development.
M. Judge Costanzo Errored by Granting Commonwealth Motion to Amend M. Judge Costanzo Errored by Granting Commonwealth Motion to Amend CriminalComplaint. Criminal Complaint.
1. Standard of Review 1. Standard of Review "We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to amend an information for “We review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to amend an information for an abuse of discretion." Commonwealth v. Sandoval, 2021 PA Super 242, 266 A.3d 1098, 1101 an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Sandoval, 2021 PA Super 242, 266 A.3d 1098, 1101 (Pa.Super. (Pa. Super.Ct.Ct.2021) 2021) (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted).
2. 2. Court's Analysis Court’s Analysis Defendant argues that Judge Costanzo errored by granting the Commonwealth's Motion Defendant argues that Judge Costanzo errored by granting the Commonwealth’s Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint. The Court first notes that, after a thorough review of the record, to Amend Criminal Complaint. The Court first notes that, after a thorough review of the record, no Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint was filed in the instant case. The Commonwealth filed no Motion to Amend Criminal Complaint was filed in the instant case. The Commonwealth filed a Motion to Amend Criminal Information where it set forth in its motion that it did so to clear up a Motion to Amend Criminal Information where it set forth in its motion that it did so to clear up
33 33 any confusion of any confusion of the the dates. See Commonwealth’s dates. See Commonwealth's Motion Motion to to Amend Amend Crim. Crim. Info., 12/20/2023. Info., 12/20/2023.
Defendant further Defendant further contends contends that that his his prior counsel, Adam prior counsel, Adam Yarussi, Yarussi, Esquire, did not Esquire, did not consent consent to to an an
"amended criminal “amended criminal complaint.” The record complaint." The record clearly demonstrates that clearly demonstrates that Defendant, Defendant, through through
counsel, consented counsel, consented to to the the December December 20, 20, 2023 2023 Order Order of ofCourt Court amending the criminal amending the criminal information. information.
See Court Order, See Court Order, 12/20/2023. 12/20/2023. The The Amended Amended Information Information was was filed filed on on December December 20, 20, 2023. 2023. This This
Court submits Court submits that that Defendant Defendant has has waived waived this this argument argument for for the the reasons reasons set set forth forth above. above.
Defendant appears Defendant to attempt appears to to raise attempt to raise aa statute statute of oflimitation limitation argument argumentrelating relating to to the the fifiling ling 8 ofthe of the original criminal complaint. original criminal Defendant, through complaint.8 Defendant, throughcounsel, counsel, filed filedan an extensive extensive Omnibus Omnibus
Pre-TrialMotion Pre-Trial Motionon onJuly 27, 2023. July27, 2023. Defendant Defendantdid didnot notinclude includeaaMotion MotiontotoDismiss DismissPursuant Pursuanttoto
42Pa.C.S. 42 Pa.C.S. §5552(a) $5552(a)ininhis hisOmnibus OmnibusPretrial PretrialMotion. Motion. AAhearing hearingregarding Defendant'sO regardingDefendant’s Omnibus mnibus
PretrialMotion Pretrial Motionwas washeld heldbefore beforeJudge Costanzoon JudgeCostanzo onOctober October13, 13,2023. 2023. Subsequent Subsequenttotothe the
hearing,Defendant’s hearing, Defendant'scounsel counselattempted attemptedtotoraise raiseaastatute statuteof oflimitations limitationsargument argumentininhis hisbrief brieffiled filed
onDecember on December1,1,2023. 2023. InInJudge Costanzo'sJanuary JudgeCostanzo’s 26,2024 January26, 2024Opinion, theargument Opinion,the was argumentwas
acknowledged butdenied acknowledgedbut deniedasaswaived waivedsince sinceDefendant Defendantdid didnot notfollow followRule Rule578 578ofofthe the
PennsylvaniaRules Pennsylvania RulesofofCriminal CriminalProcedure. Procedure. The Thereasons reasonsfor forthe theCourt’s Court'sJanuary January26, 26,2024 2024Order Order
alreadyappear already appearofofrecord recordininsaid saidOpinion andOrder. Opinionand Order.Therefore, Therefore,this thisCourt Courthereby herebyincorporates the incorporatesthe
same sameasasitsitsPa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P.1925(a) 1925(a)Opinion Opinionand andattaches attachesitithereto. hereto.
N.N. Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P.517(A) 517(A)
Defendantnext Defendant nextargues thathehewas arguesthat wasnot notimely timelytransported fromMercer transportedfrom MercerCounty Countytoto
Washington Countyininaccordance WashingtonCounty accordancewith withRule Rule517(A) 517(A)ofofthe thePennsylvania PennsylvaniaRules RulesofofCriminal Criminal
Procedure517 Procedure 517ininviolation violationofofhis hiswell-established well-establishedconstitutional constitutionalrights. rights.
8 Defendant did not request for a bill of particulars. Pa.R.Crim.P. 572.“A"A 8Defendant did not request for a bill of particulars. Pa.R.Crim.P. 572. billofof bill particularsis isintended particulars intendedto togive give notice to the accused of the offenses notice to the accused of the offenses charged in the indictment so that he may prepare a defense, avoid a surprise, oror charged in the indictment so that he may prepare a defense, avoid a surprise, intelligently intelligently raise raise pleas pleas ofof double double jeopardy jeopardy and and thethestatute statute ofof Commonwealth limitations."Commonwealth limitations.” Champney,514 v. v.Champney 574 Pa. Pa. 435, 451, 832 A.2d 403, 412 (2003) (internal citations omitted). 435, 451, 832 A.2d 403, 412 (2003) (internal citations omitted).
3434 court case, in aa court arrested in been arrested has been defendant has "[w]hen aa defendant that “[w]hen forth that sets forth 517(A) sets Pa.R.Crim.P. 517(A) Pa.R.Crim.P. case,
the defendant issued, the was issued, arrest was of arrest warrant of the warrant where the district where judicial district the judicial outside the warrant, outside with aa warrant, with defendant
shall delay to unnecessary delay without unnecessary taken without be taken shall be proper issuing the proper to the authority in issuing authority the judicial in the district of judicial district of
by law.” permitted by as permitted bail, as posting bail, of posting purpose of the purpose for the arrest for arrest law."
Defendant cite correctly not cite did not Defendant did Pa.R.Crim.P. 517(D), to Pa.R.Crim.P. correctly to sets forth which sets 517(D), which that “[w]hen forth that "[w]hen aa
place of in aa place arraignment, in preliminary arraignment, without preliminary more without or more hours or 48 hours for 48 held for been held has been defendant has defendant of
inability to the inability ofthe because of issued, because was issued, warrant was the warrant where the district where judicial district thejudicial outside the detention outside detention to
any interested ofany application of upon application custody upon from custody discharged from be discharged shall be defendant shall the defendant bail, the post bail, post interested
cause shown upon cause that,upon providedthat, detention; provided ofdetention,' districtof judicialdistrict thejudicial ofthe courtof ofaa court judge of person toto aajudge person shown
the ormore one or grantone maygrant judgemay thejudge ofthe extensions of more extensions defendant's detention thedefendant's anearly detentiontoto an date, fixed earlydate, fixedinin
thejudicial removedtotothe beenremoved notbeen hasnot andhas custodyand remains inincustody defendantremains thedefendant butififthe order,but theorder, the judicial
thedefendant period,the detentionperiod, extendeddetention theextended ofthe endof theend issuedatatthe wasissued warrantwas thewarrant wherethe districtwhere district defendant
(emphasisadded). custody."(emphasis fromcustody.” dischargedfrom bedischarged shallbe shall added).
Defendant LawrenceCounty 2023ininLawrence April8,8,2023 onApril arrestedon wasarrested hewas thathe contendsthat Defendantcontends Countyregarding regarding
wastransported Defendantwas warrants. Defendant arrestwarrants. Countyarrest WashingtonCounty andWashington Countyand MercerCounty outstandingMercer outstanding transported
warrantwas arrestwarrant Countyarrest MercerCounty TheMercer jail. The Countyjail. MercerCounty theMercer jailtotothe Countyjail LawrenceCounty theLawrence fromthe from was
April1 onApril Martwinskion TravisMartwinski MagistrateTravis byMagistrate addressedby addressed 1 2023and , 2023 11, Defendantwas andDefendant grantedanan wasgranted
adheringtoto insteadofofadhering that,instead assertsthat, Defendantasserts $2,500. Defendant of$2,500. amountof theamount bailininthe unsecuredbail unsecured
Davistoto DanielDavis MagistrateDaniel CountyMagistrate MercerCounty requestedMercer Countyrequested WashingtonCounty 517(A),Washington Pa.R.Crim.P.517(A), Pa.R.Crim.P.
thatthat arguesthat furtherargues Defendantfurther Defendant. Defendant onDefendant. bondon $50,000bond placea a$50,000 andplace hearingand bailhearing holda abail hold that
extensionofofthe requestingananextension firstrequesting withoutfirst 5:00-6:00p.m.without approximately5:00-6:00p.m. 2023atatapproximately 13,2023 April13, "onApril “on the
dictatesofofabove hoursdictates the4848hours pasthe wellpast whichisiswell 5 l 7(A),which Pa.R.Crim.P.517(A), dictatesofofPa.R.Crim.P. hoursdictates 4848hours above
Rule."See Rule.” SeeDefendant’s 1925(b)Concise Defendant's1925(b) ConciseStatement, SectionN.N.Defendant Statement,Section doesassert Defendantdoes assertininhis his
3535 concise statement, and the record is devoid of any evidence to establish that Defendant followed concise statement, and the record is devoid of any evidence to establish that Defendant followed the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. 517(D) and sought to be discharged from custody by making the requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. 517(D) and sought to be discharged from custody by making application to the appropriate Mercer County judge. Furthermore, Defendant fails to establish in application to the appropriate Mercer County judge. Furthermore, Defendant fails to establish in any manner how the proper procedures were not followed regarding Chapter 91 of the Judicial any manner how the proper procedures were not followed regarding Chapter 91 of the Judicial Code which provides for the arrest and detention of persons wanted in other counties. Code which provides for the arrest and detention of persons wanted in other counties. Defendant's legal argument is wholly undeveloped. It contains no citations to legal Defendant's legal argument is wholly undeveloped. It contains no citations to legal authorities other than referencing Pa.R.Crim.P. 5 l 7(A), and therefore no attempt to apply any authorities other than referencing Pa.R.Crim.P. 517(A), and therefore no attempt to apply any authorities to the present case. See Pa.R.A.P. 2l l9(b). This Court submits that Defendant's authorities to the present case. See Pa.R.A.P. 21 19(b). This Court submits that Defendant’s claimlacks claim lacksmerit meritand andshould shouldbebedismissed. dismissed.
O. Defendant Transported Without Lawful Transport Order O. Defendant Transported Without Lawful Transport Order Defendant argues that he was transported from Mercer County to Washington County Defendant argues that he was transported from Mercer County to Washington County without a lawful transportation order. This issue was raised in Defendant's prose "Motion(s)-In- without a lawful transportation order. This issue was raised in Defendant’s pro se “Motion(s)-In- Limine filed on March 7, 2024. The Court entered an Opinion and Order on April 1, 2024. Limine filed on March 7, 2024. The Court entered an Opinion and Order on April 1, 2024. The reasons for this Court's April 1, 2024 Opinion already appear of record in said Opinion and The reasons for this Court’s April 1, 2024 Opinion already appear of record in said Opinion and Order. Therefore, this Court hereby incorporates the same as its Pa.R.A.P. l 925(a) Opinion. Order. Therefore, this Court hereby incorporates the same as its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion. P. Officers' Names Included in Jury Instructions in Violation of Defendant's P. Officers’ Names Included Constitutional Rights in Jury Instructions in Violation of Defendant’s Constitutional Rights 1. Standard of Review 1. Standard of Review "The nature of a court's instructions to the jury is 'within the discretion of the court, so The nature of a court's instructions to the jury is ‘within the discretion of the court, so long as the court accurately instructs the jury on the appropriate legal principles involved.' This long as the court accurately instructs the jury on the appropriate legal principles inyolyed. • This Court's main concern is 'that the charge clearly, adequately, and accurately presents the law to Court's main concern is ‘that the charge clearly, adequately, and accurately presents the law to the jury for its consideration.' The jury charge must be reviewed 'not in isolated portions but as a the jury for its consideration. ’ The jury charge must be reviewed 'not in isolated portions but as a whole to ascertain whether it fairly conveys the required legal principles at issue."' whole to ascertain whether it fairly conveys the required legal principles at issue.”’ Commonwealth v. Willis, 990 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (internal citations omitted). CommonweM v. Willis, 990 A.2d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (internal citations omitted).
36 36 2. 2. Court's Analysis Court’s Analysis
Defendant next argues Defendant next the Court’s that the argues that written jury Court's written which included instruction which jury instruction witnesses' included witnesses’
taken verbatim names -- taken names verbatim from the Pennsylvania from the Suggested Standard Pennsylvania Suggested Criminal Jury Standard Criminal Instructions - Jury Instructions
constitutional rights. well-established constitutional his well-established violated his violated rights.
4.07 A, Identification Section 4.07A, utilized Section instructions, utilized jury instructions, its jury preparing its in preparing Court, in The Court, The Identification
instructed the and instructed Instructions and Jury Instructions Criminal Jury Standard Criminal Suggested Standard Pennsylvania Suggested the Pennsylvania ofthe Testimony, of Testimony, the
as follows: jury as jury follows:
John Pioth, Renk, John Robert Renk, Shaffer, Robert Justin Shaffer, Barna, Justin Joseph Barna, testimony, Joseph their testimony, In their In Pioth, and Kent Eberman, and Dan Eberman, Fichter, Dan Joseph Fichter, Krut, Joseph William Krut, White, William Mathew White, Mathew Kent thedefendant. identified the has identified Mitchell has Mitchell defendant.
factorsininaddition followingfactors thefollowing considerthe shouldconsider youshould testimony,you theirtestimony, evaluatingtheir Inevaluating In addition testimony of the testimony judgingthe forjudging you for providedtoto you haveprovided will have instructions IIwill other instructions the other toto the of witnesses: witnesses: theperpetrator observethe timetotoobserve enoughtime andenough opportunityand goodopportunity haveaagood witnesshave thewitness Didthe Did perpetrator theoffense? ofthe of offense? theirobservations? maketheir themtotomake forthem lightingfor enoughlighting thereenough Wasthere Was observations? otherphysical andother facial and his facial notehis individualtotonote the individual enough toto the close enough they close Were they Were physical waswearing? hewas clothinghe anyclothing wellasasany characteristics,asaswell characteristics, wearing? hedging oror any hedging by any qualified by was itit qualified positive oror was identification positive their identification Was their Was inconsistencies? inconsistencies? theincident? duringthe witnessduring thewitness wasthe attentivewas Howattentive How incident?
IfIfyou considerthe youconsider witness'slevel thewitness's certaintyininmaking levelofofcertainty identification, theidentification, makingthe
you levelofofcertainty thelevel thathe recognizethat shouldrecognize youshould canchange certaintycan thetime betweenthe changebetween the timeofofthe levelofof thelevel Considerififthe court.Consider identificationinincourt. lateridentification thelater andthe identificationand initialidentification initial certainty andifif identification,and initialidentification, theinitial timeofofthe thetime policeatathe thepolice recordedbybythe wasrecorded certaintywas
that Youmay court.You identificationinincourt. lateridentification thelater certaintyininthe levelofofcertainty thelevel fromthe differsfrom thatdiffers may
3737 consider any consider reasons for any reasons for any in the change in any change the witness's witness's level level of of certainty certainty between between the the
initial initial identification identification and and the the later later identification identification in in court. court. If the If the police failed to police failed to record record the the initial initial level level of of certainty, certainty, you you may may consider consider
any reason given any reason the police by the given by for their police for their failure failure to to record record the the witness's witness's level level of of
certainty certainty at at the the time time of ofthe the initial initial identification. identification. Consider also Consider also any other evidence any other evidence on on the the issue issue of ofthe the level level of ofcertainty certainty of ofthe the in-court in-court identification. identification. Please consider Please consider that that aa victim victim or or another another witness witness can can sometimes sometimes make make aa mistake when mistake when trying to identify trying to the criminal. identify the If certain criminal. If certain factors factors are are present, present, the the
accuracy ofidentification accuracy of identification testimony testimony isis so so doubtful doubtful that that you must receive you must receive itit with with caution. caution. Identificationtestimony Identification mustbe testimonymust bereceived receivedwith withcaution: caution:
a.a. ififthe thewitness witnessbecause becauseof ofbad badposition, position,poor poorlighting, lighting,or orother otherreasons reasonsdid did
not nothave haveaagood goodopportunity opportunitytotoobserve observethe thecriminal criminal
b.b. ifif the the witness's witness's positive positive testimony testimony asas toto identity identity isis weakened weakened by by qualifications,hedging, qualifications, hedging,ororinconsistencies inconsistenciesininthe therest restof oftheir theirtestimony. testimony.
You You should should consider consider all all evidence evidence relevant relevant toto the the question question of of who who
committed committedthe thecrime, crime,including includingthethetestimony testimonyofofJoseph JosephBarna, Barna,Justin JustinShaffer, Shaffer,
Robert RobertRenk, Renk,John JohnPioth, Pioth,Mathew MathewWhite, White,William WilliamKrut, Krut,Joseph JosephFichter, Fichter,Dan Dan
Eberman, Eberman,and andKent KentMitchell, Mitchell,and andany anyevidence evidenceofoffacts factsand andcircumstances circumstances
from fromwhich whichidentity, identity,orornon-identity, non-identity,ofofthe thecriminal criminalmay maybebeinferred. inferred. Youcannot You cannotfind findthe thedefendant defendantguilty guiltyunless unlessyou youare aresatisfied satisfiedbeyond beyonda a reasonabledoubt reasonable doubtby byallallthe theevidence, evidence,direct directand andcircumstantial, circumstantial,not notonly thatthe onlythat the crimewas crime wascommitted committedbut buthat thatititwas wasthe thedefendant defendantwho whocommitted committedit.it.
TT, TT,vol. vol.Ill, III,790-793, 790-793,4/1 1/24 (emphasis 4/11/24 ( emphasisadded). added).
Defendant'sclaim Defendant’s claimisiswithout withoutmerit meritbecause becausethe thetrial trialcourt courtquoted verbatimfrom quotedverbatim fromSection Section
4.07 Aofof 4.07A thePennsylvania the PennsylvaniaStandard StandardSuggested CriminalJury SuggestedCriminal Instructionsononthe JuryInstructions theissue issueofof
IdentificationTestimony. Identification SeeCommonwealth Testimony.See Commonwealthv. v.Sandusky, Sandusky,7777A.3d A.3d663, 663,674 (Pa.Super. 674 (Pa. Super.2013), 2013),
3838 (where where trial trial court court quoted near near verbatim verbatim from from Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Standard Criminal Criminal Jury Jury
Instructions, Instructions, trial trial court court committed no error in charging jury). jury).
Furthermore, Furthermore, the the Court Court held held aa conference conference on on April April 11, 11, 2024 2024 following following the the completion completion of of
presentation of of evidence evidence and and prior prior to to the the jury jury charge. charge. TT, TT, vol. vol. Ill, III, 767, 767, 4/1 1/24. The 4/11/24. The purpose purpose of of
the the conference, conference, also also called called aa charging charging meeting, meeting, was was to to provide provide Defendant Defendant and and the the
Commonwealth Commonwealth an an opportunity opportunity to to review review the the Court’s Court's proposed proposed jury jury instruction. instruction. A A copy copy of ofthe the
proposed proposedjury jury instructions instructions were were provided provided to to both both the the Commonwealth Commonwealth and and Defendant Defendant for for purpose purpose
of ofreview. review. Defendant Defendant had had an an opportunity opportunity to to review review the thejury jury instructions instructions and and raise raise objections. objections. Id. Id.
Defendant Defendant did did not not raise raise an an objection objection to tothe the use use of ofSection Section 4.07 4.07A, A, Identification Identification Testimony, Testimony, of ofthe the
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Suggested Suggested Standard Standard Criminal Criminal Jury Jury Instructions Instructions which which included included the the names names of oflaw law
enforcement enforcement witnesses. witnesses. Id. Id. atat 767-778. 767-778. ItIt isis well well established establishedthat, that, “in "in order order to to preserve preserve an an issue issue
for forappellate appellate review, review, aaparty partymust must make make aatimely timely and and specific specific objection objection atatthe the appropriate appropriate stage stage
of ofthe theproceedings proceedings before beforethe thetrial trial court. court. Failure Failureto to timely timelyobject objectto to aabasic basic and and fundamental fundamental
error, error, such suchas as an anerroneous erroneousjury juryinstruction, instruction,will willresult resultin inwaiver waiverof ofthat thatissue. issue.On Onappeal, appeal, the the
Superior SuperiorCourt Courtwill willnot notconsider consideraaclaim claimwhich whichwas wasnot notcalled calledtotothe thetrial trialcourt's court'sattention attentionatataa
time timewhen whenany anyerror errorcommitted committedcould couldhave havebeen beencorrected.... corrected ....By Byspecifically specificallyobjecting objectingtotoany any
obvious obviouserror, error,the thetrial trialcourt courtcan canquickly quicklyand andeasily easilycorrect correctthe theproblem problemand andprevent preventthe theneed needfor for
aanew newtrial.” trial."Commonwealth Commonwealthv.v.McCullum, McCullum,2018 2018WL WL4062302, 4062302,quoting quotingFillmore Fillmorev.v. Hill, Hill,445 445
Pa.Super. Pa.Super.324, 324,665 665A.2d A.2d514, 514,515-16 515-16(1995). (1995).
This ThisCourt Courtsubmits submitsthat, that,by byfailing failingtototimely timelyobject objecttotothe thejury juryinstruction, instruction,Defendant Defendanthas has
waived waivedthis thisissue issuefor forpurposes purposesof ofappeal. appeal.
3939 Q. Q. to each Standing Objection to Side-Bar Ruling each Side-Bar Ruling
Defendant has aa “standing he has that he asserts that next asserts Defendant next "standing objection” each side-bar to each objection" to ruling that side-bar ruling was that was
constitutional rights. well-established constitutional his well-established against his against rights.
The Pennsylvania The Pennsylvania Superior has clearly Court has Superior Court that “when stated that clearly stated court has "when aa court to guess has to what guess what
when aa Similarly, when review. Similarly, meaningful review. for meaningful enough for not enough that isis not appealing, that defendant isis appealing, issues aa defendant issues
pursued on be pursued to be sought to issues sought the issues manner the concise manner in aa concise identify in to identify adequately to fails adequately defendant fails defendant on
to those pertinent to which isis pertinent analysis which legal analysis ofaa legal preparation of its preparation in its impeded in court isis impeded trial court the trial appeal, the appeal, those
issues. statement which concise statement words, aa concise other words, In other issues. In vague to too vague which isis too allowthe to allow courtto the court identifythe to identify the
statement atat all.” concise statement no concise ofno equivalent of functional equivalent the functional appeal isisthe on appeal raised on issues raised issues all."
Commonwealthv.v. Dowling, also Commonwealth seealso 2006);see Super. 2006); (Pa. Super. A.2d 11 (Pa. 907A.2d Reeves, 907 Commonwealthv.v. Reeves, Commonwealth Dowling,
Super. 2001). (Pa. Super. 683 (Pa. 2d683 A. 2d 778 A. 778 2001 ).
Defendant forthaadeveloped setforth failedtotoset hasfailed Defendanthas developedlegal thissection argumentininthis legalargument sectionsupported supported
SectionQQisis underSection claimunder Defendant'sclaim thatDefendant’s submitsthat Courtsubmits ThisCourt authority.This legalauthority. citationstotolegal withcitations with
ofdevelopment. lackof andlack vaguenessand forvagueness waivedfor claimisiswaived thisclaim andthis reviewable,and notreviewable, not development.
R. R. DefendantDenied Defendant OpportunitytotoPresent DeniedOpportunity Proofof PresentProof EmploymenttotoJury ofEmployment Jury
1.1. StandardofofReview Standard Review
standardofof [the]standard evidence,[the] admissibilityofofevidence, theadmissibility onthe rulingon court'sruling trialcourt's reviewingaatrial "Inreviewing “In
deference.Commonwealth ofdeference. oneof reviewisisone review Commonwealthv.v.Thompson, Thompson,2014 PASuper 2014PA 273,106 Super273, A.3d742 106A.3d 742(Pa. (Pa.
"thesound within“the arewithin evidenceare admissibilityofofevidence theadmissibility concerningthe Questionsconcerning 2014). Questions Ct.2014). Super.Ct. Super. sound
abuseofof clearabuse absenta aclear reversedabsent notbebereversed willnot discretionwill anditsitsdiscretion court,and trialcourt, thetrial discretionofofthe discretion
discretion."Id.Id discretion.”
4040 2. 2. Court’s Court's Analysis Analysis
Defendant Defendant next next argues argues that that his his constitutional constitutional rights were were violated because he he was was denied
the opportunity to present present proof of employment employment to the the jury. jury.
At At trial, trial, Defendant Defendant sought sought to introduce documents documents demonstrating demonstrating Defendant’s Defendant's
employment employment and and sources sources of of income. income. TT, TT, vol. vol. Ill, III, 752, 752, 4/11/2024. 4/11/2024. Defendant Defendant argued argued that that Agent Agent
Barna’s Bama's testimony, testimony, stating stating that that Defendant Defendant did did not not work, work, was was untruthful. untruthful. Id. Id. at at 753. 753. After After the the
Commonwealth Commonwealth rested, rested, Defendant Defendant informed informed the the Court Court that that he he had had no no witnesses witnesses to to present present at at trial. trial.
Defendant Defendant further further advised advised the the Court Court that that he he did did not not intend intend to to testify testify at at trial. trial. Id. Id. at at 748; 748; see see also also
U.S. U.S. Const, Const. amend. V. (“[No amend. V. ("[No person] person] shall shall be be compelled compelled in in any any criminal criminal case case to to be be aa witness witness
against against himself. himself...”). "). The The Court Court conducted conducted aa colloquy colloquy to to ensure ensure Defendant Defendant understood understood both both his his
right right to to testify testify and and his his right right to to remain remain silent. silent. Id. Id. at at 748-749. 748-749. Both Both Defendant Defendant and andADA ADAWheeler Wheeler
stated stated that that they they were were ready ready to to begin begin closing closing arguments. arguments. Id. Id. at at 752. 752.
After After the the colloquy, colloquy, Defendant Defendant then then indicated indicated that that he he had had evidence evidence that thathe he “wanted "wanted the the
jury jury to to see” see" to to establish establishhis his sources sources of ofincome. income. Id. Id. atat 753. 753. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth did didnot not stipulate stipulate
to to the the documents documents being being admitted admitted into into evidence. evidence. Id. Id. atat 753-756. 753-756. “Unless "Unless stipulated, stipulated, to to satisfy satisfythe the
requirement requirement of ofauthenticating authenticating or oridentifying identifying an anitem itemof ofevidence, evidence, the theproponent proponentmust mustproduce produce
evidence evidence sufficient sufficienttoto support supportaafinding findingthat thatthe theitem itemisiswhat whatthe theproponent proponentclaims claims ititis.” is."Pa.R.E. Pa.R.E.
901. 901. Defendant Defendant did didnot notargue arguethat thatthe thedocuments documentswhich whichhe hesought soughttotobe beadmitted admittedinto into evidence evidence
and andshown showntotothe thejury jurywere wereself-authenticating. self-authenticating. See SeePa.R.E. Pa.R.E. 902. 902. Defendant Defendantwas wasprecluded precludedfrom from
entering enteringthe thedocuments documentsinto intoevidence evidencetrial trialwithout withoutpresenting presentingaawitness witnesstotolay layaaproper proper
foundation foundationand andadequately adequatelyauthenticate authenticatethe thedocuments, documents,ininaccordance accordancewith withRule Rule901. 901. Id. Id.atat754. 754.
See SeeCommonwealth Commonwealthv.v. Koch, Koch,201 1 PA 2011 PASuper Super201, 201,39 39A.3d A.3d996, 996, 1002 1002(Pa. (Pa. Super. Super.Ct. Ct.2011) 2011)
41 41 ("Testimony of (“Testimony of aa witness witness with with personal personal knowledge knowledge that that aa matter is what matter is what it it is is claimed claimed to to be be can can be be
sufficient.”). sufficient.").
For the For reasons set the reasons set forth forth above, this Court above, this respectfully submits Court respectfully submits that that its its ruling ruling be be affirmed affirmed
on the on the merits merits and Defendant’s appeal and Defendant's appeal be be dismissed. dismissed.
S. S. Rule 600(A) Rule 600(A) Lack Lack of of Due Due Diligence Diligence
1. 1. Standard of Standard of Review Review
"In evaluating “In evaluating Rule Rule [600] [600] issues, our standard issues, our of review standard of review of of aa trial trial court's court's decision decision is is
whether the whether the trial trial court court abused abused its its discretion.” discretion." Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Hunt, 858 A.2d Hunt, 858 A.2d 1234, 1234, 1238 1238 (Pa. (Pa.
Super. 2004) Super. 2004) (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted).
2. 2. Court's Analysis Court’s Analysis
Defendant, through Defendant, through counsel, counsel, filed filed an Omnibus Pre-Trial an Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion Motion which which included included aa Motion Motion
to Dismiss Pursuant to Dismiss Pursuant to to Pa.R.Crim. Pa.R.Crim. Rule Rule 600 600 (Lack (Lack of of Due Due Diligence) Diligence) on on July 27, 2023. July 27, 2023.
Defendant had Defendant had asserted, asserted, pursuant pursuant to to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, that Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, the Commonwealth that the Commonwealth failed failed to to exercise exercise
due diligence in due diligence bringing Defendant in bringing Defendant to to trial. trial. See See Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion, Motion,
7/27/23; see 7/27/23; see also Defendant’s Brief also Defendant's Brief in in Support of Defendant’s Support of Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion(s), Motion(s),
12/1/23. More 12/1/23. More specifically, specifically, Defendant Defendant contended that the contended that the extensive extensive period period of of time time that that it it took took to to
execute execute the the arrest arrest warrant warrant on on Defendant Defendant was was aa result result of of the the Commonwealth’s failure to Commonwealth's failure to act act with with
the the requisite requisite due due diligence. diligence. The The Court Court held held aa hearing thereon on hearing thereon on October October 13, 13, 2023. Defendant’s 2023. Defendant's
motion was motion was denied denied by by way way of of Opinion Opinion and Order entered and Order entered January January 26, 26, 2024. 2024. The reasons for The reasons for the the
Court's January Court’s January 26, 2024 Order 26, 2024 Order already already appear of record in appear ofrecord in said said Opinion Opinion and and Order. Therefore, Order. Therefore,
this this Court Court hereby hereby incorporates incorporates the the same same as as its its Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) 1925(a) Opinion Opinion and and attaches attaches it it hereto. hereto.
For the reasons For the reasons set set forth forth in in the the January January 26, 2024 Opinion 26, 2024 and Order, Opinion and Order, this this Court Court respectfully respectfully
submits that its submits that order be its order be affirmed affirmed on on the the merits merits and and Defendant’s Defendant's appeal appeal be be dismissed. dismissed.
42 42 T. T. Double Double Jeopardy Jeopardy Clause Pursuant to Clause Pursuant to 18 18 PA PA CS CS 110 110
1. 1. Standard Standard of Review of Review
The Superior The Court’s scope Superior Court's scope and and standard standard of of review is that review is that "[ “[a]n appeal grounded ]n appeal grounded in in
double jeopardy raises double jeopardy raises aa question question of of constitutional constitutional law. scope of review law. This Court's scope in making review in making a
determination determination on on aa question question of of law law is, is, as as always, always, plenary. plenary. As As with with all all questions questions of of law, law, the the
appellate appellate standard standard of review is ofreview is de de novo.” novo." Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Taylor, Taylor, 120 120 A.3d 1017, 1021 A.3d 1017, 1021 (Pa. (Pa.
Super. Super. 2015) 2015) (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted).
Defendant Defendant next next argues argues that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth failed failed to to file file all all of of the the criminal criminal charges charges at at
one one time time pursuant pursuant to to 18 18 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §110 §110 which which is is in in violation violation of of his his well-established well-established constitutional constitutional
rights. rights.
Defendant, Defendant, through through counsel, counsel, filed filed an an Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion Motion which which included included aa Motion Motion
to to Dismiss Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to to 18 18 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §§110 110 on on July July 27, 27, 2023. 2023. The The Court Court held held aa hearing hearing thereon thereon on on
October October 13, 13, 2023. 2023. Judge Judge Costanzo Costanzo denied denied the the motion motion to to dismiss dismiss by by way way of of Opinion Opinion and and Order Order
dated dated January January 26, 26, 2024. 2024. The The reasons reasons for for the the Court’s Court's January January 26, 26, 2024 2024 Order Order already already appear appear of of
record record in in said said Opinion Opinion and and Order. Order. Therefore, Therefore, this this Court Court hereby hereby incorporates incorporates the the same same as as its its
Pa.R.A.P. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) 1925(a) Opinion Opinion and and attaches attaches itit hereto. hereto. For For the the reasons reasons set set forth forth in in the the January January 26, 26,
2024 2024 Opinion Opinion and and Order, Order, this this Court Court respectfully respectfully submits submits that that its its order order be be affirmed affirmed on on the the merits merits
and and Defendant’s Defendant's appeal appeal be be dismissed. dismissed.
U. U. Cumulative Cumulative Prosecutorial Prosecutorial Misconducts Misconducts
“Prosecutorial "Prosecutorial misconduct misconduct is is evaluated evaluated under under aa harmless harmless error error standard.” standard." Commonwealth Commonwealth
v.v. Santiago-Burgos, Santiago-Burgos, 2024 2024 PA PA Super Super 73, 314 A.3d 73,314 A.3d 535, 548 (Pa. 535,548 (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2024). 2024).
43 43 - 2. 2. Court's Analysis Court’s Analysis
Defendant next Defendant next argues argues that that Rachel Rachel Wheeler, Wheeler, the the Washington Washington County County Assistant Assistant District District
Attorney who Attorney who served served as as the the prosecutor prosecutor at at trial, trial, engaged engaged in in “blatant "blatant and and cumulative prosecutorial cumulative prosecutorial
misconducts" throughout misconducts” throughout the the case. case. Defendant, Defendant, in in his his Concise Concise Statement, Statement, fails fails to to cite cite to to specific specific
incidents to incidents to support support his his claim. claim. Rather, Rather, Defendant Defendant states states that that the prosecutorial misconduct the prosecutorial misconduct has has
been so been so “egregiously outrageous” that "egregiously outrageous" that it it is is impossible to give impossible to give specific specific examples examples of of the the
misconduct. See misconduct. See Defendant’s Defendant's 1925(b) Concise Statements, 1925(b) Concise Statements, Section Section U. U.
The standard The standard for for the the grant of aa new grant of new trial trial as as aa result result of of prosecutorial prosecutorial misconduct misconduct is is very very
strict. strict. Our Our appellate appellate court court has has repeatedly repeatedly stated stated that: that: “[t]o "[t]o prevail prevail on on aa prosecutorial prosecutorial misconduct misconduct
claim, Defendant claim, Defendant must must show show the the prosecutor's prosecutor's actions actions had had the the unavoidable unavoidable effect effect of of undermining undermining
the fact-finder's the fact-finder's neutrality neutrality so so as as to preclude aa true to preclude true verdict.” verdict." Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Philistin, Philistin, 617 617 Pa. Pa.
358, 387, 53 358,387, 53 A.3d 1, 17 A.3d 1, 17 (2012), (2012), citing citing to to Commonwealth v. Kennedy, Commonwealth v. 598 Pa. Kennedy, 598 Pa. 621, 959 A.2d 621,959 A.2d 916, 916,
923-24 (2008). 92324 (2008).
Defendant, in Defendant, in his his “Direct "Direct Appeal” brief, cites Appeal" brief, cites to to specific specific incidents incidents to to support support his his claim claim of of
prosecutorial misconduct. prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant Defendant broadly broadly asserts asserts that that ADA ADA Wheeler Wheeler knowingly knowingly and and willfully willfully
elicited “false elicited perjurious testimony” "false perjurious from Washington testimony" from Washington County Drug Task County Drug Task Force Force Supervisor Supervisor
Richard Gluth, to Richard Gluth, to support support the the use of “knowingly use of "knowingly fraudulent fraudulent fabricated fabricated evidence evidence control control logs” logs"
during trial. during trial. See See Defendant’s Defendant's Direct Direct Appeal, Appeal, Prosecutorial Prosecutorial Misconduct. Misconduct.
With With respect respect to to “prosecutorial "prosecutorial misconduct,” misconduct," Defendant Defendant has has established established nothing nothing by way of by way of
facts or evidence facts or evidence to to show show that that the the evidence evidence control control logs logs were were somehow somehow fabricated fabricated or or changed. changed.
To the To the contrary, contrary, as as set set forth forth in Section G in Section G above, above, extensive extensive testimony testimony and and evidence evidence was was presented presented
at trial relating at trial relating to to the the evidence control logs. evidence control logs. There There is simply no is simply in the testimony in no testimony the record record which which
would establish would establish that that these these documents documents were were fabricated. fabricated.
44 44 Defendant Defendant next next argues argues that that ADA ADA Wheeler Wheeler elicited elicited “perjurious "perjurious preliminary preliminary hearing hearing
testimony double testimony double hearsay” hearsay" from from Officer Officer Fichter at the Fichter at the preliminary preliminary hearing hearing on on May May 3, 3, 2023. 2023.
Defendant again Defendant again sets sets forth forth an an entirely entirely undeveloped undeveloped legal legal argument, argument, with with no no citation citation to relevant to relevant
legal authority, legal authority, that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth suppressed suppressed exculpatory exculpatory evidence evidence at at the preliminary the preliminary
hearing hearing stage stage by by not not calling calling certain certain witnesses witnesses to to testify testify at at that that hearing. Defendant cites hearing. Defendant cites to to
Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Bazemore, Bazemore, 531 531 Pa. 582 (1992) Pa. 582 (1992) is is support support of of his his argument. argument. In Bazemore, Bazemore, the the
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Supreme Court Court held held that that the transcript of the transcript of prior prior testimony testimony from from aa preliminary preliminary
hearing of hearing of an an unavailable Commonwealth witness unavailable Commonwealth witness was was not not admissible admissible at at trial trial where where the the
Commonwealth failed Commonwealth failed to to disclose disclose to to the the defense defense vital vital impeachment impeachment evidence evidence regarding regarding this this
witness prior to witness prior to the the preliminary preliminary hearing. hearing. Defendant’s reliance on Defendant's reliance on Bazemore Bazemore to to support support his his claim claim
is is entirely entirely misplaced. misplaced. Defendant Defendant also also cites cites to to United United States States v. v. Rispo, Rispo, where where the the United United States States
Court of Court of Appeals, Appeals, Third Circuit, Court Third Circuit, Court stated stated that that “the "the district district attorney attorney knowingly knowingly concealed concealed the the
exculpatory testimony exculpatory testimony of of an an eye eye witness witness to to aa crime. crime. If If the the district district attorney attorney had had knowingly knowingly used used
perjured testimony, perjured testimony, there there would would have have been been grounds grounds for for an an automatic reversal.” 460 automatic reversal." 460 F.2d F.2d 965, 965, 974 974
(3d Cir. 1972). (3d Cir. 1972). In In the the instant instant case, case, there is no there is no record record evidence evidence to to demonstrate demonstrate that that ADA ADA Wheeler Wheeler
knowingly knowingly concealed concealed exculpatory exculpatory testimony testimony or or knowingly knowingly elicited elicited perjured perjured testimony. testimony. There There is is
no no testimony testimony to to support support the the claim claim that that ADA ADA Wheeler Wheeler knowingly knowingly elicited elicited perjurious perjurious testimony testimony at at
the the preliminary preliminary hearing. hearing.
Defendant Defendant also also contends contends that that ADA ADA Wheeler Wheeler presented presented aa “fabricated "fabricated fraudulent fraudulent warrant warrant
service log” service log" at at trial. trial. Defendant’s Defendant's argument argument is misplaced. As is misplaced. As set set forth forth in in Section Section K K above, above, the the
Commonwealth did Commonwealth did not not present present Officer Officer Fichter’s Fichter's arrest arrest service service log log at at trial. trial. Defendant Defendant sought sought to to
use aa copy use copy of of the the arrest arrest warrant warrant service log to service log to cross-examine cross-examine Officer Officer Fichter Fichter at at trial. trial. This Court This Court
precluded the precluded the line line of of questioning questioning in in response response to to an objection raised an objection raised by by the the Commonwealth. TT, Commonwealth. TT,
45 45 vol. vol. II, II, 505, 505, 4/10/24. 4/10/24. Defendant’s Defendant's line line of of questioning questioning was was precluded based on precluded based on concerns concerns that it that it
would would confuse confuse the the issues issues for for the jury. The the jury. The line line of of questioning questioning was also irrelevant was also irrelevant to to the issue of the issue of
guilt guilt or or innocence. innocence.
Officer Fichter testified Officer Fichter testified at at an Omnibus Pretrial an Omnibus Hearing as Pretrial Heating as to to the the way he documented way he documented
attempts attempts to to serve serve the the warrant by writing warrant by writing the the list list of of dates dates on on the the inside inside of of his his case file. Omnibus case file. Omnibus
Pretrial Pretrial Hr’g Hr' Tr., Tr., 108-109, 108-109, 10/13/2023. 10/13/2023. Defendant Defendant references references this this list of attempts list of attempts to to serve serve the the
warrant warrant as as an an arrest arrest warrant warrant service service log. log. TT, TT, vol. vol. I, 1, 232, 232, 4/9/24. 4/9/24. With With respect respect to to “prosecutorial "prosecutorial
misconduct,” misconduct," Defendant Defendant has has established established nothing nothing by by way way of facts or of facts or evidence evidence to to show show that that Officer Officer
Fichter’s Fichter's arrest arrest warrant warrant service service log log was was fabricated fabricated or or changed. changed.
This This Court Court submits submits that, that, for for the the reasons reasons set set forth forth above, above, there there is is no no merit merit to to Defendant's Defendant's
claim claim of of prosecutorial prosecutorial misconduct. misconduct.
U. U. Suggestive Suggestive Single Single Photo Photo Identification Identification Procedure Procedure99
“When "When determining determining the the admissibility admissibility of of identification identification testimony, testimony, this this Court Court has has held held that that
suggestiveness suggestiveness in in the the identification identification process process is is aa factor factor to to be be considered considered in in determining determining the the
admissibility admissibility of of such such evidence, evidence, but but ‘suggestiveness 'suggestiveness alone alone does does not not warrant warrant exclusion.’ exclusion.' A A pretrial pretrial
identification identification will will not not be be suppressed suppressed as as violative violative of of due due process process rights rights unless unless the the facts facts
demonstrate demonstrate that that the the identification identification procedure procedure was was so so infected infected by by suggestiveness suggestiveness ‘as 'as to to give give rise rise to to
aa substantial substantial likelihood likelihood of of irreparable irreparable misidentification.’” misidentification.'" Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Kubis, Kubis, 2009 2009 PA PA
Super Super 140, 140, 978 978 A.2d A.2d 391, 396 (Pa. 391,396 (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. 2009) 2009) (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted).
9Defendant’s Defendant's 1925(b) 1925(b) Concise Concise Statement Statement categorizes categorizes two two (2) (2) separate separate claims claims as as Section Section “U.” 9 "U."
46 46 2. 2. Court’s Court's Analysis Analysis
Defendant Defendant next next argues argues that that the the single single suggestive photo identification suggestive photo identification procedure procedure utilized utilized
by law by law enforcement enforcement during during its its investigation investigation was was highly prejudicial to highly prejudicial to Defendant Defendant and and gave gave rise to rise to
aa very very substantial substantial likelihood likelihood of of irreparable irreparable wanton wanton misidentification. misidentification.
An An unlawfully unlawfully obtained obtained pretrial pretrial identification identification will will be be excluded from trial excluded from trial if if its its
admissibility admissibility is is raised raised in in aa pretrial pretrial motion motion and and ruled ruled upon upon by by the the Court Court in in aa pretrial pretrial evidentiary evidentiary
hearing. hearing. See See Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Jenkins, Jenkins, 232 232 Pa.Super. Pa.Super. 523 523 ((1975). ((1975). The The Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Supreme
Court Court has has clearly clearly stated stated that that where where aa defendant defendant did did not, not, either either before or during before or during trial, trial, raise raise the the
issue issue that that the the pretrial pretrial identification identification procedure procedure used used by by law law enforcement enforcement was was impermissibly impermissibly
suggestive, suggestive, the the issue issue was was waived. waived. See See Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Harris, Harris, 479 479 Pa. Pa. 131 131 (1978). (1978).
Defendant Defendant filed filed an an Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial motion motion in in this this case, case, however however that that motion motion did did not not
relate relate to to the the pretrial pretrial identification identification issue. issue. See See Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion, Motion, 7/27/2023. 7/27/2023.
Furthermore, Furthermore, this this evidence evidence was was not not objected objected to to at at the time it the time it was was introduced introduced at at trial. trial. Defendant Defendant
cites cites to to Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Dupont, Dupont, No. No. 721 721 MDA MDA 2019, 2019, 2020 2020 WL WL 886133 886133 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Feb. Feb. 24, 24,
2020), 2020), superseded, superseded, 237 237 A.3d A.3d 426 426 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2020) 2020) and and Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Small, Small, 741 741 A.2d A.2d 666 666
(Pa. (Pa. 1999) 1999) in in his his “Direct "Direct Appeal” Appeal" brief brief to to support support his his argument. argument. Defendant Defendant fails fails to to recognize recognize
that that the the legal legal authority authority that that he he uses uses to to support support his his argument argument involve involve pretrial pretrial identification identification issues issues
which which were were addressed addressed by by the the Court Court at at aa suppression suppression hearing. hearing.
This This Court Court submits submits that, that, for for the the reasons reasons set set forth forth above, above, Defendant Defendant has has waived waived this this issue. issue.
47 47 V. V. Failing Failing to to Disclose Disclose GPS GPS Tracker Tracker Information is aa Brady Information is Brady Violation Violation
Whether Whether aa Brady Brady violation violation warrants warrants aa new new trial presents aa question trial presents question of of law, law, for for which which the the
standard standard of of review review is is de de novo novo and and the the scope of review scope of review is plenary. See is plenary. See Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Bagnall, Bagnall,
661 661 Pa. Pa. 123, 235 A.3d 123,235 A.3d 1075 (2020). 1075 (2020).
Defendant Defendant argues argues that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth purposely purposely failed failed to to disclose, prior to disclose, prior to trial, trial,
evidence evidence regarding regarding the the use use of of the the GPS GPS tracking tracking device device such such as as affidavits, affidavits, warrants warrants and/or and/or court court
orders orders in in violation violation of of his his constitutional constitutional right right to to due due process process as as recognized recognized in in Brady Brady v. Maryland, v. Maryland,
373 373 U.S. U.S. 83, 83, 83 83 S.Ct. S.Ct. 1194 1194 (1963). (1963).
“(T]o "[T]o establish establish aa Brady Brady violation, violation, aa defendant defendant is is required required to to demonstrate demonstrate that that exculpatory exculpatory
or or impeaching impeaching evidence, evidence, favorable favorable to to the the defense, defense, was was suppressed suppressed by by the the prosecution, prosecution, to to the the
prejudice prejudice of of the the defendant.” defendant." Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Gibson, Gibson, 597 597 Pa. Pa. 402, 402, 429, 429, 951 951 A.2d A.2d 1110, 1110, 1126 1126
(2008). (2008). In other other words: words: “there "there are are three three necessary necessary components components that that demonstrate demonstrate aa violation violation of of
the the Brady Brady strictures: strictures: the the evidence evidence was was favorable favorable to to the the accused, accused, either either because because itit is is exculpatory exculpatory
or or because because itit impeaches; impeaches; the the evidence evidence was was suppressed suppressed by by the the prosecution, prosecution, either either willfully willfully or or
inadvertently; inadvertently; and and prejudice prejudice ensued.” ensued." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Lambert, Lambert, 884 884 A.2d A.2d 848 848 (Pa. (Pa. 2005), 2005),
citing citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Burke. Burke. 781 781 A.2d A.2d 1136, 1136, 1141 (Pa.2001). 1141 (Pa.2001). To To show show prejudice, prejudice, it it must must be be
established established that that the the new new information information “would ''would have have changed changed the the outcome outcome of of the the trial trial if if itit had had been been
introduced.” introduced." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Sattazahn, Sattazahn, 869 869 A.2d A.2d 529, 529, 534 534 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2005). 2005).
With With respect respect to to the the first first prong, prong, Defendant Defendant clearly clearly fails fails to to establish establish that that the the information information
relating relating to to the the use use of of the the GPS GPS tracking tracking device device is is favorable favorable to to Defendant Defendant because because itit is is exculpatory. exculpatory.
In In the the present present case, case, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth did did not not present present any any evidence evidence to to the the jury jury that that aa GPS GPS
48 48 tracking device was was utilized utilized by law law enforcement enforcement during the six six controlled controlled buys buys which resulted resulted in in
the fding filing of charges charges against against Defendant. Defendant. Defendant Defendant also fails to demonstrate how how this
information would serve to impeach Agent Agent Barna, Barna, or any of the law law enforcement enforcement witnesses at at
trial, trial, when their testimony strictly strictly related to physical physical surveillance of the controlled buys. buys.
With respect respect to the second prong, prong, namely, namely, that that the prosecution suppressed the evidence, evidence,
either either willfully or or inadvertently, inadvertently, the the record evidence demonstrates demonstrates that that Defendant Defendant was was not not
provided information, information, in discovery, discovery, regarding law law enforcement’s enforcement's utilization of aa tracking device
during during their their investigation. investigation. The The record record evidence further further demonstrates demonstrates that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth was was
unaware unaware of of the the use of of aa tracking tracking device device and and was was not not in in possession of of these these documents documents prior prior to to
trial. trial. As As aa result, result, the the information information was was not not turned turned over over to to Defendant Defendant in in pre-trial pre-trial discovery. discovery. TT, TT,
vol. vol. II, II, 7, 7, lines lines 6-25, 6-25, 4/10/24. 4/10/24. Agent Agent Barna Barna testified testified that that he he did did not not turn turn over over to to the the Washington Washington
County County District District Attorney’s Attorney's office, office, in in discovery, discovery, any any information information regarding regarding the the tracking tracking device device
utilized utilized by by the the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Office Office of ofAttorney Attorney General. General. TT, TT, vol. vol. I,I, 21, 21, 4/9/24. 4/9/24. Agent Agent Barna Barna
testified testified that that the the GPS GPS tracker tracker was was not not used used as as evidence evidence for for anything anything other other than than furthering furthering the the
investigation. investigation. Agent Agent Barna Barna further further explained explained that that the the GPS GPS tracking tracking device device was was not not used used during during
the the controlled controlled buys buys relating relating to to Defendant’s Defendant's case; case; instead, instead, law law enforcement enforcement only only utilized utilized physical physical
surveillance surveillance for for the the controlled controlled buys. buys. Id. Id. at at 25. 25.
Pursuant Pursuant to to Brady Brady and and its its progeny, progeny, the the prosecutor prosecutor “has "has aa duty duty to to learn learn of ofany any favorable favorable
evidence evidence known known to to the the others others acting acting on on the the government's government's behalf behalfin in the the case, case, including including the the
police.” police." Kyles Kyles v.• Whitley, Whitley, 514 514 U.S. U.S. 419, 419, 437, 437, 1 115 S.Ct. S.Ct. 1555, 1555, 131 131 L.Ed.2d L.Ed.2d 490 490 (1995). (1995). However, However,
there there isis “no "no constitutional constitutional requirement requirement that that the the prosecution prosecution make make aa complete complete and and detailed detailed
accounting accounting to to the the defense defense of ofall all police police investigatory investigatory work work on on aa case.” case." Moore Moore v.v. Illinois, Illinois, 408 408 U.S. U.S.
786, 786, 795, 795, 92 92 S.Ct. S.Ct. 2562, 2562, 33 33 L.Ed.2d L.Ed.2d 706 706 (1972). (1972). “The "The mere mere possibility possibility that that an an item item of of
49 49 undisclosed undisclosed information information might might have have helped helped the defense, or the defense, or might might have affected the have affected the outcome outcome of of
the the trial, does not trial, does not establish establish ‘materiality’ 'materiality' in in the the constitutional sense.” United constitutional sense." United States v. v. Agurs, Agurs, 427 427
U.S. U.S. 97, 97, 109-10, 109-10, 96 96 S.Ct. S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). As 342 (1976). As set set forth forth in in Kyles, Kyles, there there is is no no
constitutional constitutional requirement requirement that that the the prosecution prosecution make make aa complete complete accountings accountings to to the the defense defense of all of all
police police investigatory investigatory work work performed performed by by law law enforcement enforcement in in this case, such this case, such as as the the use use of of aa
tracking tracking device, device, when when the the device device was was only only used used to to further further the the investigation investigation and and not not utilized utilized
during during the the six six controlled controlled buys. buys.
Defendant’s Defendant's argument argument is is lacking lacking as as it it relates relates to to the the third third Brady prong. Under Brady prong. Under the the third third
prong, prong, Defendant Defendant must must establish establish that that the the Commonwealth's Commonwealth's failure failure to to disclose disclose information, information,
including including the the affidavit, affidavit, warrant warrant and/or and/or court court order order relating relating to to the the use use of of aa GPS GPS tracking tracking device, device,
prejudiced prejudiced Defendant Defendant at at trial. trial. “To "To satisfy satisfy the the prejudice prejudice inquiry, inquiry, the the evidence evidence suppressed suppressed must must
have have been been material material to to guilt guilt or or punishment.” punishment." Gibson, Gibson, 951 951 A.2d A.2d at at 1126-1 127 (Pa.2008). 1126-1127 (Pa.2008). “Where "Where
evidence evidence material material to to the the guilt guilt or or punishment punishment of of the the accused accused is is withheld, withheld, irrespective irrespective of of the the good good
or or bad bad faith faith of of the the prosecutor, prosecutor, aa violation violation of of due due process process has has occurred.” occurred." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v.
Strong, Strong, 563 563 Pa. Pa. 455, 462, 761 455,462, 761 A.2d A.2d 1167, 1167, 1171 1171 (2000) (2000) (internal (internal citations citations omitted) omitted) (emphasis (emphasis
added). added). “(F]avorable "[F]avorable evidence evidence is is material, material, and and constitutional constitutional error error results results from from its its suppression suppression
by by the the government, government, if if there there is is aa reasonable reasonable probability probability that, that, had had the the evidence evidence been been disclosed disclosed to to
the the defense, defense, the the result result of of the the proceeding proceeding would would have have been been different.” different." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Cam Cam Ly, Ly,
602 602 Pa. Pa. 268, 294, 980 268,294, 980 A.2d A.2d 61, 61, 76 76 (2009), (2009), citing citing to to Kyles Kyles v.v. Whitley, Whitley, 514 514 U.S. U.S. 419, 419, 433^434, 433-434, 115 115
S.Ct. S.Ct. 1555, 1555, 131 131 L.Ed.2d490 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). (1995).
Here, Here, Defendant Defendant has has failed failed to to demonstrate, demonstrate, in in any any specific specific way, way, how how the the information information
regarding regarding the the tracking tracking device device was was material material or or would would have have changed changed the the outcome outcome of of the the trial. trial. As As
set set forth forth above, above, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth did did not not present present any any evidence evidence to to the the jury jury that that aa GPS GPS tracking tracking
50 50 device was was utilized utilized by law law enforcement enforcement during the six six controlled controlled buys. buys. It is the defendant's
burden to demonstrate the materiality of the evidence. evidence. See Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Santiago, Santiago, 654 A.2d
1062, 1062, 1072 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 1994). 1994).
This This Court Court submits submits that, that, for the reasons reasons set set forth above, above, Defendant’s Defendant's claim claim should be
dismissed. dismissed.
Defendant Defendant cites to Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Chamberlain, Chamberlain, that that states “the "the Due Due Process Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment Amendment requires requires defendants defendants be be provided provided access access to to certain kinds kinds of evidence
prior prior to trial, trial, so they may may ‘be 'be afforded a meaningful meaningful opportunity to to present present a complete complete defense.’” defense.'"
612 612 Pa. Pa. 107, 107, 142, 142, 30 30 A.3d A.3d 381, 381, 402 402 (201 (201 1) 1) (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted). Defendant Defendant fails fails to to
acknowledge, acknowledge, however, however, that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth did did not not submit submit evidence evidence to to the the jury jury of of the the
tracking tracking device device at at trial. trial. Defendant Defendant fails fails to to set set forth forth and and articulate articulate in in his his Concise Concise Statement Statement or or
written written “Direct "Direct Appeal” Appeal" brief brief how how disclosure disclosure of of the the affidavit, affidavit, warrant warrant and/or and/or court court order order
regarding regarding the the use use of of aa tracking tracking device device by by law law enforcement enforcement during during its its investigation investigation would would have have
resulted resulted in in aa different different outcome outcome at at trial. trial. Therefore, Therefore, Defendant’s Defendant's claim claim must must fail. fail.
W. W. Ineffective Ineffective Assistance Assistance of of Pretrial Pretrial Counsel Counsel
Defendant Defendant next next contends contends that that his his prior prior attorney, attorney, Adam Adam Yarussi, Yarussi, Esquire, Esquire, was was ineffective ineffective
for for failing failing to to obtain obtain preliminary preliminary hearing hearing transcripts transcripts for for use use in in drafting drafting an an Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial
Motion Motion and and Motion Motion to to Set Set Bail. Bail. Defendant Defendant also also argues argues that that Yarussi Yarussi failed failed to to properly properly raise raise and and
preserve preserve the the statute statute of oflimitations limitations issue issue regarding regarding counts counts 77 through through 12 12 (simple (simple possession) possession) of ofthe the
Bill Bill of ofInformation. Information.
The The Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Supreme Court Court has has clearly clearly stated stated that that “ineffectiveness "ineffectiveness claims claims are are not not to to
be be raised raised in in the the first first instance instance on on direct direct appeal appeal but but must must await await collateral collateral review.” review." Commonwealth Commonwealth
v.v. Crosby, Crosby, 844 844 A.2d A.2d 1271 1271 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2004). 2004). The The Supreme Supreme Court Court has has held, held, however, however, that thatwhere where
51 51 the trial court court has has held a hearing on a claim claim of trial counsel's ineffectiveness, ineffectiveness, and the record has has
been fully developed on that that issue, issue, it is appropriate for this Court Court to review review an ineffectiveness
claim claim on direct direct appeal. appeal. Id., citing Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Bomar, Bomar, 573 Pa. Pa. 426, 426, 826 A.2d 831 (2003). (2003).
Here, Here, Defendant Defendant has has raised ineffective assistance of counsel counsel claims claims for the first time in
his Direct Direct Appeal. Appeal. See Defendant’s Defendant's 1925(b) 1925(b) Concise Statement, Statement, Section V. V. The The trial trial court court has has
not not held aa hearing on Defendant’s Defendant's claims claims of pretrial pretrial counsel's ineffectiveness. ineffectiveness. As As the record has has
not not been fully fully developed regarding this issue, issue, this Court Court suggests suggests that that it is not not appropriate for for the
Superior Superior Court Court of of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania to review review these claims claims on on direct direct appeal. appeal.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
For For the reasons reasons set set forth forth above, above, the the undersigned undersigned respectfully respectfully submits submits that that the judgment judgment of of
sentence sentence should should be be affirmed. affirmed.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2024
n-, :1..4 1'. "l CI &
52 52 IN INTHE THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMONPLEAS PLEAS OF OFWASHINGTON WASHINGTON COUNTY. COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH COMMONWEALTH OF OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA, )) )) vv. )) No. No. 746-2023 746-2023 )) JASON JASON WOODALL, WOODALL, )) )) Defendant. Defendant. ))
OPINION OPINION AND AND ORDER ORDER
This This matter matter comes comes before before the the Court Court upon upon Defendant, Defendant, Jason Jason Woodall’s Woodall 's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial
Motion. Motion. By By way way of of an an amended amended Bill Bill of Information filed oflnfonnation filed on on December December 20, 20, 2023, 2023, the the
Commonwealth Commonwealth charged charged Defendant Defendant with with six six counts counts of ofPossession Possession with with Intent Intent to to Deliver Deliver aa
Controlled Controlled Substance, Substance, cocaine, cocaine, 35 35 P.S. P.S. §$ 780-1 13(a)(30), an 780-113(a)30), an ungraded ungraded Felony; Felony; and and six six counts counts of of
Possession Possession of of aa Controlled Controlled Substance, Substance, cocaine, cocaine, 35 35 P.S. P.S. §$ 780-113(a)(16), 780-113(a)016), an an ungraded ungraded 1 Misdemeanor. Misdemeanor.1
Defendant Defendant filed filed the the instant instant Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion on July 27, 27, 2023, 2023, and the the Court Court held
aa hearing hearing thereon thereon on on October October 13, 13, 2023. 2023. Present Present at at this this hearing hearing were were Rachel Rachel Wheeler, Wheeler, Esquire, Esquire,
representing representing the the Commonwealth, Commonwealth, and and Adam Adam Yarussi, Yarussi, Esquire, Esquire, representing Defendant. Defendant. At At the the
close of the hearing, hearing, this Court Court ordered ordered both parties parties to submit submit proposed proposed findings findings of fact fact and
conclusions conclusions of of law law thirty days days after after the the filing filing of the the official official transcript. transcript. The The official official transcript transcript of
the Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Hearing was was filed filed on November November 9, 9, 2023. 2023. Thereafter, Thereafter, Defendant Defendant and
the Commonwealth timely submitted their proposed proposed findings of fact fact and conclusions conclusions of law. law.
Upon examining examining the relevant relevant facfehfidlla^lthis' faclh01l6,this!'( Court. ti~issues 6 the following opinion and order, order. g;: t; SLUB al 03 J 2 gp;pp i • -. i'-
i·
'On 1On December December 20, 20, 2023, 2023, the the Commoig&aS Cormo~&a di a9i2>Wt81i9Snd S%lfblnd the the original original Bill Bill of of Information Information filed filed on on May May 15, 2023 15, 2023 in order order to to clarify clarify the the date date ranges corresponding to ranges corresponding to the the Possession Possession of of aa Controlled Controlled Substance Substance charges. charges. This This Court Court subsequently subsequently granted granted the the Commonwea^li’s.,motion. Commonwealth'smgtion. _ { gs:;5 « p-> g.j us?} 3: ! '•>»? .urf %h a t i f ' CONCLUSIONS LAW OF LAW CONCLUSIONS OF
I.I. to Dismiss Motion to Motion Pursuant to Dismiss Pursuant Rule 600 to Rule 600
The Dismiss to Dismiss Motion to Motion isis aa Motion Pretrial Motion Omnibus Pretrial his Omnibus in his Defendant in by Defendant raised by issue raised first issue The first
Pursuant basedupon 600 based Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 to Pa.R.Crim.P. Pursuantto assertionthat his assertion uponhis the Commonwealth that the has failed Commonwealth has to failed to
exercise diligenceininbringing duediligence exercisedue Defendanttoto trial. bringingDefendant See Omnibus trial. See Pre-Trial Motion, OmnibusPre-Trial 7/27/23; Motion, 7/27/23;
See alsoBrief Seealso BriefininSupport Defendant'sOmnibus ofDefendant’s Supportof Pre-TrialMotion(s), OmnibusPre-Trial More 12/1/23.More Motion(s), 12/1/23.
specifically, extensiveperiod theextensive thatthe contendsthat Defendantcontends specifically,Defendant timethat oftime periodof tooktotoexecute thatitittook the executethe
arrest the withthe actwith failuretotoact Commonwealth'sfailure theCommonwealth’s ofthe resultof theresult wasthe Defendantwas onDefendant warranton arrestwarrant
requisite duediligence. requisitedue Forthe Id.For diligence.Id. theforegoing Defendant'sclaim reasons,Defendant’s foregoingreasons, lacksmerit claimlacks thatwould meritthat would
himtotorelief. entitlehim entitle relief.
The rightotoa aspeedy Theright "oneofofthe trialisis“one speedytrial mostbasic themost basicrights rightspreserved ourConstitution.” byour preservedby Constitution."
Commonwealth Barbour,189 Commonwealthv. v.Barbour, 954(Pa. 994,954 A.3d994, 189A.3d (Pa.2018) omitted)."The citationsomitted).” (internalcitations 2018)(internal The
government's government powertotodetain exerciseofofitsitspower s exercise individualduring detainananindividual pendencyofofa acriminal thependency duringthe criminal
prosecution burdenupon heavyburden placesa aheavy prosecutionplaces accused.Id.Id.AsAssuch, theaccused. uponthe "thespeedy such,“the guarantee‘is'is trialguarantee speedytrial
safeguardtotoprevent importantsafeguard ananimportant andoppressive undueand preventundue priortototrial, incarcerationprior oppressiveincarceration minimize trial,totominimize
anxiety concernaccompanying andconcern anxietyand accompanyingpublic andtotolimit accusationand publicaccusation thepossibilities limitthe thatlong possibilitiesthat delay longdelay
will ’” Id.Id. himself.'" defendhimself. accusedtotodefend ananaccused abilityofof impairthetheability willimpair
Rule600, Rule which 600,which forth setsforth sets thethespeedy trialrequirements, speedytrial requirements, provides,inin provides, pertinent pertinent part,asas part,
follows: follows:
: Ha0 N[IN9HA- Rule Rule 600.Prompt 600. Prompt •
Trial i ]. ·± Trialg;ypp' Trial^, ·> m.rs4:a bid Hu j j-j yri'.'} +' • W1 3 ’to {l (A)(2)(a) (A)(2)(a) Trial idin,a copt a court case in in ggse, which which @ written complaint is filed against the defendant, a written complaint is filed against the defendant, when the defend~nt when the defendant iS'at ;&k idls} 6d%~tsk~ commence no later than 365 days from the daditm^Js^E commence no later than 365 days from the date onon date which which th?th~ complaint complaint I is filed. is filed. ' j l 8 I fi w *«* 8& •i ' 2 (C)(1) (C)(l) For For purposes purposes of of paragraph paragraph (A), (A), periods periods of of delay delay at at any any stage stage of of the the proceedings proceedings caused by caused the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth when when the the Commonwealth Commonwealth has has failed to exercise failed to exercise due due diligence shall be diligence shall be included included in the computation in the computation of the time of the time within within which trial must which trial must commence. commence. AnyAny other other periods periods of of delay delay shall shall be excluded from be excluded the computation. from the computation. (D)(l) When (D)(1) When aa defendant defendant has has not not been been brought to trial brought to trial within within the the time time periods periods set set forth forth in in paragraph (A), paragraph (A), anyat at any time time before before trial, trial, the the defendant’s defendant's attorney, attorney, or or the the defendant defendant if if unrepresented, may unrepresented, may file file aa motion motion requesting that the requesting that the charges charges be be dismissed dismissed with with prejudice prejudice on the on the ground ground that this rule that this rule has has been been violated. violated. AA copy copy of of the the motion motion shall shall be be served served on on the the attorney for attorney the Commonwealth for the Commonwealth concurrently concurrently with with filing. filing. The judge shall The judge shall conduct conduct aa hearing hearing on on the the motion. motion. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600.
As As the the text text of of Rule Rule 600 600 makes makes clear, clear, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth is is generally generally required to bring required to bring aa
defendant to trial defendant to trial within 365 days within 365 days from from tlie the date on which date on the criminal which the criminal complaint complaint was was filed. filed.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). Where Where the the Commonwealth Commonwealth fails to bring fails to bring aa defendant to trial defendant to trial within within
the time prescribed the time prescribed by the rule, by the rule, he he may may request request that the charges that the against him charges against him be be dismissed dismissed with with
prejudice on prejudice on the the grounds that the grounds that the Commonwealth Commonwealth has has violated violated Rule Rule 600. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(D)(1). 600. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(D)1 ).
Under the old Under the old version version of Rule 600, of Rule 600, aa court court assessing assessing aa Rule 600 claim Rule 600 was to claim was to account account for for two two
mutually mutually exclusive exclusive categories: categories: “excludable "excludable time” time and “excusable delay.” and "excusable delay." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v.
Wiggins, 248 Wiggins, 248 A.3d A.3d 1285, 1285, 1288 1288 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2021). “Excludable time" 2021). "Excludable time” was was defined defined by by our our
appellate courts appellate courts as as “delay "delay that that is is attributable to the attributable to the defendant defendant or or his his counsel[,]” counsel[,]" whereas whereas
'excusable delay” "excusable delay" was was defined defined as as “delay that occurs "delay that occurs as as aa result result of of circumstances circumstances beyond the beyond the
Commonwealth’s control Commonwealth's control and and despite its due despite its due diligence.” Id. at diligence." Id. at 1288-1289 1288-1289 (internal (internal citations citations
omitted). omitted).
However, following However, following alterations to Rule alterations to Rule 600, 600, “(t]he "[t]he new new Rule Rule 600 eliminated distinction 600 eliminated distinction
between between these these-two two buckets buck~ts of^p^a^j^ ofgpyah}s time. Under $@l9\la9lg time. Under its its new new verbiage, verbiage, ‘periods of 'periods of ; S!gg I uj delay at delay at any stage of any stage of the* proceedings the]proceedin causedby by the caused' the Commonwealth Commonwealth when the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth
ihas ; gs2J 92N, h7a , has failed failed to to exercise exercise due diligence'W duei diligence W'f forms forris the i basis of what tl~'b~d'of what is is known known as time.'’ includable time. as 'includable
3 Conversely, all Conversely, all other other periods periods of of delay delay are are excluded excluded from from the the Rule Rule 600 600 calculation.” calculation." Wiggins, Wiggins, 248 248
A.3d at A.3d at 1289. 1289.
Thus, “when Thus, "when aa court court is is faced faced with with aa Rule Rule 600 600 motion motion asserting asserting aa facial facial violation violation of of the the new new
Rule 600, Rule 600, the the onus onus is is on on the the Commonwealth Commonwealth to demonstrate that to demonstrate that it engaged in it engaged in due due diligence diligence in in at at
least least being being capable capable of of bringing bringing aa defendant defendant to to trial trial within within the the prescribed prescribed time time parameters.” parameters."
Wiggins, 248 Wiggins, A.3d at 248 A.3d at 1289. 1289. In showing showing that that the the Commonwealth acted with Commonwealth acted with due due diligence, diligence, it it must must
prove so by prove so by aa preponderance preponderance of of the the evidence. evidence. Id. Id. Further, Further, “[d]ue "[d]ue diligence diligence is is aa fact-specific fact-specific
concept that concept that must must be be determined determined on on aa case-by-case case-by-case basis. basis. Due Due diligence diligence does does not not require require perfect perfect
diligence and diligence and punctilious care, but punctilious care, but rather rather aa showing showing by by the the Commonwealth Commonwealth that that aa reasonable reasonable
effort has effort has been been put put forth.” Id. forth." Id.
Turning to Turning to the the instant instant matter, matter, die the evidence evidence introduced by the introduced by the Commonwealth Commonwealth and and adduced adduced
through through the the testimony testimony at at the the hearing hearing on on Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion, established, by Motion, established, by aa
preponderance of preponderance of the evidence, that the evidence, that the the investigating investigating officers officers in in this this matter matter acted acted with with due due
diligence in diligence executing the in executing the arrest arrest warrant warrant for for Defendant. Defendant.
On March On March 2, 2, 2021, 2021, aa criminal complaint was criminal complaint was filed filed against against Defendant Defendant in in the the present present matter. matter.
Contemporaneously, an Contemporaneously, arrest warrant an arrest warrant was was issued issued for for Defendant, Defendant, listing listing 556 556 Sunnyfield Sunnyfield Drive, Drive,
Monroeville, Pennsylvania Monroeville, Pennsylvania as as Defendant’s Defendant's place place of residence. Ultimately, ofresidence. Ultimately, Defendant Defendant was was
arrested on arrested on the the warrant warrant on on April April 14, 14, 2023. 2023.
With With regard regard to to the the efforts efforts of of law enforcement to law enforcement execute the to execute the arrest arrest warrant warrant on on Defendant, Defendant,
Agent Agent Joseph Joseph Barna Barna of of the the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office credibly testified Office credibly testified at at the the ;; . V4 NO!9NIHSV- Vd 03 N019N1HW 03 hearing on hearing Defendant's,initiafik's'sell'if@at on Defendant’s |initial^(^l£omWsteb^ following the following the issuance issuance of of the the arrest arrest warrant warrant
for for Defendant, Defendant, he notifi'ed he nous% afiiK,Nd.$ ea tl^^rMsLvSS P^i&©®epartment, if&Department, Penn Penn Hills Police Department, Hills Police Department, i I
4 Plum Plum Boro Bora Police Police Department, Department, as as well well as as various various other other police police departments departments in in surrounding surrounding areas areas
of ofthe the warrant warrant and and provided provided them them with with aa description description of ofDefendant’s Defendant's vehicle vehicle to to assist assist in in the the
2 apprehension apprehension of of Defendant. Defendant. Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Exhibit Exhibit 22 at at 32: 6-3 , 32:16-33:1.2
Agent Agent Barna Barna further further credibly credibly testified testified at at the the bail bail hearing hearing regarding regarding his his knowledge knowledge of ofthe the
efforts efforts that that the the Monroeville Monroeville Police Police Department Department went went to to in in executing executing the the arrest arrest warrant warrant on on
Defendant, Defendant, specifically specifically stating stating that, that, “Monroeville "Monroeville definitely definitely stopped stopped there there and and very very proactive proactive
guys were guys were looking, looking, but but his his vehicle vehicle didn’t come back didn't come back [to [to the the residence.] residence.] He He simply simply moved moved away. away.
There was There was surveillance surveillance done done on on the the residence, and he residence, and he wasn’t wasn't viewed viewed coming coming or or going going from from the the
residence residence anymore anymore like like he he was was before before in in the the past.” past." Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Exhibit Exhibit 22 at at 34:7-12. 34:7-12. Agent Agent
Barna Barna also also provided provided credible credible testimony testimony regarding regarding efforts efforts on on the the part part of of investigating investigating officers officers to to
track track down down Defendant Defendant through through other other individuals, individuals, including including Defendant’s Defendant's girlfriend, girlfriend, which which
evidently evidently were were to to no no avail. avail. Id. Id. at at 35:14-24. 35:14-24.
At At the the hearing hearing on on Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion, Motion, Agent Agent Barna Barna again again provided provided
further further credible credible testimony testimony concerning concerning the the efforts efforts that that his his office office put put into into executing executing Defendant’s Defendant's
arrest warrant, arrest warrant, stating stating that that he, he, as as well as other well as other agents, agents, had had spent spent countless countless hours hours attempting attempting to to )
locate locate and and serve serve the the arrest arrest warrant warrant on on Defendant. Defendant. Hrg. Hrg. Tr., Tr., 10/13/23 10/13/23 at at 46:15-19. 46:15-19.
The The testimony testimony provided provided by by Agent Agent Barna Barna regarding regarding the the efforts efforts on on the the part part of of the the
Monroeville Monroeville Police Police Department Department to to execute execute the the arrest arrest warrant warrant on on Defendant Defendant was was bolstered bolstered by by the the
testimony testimony of of Sergeant Sergeant Steven Steven Maritz Maritz of of the the Monroeville Monroeville Police Police Department, Department, who who testified testified that that his his
department, department, on on numerous numerous occasions, occasions, attempted attempted to to execute execute the the arrest arrest warrant warrant by by visiting visiting !
. } '{gg±24g Defendant’s Defendant's residence at residence aft 556 556 3\jfi8Ihjj~ g Tr, 10/13/23 10/13/23 at at 84:9-15. 84:9-15.
- -&S £S:? ZW nd 92NF7p7. The transcript The 2 transcript of of Defendant’s initial bail Defendant's initial hearing held bail hearing held on on June June 20, 20, 2023 2023 was was introduced introduced and and admitted admitted at at the the hearing hearing on -~ cl on Defendant’s Derendanrs Omnibus omnibus Pritrial Pr~tia! MotiQn",as,.“Cornmonxyealth’s Mo"g"pSomgonweattt s Exhibit Exhibit 2.” 2.° : UMlhl ' wt a.d. ? i ~ a~l t 5 l I In addition to In addition to the the efforts efforts on on the the part part of of Agent Agent Barna and Sergeant Barna and Sergeant Maritz, Maritz, Detective Detective
Joseph Joseph Fichter Fichter of of the the Washington Washington County County District District Attorney’s Drug Task Attorney's Drug Task Force provided credible Force provided credible
testimony testimony at at the the initial initial bail bail hearing hearing regarding regarding his his efforts to execute efforts to execute the the arrest arrest warrant warrant on on
Defendant. Defendant. Specifically, Specifically, Detective Detective Fichter Fichter credibly credibly testified that on testified that on four separate occasions, four separate occasions, he he
personally personally attempted attempted to to execute execute the the arrest arrest warrant. warrant. Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Exhibit Exhibit 22 at at 45:13-46:3. 45:13-46:3. In In
addition addition to to attempting attempting personal personal service service of of the the arrest arrest warrant, warrant, Detective Detective Fichter Fichter provided provided aa copy copy
of of the the warrant warrant to to the the Monroeville Monroeville Police Police Department, Department, and notified the and notified the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Attorney Attorney
General’s General's Office Office after after obtaining obtaining the the warrant. warrant. Id. Id. at at 46:4-13. 46:4-13.
Detective Detective Fichter’s Fichter's testimony, testimony, along along with with the the testimony testimony of of the the other other law law enforcement enforcement
officials, officials, concerning concerning their their efforts efforts to to execute execute the the arrest arrest warrant warrant were were further further bolstered bolstered by by
Detective Detective Fichter’s Fichter's credible credible testimony testimony at at the the hearing hearing on on Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion
regarding regarding the the dates dates on on which which he he was was notified notified of, of, or or personally personally attempted attempted to to serve serve the the warrant. warrant.
Specifically, Specifically, Detective Detective Fichter Fichter testified testified that that attempts attempts by by the the investigating investigating officers officers to to execute execute the the
arrest arrest warrant warrant on on Defendant Defendant occurred occurred on on March March 9, 9, 2021, 2021, March March 17, 17, 2021, 2021, May May 17, 17, 2021, 2021, August August
2, 2, 2021, 2021, January January 17, 17, 2022, 2022, December December 5, 5, 2022, 2022, and and January January 31, 31, 2023. 2023. Hrg. Hrg. Tr., Tr., 10/13/23 10/13/23 at at
110:24-115:8. 110:24-115:8. In addition addition to to bolstering bolstering the the credibility credibility of of the the officers’ officers' testimony, testimony, the the
aforementioned aforementioned testimony testimony regarding regarding the the dates dates on on which which attempts attempts were were made made to to execute execute the the arrest arrest
warrant warrant demonstrate demonstrate an an exhaustive exhaustive effort effort on on the the part part of of the the investigating investigating officers officers to to serve serve the the
warrant. warrant.
Further, Further, Detective Detective Ficlrter Fichter credibly credibly testified testified that that along along with with the the efforts efforts on on the the part part of of the the
investigating investigating officers officers to to personally personally t ^^e*i^^a]t^£daw exggutethg v I, rltWi gap@p;law t enforcement enforcement officials officials regularly regularly [ in is;r I siunob .siH jfmrin qjygg .xi .r • ii attempted attempted to to ascertain ascertain new new addresses addresses for for Defendant, Defendant, utilizing utilizing PennDOT, PennDOT, Google, Google, andand other other €s?2 92NF 02, platforms. platforms. Hrg.Tr., Hrg.Tr., 10/13/23 10/13/23 at at 125:6-11. 125:6-11. Despite Despite these these efforts, efforts, investigating investigating officers officers were were unable unable
to to obtain obtain an an address address for for Defendant Defendant aside aside from from the the 556 556 Sunnyfield Sunnyfield Drive Drive address. address.
Lastly, Lastly, Detective Detective Richard Richard Gluth Gluth of ofthe the Washington Washington County County District District Attorney’s Attorney's Drug Drug Task Task
Force also Force also provided provided credible credible testimony testimony of ofthe efforts on the efforts on the the part part of ofthe the investigating investigating officers officers to to
execute execute the the arrest arrest warrant warrant on on Defendant. Defendant. Specifically, Specifically, Detective Detective Gluth Gluth credibly credibly testified testified that that he he
emailed emailed and and faxed faxed the the arrest arrest warrant warrant to to the the Monroeville Monroeville Police Police Department. Department. Hrg.Tr., Hrg.Tr., 10/1 3/23 at 10/13/23 at
129:21-130:8. 129:21-130:8. Detective Detective Gluth Gluth further further credibly credibly testified testified that that he he was was notified notified on on numerous numerous
occasions occasions by by Detective Detective James James Monkelis Monkelis of ofthe the Monroeville Monroeville Police Police Department Department regarding regarding the the
continuing continuing attempts attempts to to execute execute the the arrest arrest warrant. warrant. Id. Id. at at 130:9-131:5. 130:9-131:5.
As As the the aforementioned aforementioned testimony testimony firmly firmly established, established, the the investigating investigating officers officers in in this this
matter matter acted acted with with aa significant significant degree degree of of due due diligence diligence in in executing executing the the arrest arrest warrant warrant on on
Defendant. Defendant. The The credible credible testimony testimony provided provided by by the the investigating investigating officers officers at at the the initial initial bail bail
hearing hearing on on June June 20, 20, 2023 2023 and and at at the the hearing hearing on on Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion
demonstrated demonstrated an an organized organized and and exhaustive exhaustive effort effort on on the the part part of of various various investigating investigating offices offices and and
police police departments departments to to attempt attempt to to ascertain ascertain the the whereabouts whereabouts of of Defendant Defendant and and serve serve the the arrest arrest
warrant. Although warrant. Although the the attempts attempts to to serve serve the warrant on the warrant on Defendant Defendant at at his his only only known known address address at at
556 556 Sunnyfield Sunnyfield Drive Drive were were fruitless, fruitless, the the investigating investigating officers officers nevertheless nevertheless continued continued to to surveille surveille
and and attempt attempt service service at at the the residence. residence. Additionally, Additionally, the the investigating investigating officers officers regularly regularly engaged engaged in in
efforts efforts to to attempt attempt to to locate locate Defendant Defendant elsewhere, elsewhere, continuously continuously checking checking for for an an updated updated address address
and and investigating investigating leads leads into into Defendant’s Defendant's known known associates, associates, including including his his girlfriend. girlfriend. The The fact fact that that
the the investigating investigating officers officers were were unable unable to to effectuate effectuate service service at at Defendant’s Defendant's only only known known address address j; W 03 N013NIHSW Vd NIB!IHSY was was by by no no means means the the fault fault of of aa lack lack of of Sde^3iTi^ehB&‘oik^^ @l'@f1gel@e~kt&ir part, part, but but rather, rather, because because Defendant Defendant
“coincidentally” "coincidentally" decided decided to to move to Skillen@iK{kt@Ke move' to S&f^H^eniJ^Onl^ Sae . same same month month that hat the the warrant warrant for for his arrest his arrest was was issued issued and and failed failed to to update update his address at his address at any any point point thereafter. thereafter.33 While While Rule Rule 600 600 was was
designed designed to to protect protect the the accused’s accused's right right to to aa speedy speedy trial, trial, “the "the administrative administrative mandate mandate of ofRule Rule
[600] [600] was was not not designed designed to to insulate insulate the the criminally criminally accused accused from from good good faith faith prosecution prosecution delayed delayed
through through no no fault fault of of the the Commonwealth.” Commonwealth." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.• Hunt, Hunt, 858 858 A.2d A.2d 1234, 1234, 1239 1239 (Pa. (Pa.
Super. Super. 2004) 2004) (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted).
Accordingly, Accordingly, for for the the aforementioned aforementioned reasons, reasons, Defendant’s Defendant's Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to to
Rule Rule 600 600 is is without without merit. merit.
II. II. Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to to 18 18 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §$ 110 110
The The second second issue issue raised raised by by Defendant Defendant in in his his Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion is is aa motion motion to to dismiss dismiss
two of two of the the six six counts counts of of Possession Possession with Intent to with Intent to Deliver Deliver aa Controlled Controlled Substance Substance and and two two of of the the
six six counts counts of of Possession Possession of of aa Controlled Controlled Substance Substance that that occurred occurred in in Allegheny Allegheny County, County, based based
upon upon his his contention contention that that prosecution prosecution of of said said charges charges is is barred barred by by 18Pa.C.S. 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 110. 110. See See Omnibus Omnibus
Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion, Motion, 7/27/23. 7/27/23. More More specifically, specifically, Defendant Defendant argues argues that that because because the the aforementioned aforementioned
charges charges occurred occurred in in Allegheny Allegheny County, County, said said charges charges should should have have been been brought brought in in Allegheny Allegheny
County County while while Defendant Defendant was was under under investigation investigation at at Allegheny Allegheny County County Docket Docket Number Number
CP-020CR-0004608-2020. CP-020CR-0004608-2020. Id. Id.
In In an an order order dated dated November November 9, 9, 2023, 2023, this this Court Court directed directed both both Defendant Defendant and and the the
Commonwealth Commonwealth to to file file aa brief brief regarding regarding the the issues issues raised raised by by Defendant Defendant in in his his Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial
Motion. Motion. See See Order Order Directing Directing Briefs Briefs to to be be Filed, Filed, 11/9/23. 11/9/23. Curiously, Curiously, Defendant Defendant wholly wholly failed failed to to ,.
develop, let develop, let alone alone mention, mention, the the instant instant issue issue in his brief. in his brief. As As such, such; due due to to Defendant’s Defendant's failure failure to to
- i• WOMOINIMSVI Vd 03 N010NIHSW . 3Per Defendant’s Per Defendant's testimony testimony at at the the hearing hearing on on Def^d^ifi^ifioHon’tcrsgfb'ail Def@di@9foti~ t~$@fbail held held on on June June 20, 20, 2023, 2023, Defendant, Defendant, himself, stated himself, stated that that the the 556 556 Sunnyfield Sunnyfield Drive Drive address was his address was his only only address address since since 1988. 1988. Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Exhibit Exhibit 22 at at 23:21-24:10. While 23:21-24:10. While Defendant Defendant diddid testify testify that h^m^d to^h^^iil^q^lyan^ that hggy?] tpshgppygsy#yania, doing doing so so quite quite significantly significantly in in March of March of 2021 2021 when when the the arrest arrest warrant warrant wad issud,' inqicatea was issuecfhe uiat ne amnot ind~ate'ht'e dd'hot update update his his address address from from the the 556 556 Sunnyfield Sunnyfield Drive Drive address. address. Id. Id. at at 8:10-9:5; 8:10-9:5; 24:5-10. 24:5-10. .. g sufficiently sufficiently develop develop his his Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to to 18 18 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §$ 110 110 and and present present legal legal
argument argument in in support support thereof, thereof, Defendant Defendant has has waived waived the the issue. issue.
Even Even assuming assuming arguendo that that Defendant Defendant properly properly preserved preserved the the present present issue issue for for
consideration, consideration, the the motion motion nevertheless nevertheless fails fails on on its its merits. merits. 18 18 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §§ 110 110 provides, provides, as as follows: follows:
§110. $110. When When prosecution prosecution barred barred by by former former prosecution prosecution for for different different offense offense
Although Although aa prosecution prosecution isis for for aa violation violation of of aa different different provision provision of of the the statutes statutes than than aa former prosecution or is based on different facts, it is barred by such former prosecution fonner prosecution or is based on different facts, it is barred by such former prosecution under under the the following following circumstances: circumstances:
(1) ( 1) The The former former prosecution prosecution resulted resulted in in an an acquittal acquittal or or in in aa conviction conviction as as defined defined in in section section 109109 of of this this title title (relating (relating to to when when prosecution prosecution barredbarred by by former former prosecution for the same offense) and the subsequent prosecution isis for: prosecution for the same offense) and the subsequent prosecution for: (i) () any offense of which the defendant could have been convicted on any offense of which the defendant could have been convicted on the the first first prosecution; prosecution; (ii) (ii) any offense based any offense based on on the the same same conduct conduct or or arising arising fromfrom thethe samesame criminal criminal episode, episode, if if such such offense offense waswas known kown to to the the appropriate appropriate prosecuting prosecuting officerofficer at at the the time time ofof the the commencement commencement of of the the first first trial trial and occurred within the same judicial district as the former prosecution and occurred within the same judicial district as the former prosecution unless unless the the court court ordered ordered aa separate separate trial trial of ofthe the charge charge of of such such offense offense or the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or or the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted acquitted was was aa summary summary offense offense or or aa summary summary traffictraffic offense; offense; or or (iii) (iii) thethe same same conduct, conduct, unless: unless: (A) (A) the the offense offense of ofwhich which the the defendant defendant was was formerly fonnerly convicted convicted or or acquitted and the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted acquitted and the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted each each requires requires proof proof of ofaa fact fact not not required required by by the the other other andand thethe law law defining defining eacheach of ofsuch such offenses offenses isis intended intended to to prevent prevent aa substantially substantially different different harmharm or or evil; evil; or or (B) (B) thethe second second offense offense was was not not consummated consummated when when the the former former trialtrial began. began. (2) (2) The The former formerprosecution prosecution was was terminated, terminated, afterafter the the indictment indictment was was found, found, by by an an acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant which has not been acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant which has not been set set aside, aside, reversed reversed or or vacated vacated and and which which acquittal, acquittal, final final order order or orjudgment judgment necessarily required a determination inconsistent with a fact which must necessarily required a determination inconsistent with a fact which must bebe established for conviction of the second offense. established for conviction of the second offense. (3) (3) The The former formerprosecution prosecution was was improperly improperly terminated, terminated, as as improper impropertermination termination isis defined in section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by defined in section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecutio'n former prosecution . for^g^q^i^n^ for the [same veueu1ah4st' offense?), the subsequent ad the subsequentprosecution prosecution isis for for an an offense offense of ofwhich which theS&t&®9^t‘^uic^ the @lbf~id@ntcoil-jive been been convicted convicted had had the the former former prosecution not been improperly terminated. prosecution not been improperly terminated. :8 18 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. 8$ 110. 110. £s·? 92 r zaz At At the the hearing hearing on on Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion, Sergeant Meritz Motion, Sergeant provided testimony Meritz provided testimony
regarding the regarding charges filed the charges against Defendant filed against Defendant in in Allegheny County at Allegheny County at docket docket number number
CP-020CR-0004608-2020. CP-020CR-0004608-2020. Specifically, Specifically, Sergeant Sergeant Meritz credibly testified Meritz credibly that in testified that in 2020, 2020, he he filed filed
“traffic "traffic and and possession possession charges” charges" against against Defendant Defendant in Allegheny County. in Allegheny County. Hrg. Tr., 10/13/23 Hrg. Tr, at 10/13/23 at
79:15-80:2. 79: 15-80:2. Relevantly, Relevantly, with with respect respect to to the the disposition of the disposition of the Allegheny County case, Allegheny County case, Sergeant Sergeant
Meritz Meritz credibly credibly testified testified that that the the charges charges were were nolle nolle prossed prossed due due to changes in to changes in case case law law
governing governing vehicle vehicle searches. searches. Id. Id. at at 80:3-17. 80 :3-17. Thus, Thus, because because the the Allegheny County case Allegheny County case did did not not
result result in in an an acquittal, acquittal, conviction, conviction, or or final final order order or or judgment judgment for for Defendant Defendant as as Section Section 110 110
mandates, mandates, but but rather, rather, was was nolleprossed, nolle prossed, prosecution prosecution of of the the four four charges charges related related to to Allegheny Allegheny
County County in in the the instant instant matter matter is is not not barred barred by by Section Section 110. 110. Accordingly, Accordingly, Defendant’s Defendant's Motion Motion to to
Dismiss Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to to 18 18 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §$ 110 is 110 is without without merit. merit.
III. III. Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to to 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §$ 5552(a) 5552(a)
In In Defendant’s Defendant's brief, brief, he he appears appears to to raise, raise, for for the the first first time, time, aa motion motion to to dismiss dismiss counts counts seven seven
through through twelve twelve of of the the Bill Bill of of Information Information pursuant pursuant to to 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §$ 5552(a). 5552(a). See See Brief Brief in in Support Support
of Defendant’s Omnibus ofDefendant's Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion(s), Motion(s), 12/1/23. 12/1/23. Defendant, Defendant, however, however, is is estopped estopped from from
raising raising said said issue issue at at this this juncture, juncture, as as he he failed failed to to properly properly raise raise the the issue issue in in his his Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial
Motion. Motion.
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Rule Rule of of Criminal Criminal Procedure Procedure 578 578 (Omnibus (Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion for for Relief) Relief)
expressly expressly states states that, that, “all "all pretrial pretrial requests requests for for relief relief shall shall be be included included in in one one omnibus omnibus pretrial pretrial
motion.” motion." Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P. 578. 578. Per Per Rule Rule 578, 578, Defendant Defendant was was required required to to raise raise his his motion motion to to dismiss dismiss ; !
pursuant pursuant to to 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §$ 5552(a) 5552(a) in ij his his &h@fl&Bill9M~ltion. Having Having failed failed to to do do so, so, the the ; SI0 ·w)_40 27 .:¢_i,
Court Court shall shall not not consider consider the the merits merits thercof,_as, the issue the;epf,3ps,[he has been issue,hgs bpeen waived. waived. ES· Hd S?Hf WAZ IV. IV. Motion Motion to to Dismiss: Dismiss: Improper Improper Venue Venue and and Lack Lack of of Subject Subject Matter Matter Jurisdiction Jurisdiction
The The third third issue issue raised raised by by Defendant Defendant in in his his Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion is is aa motion motion to to dismiss dismiss
two of two of the the six six counts counts of of Possession with Intent Possession with Intent to to Distribute Distribute aa Controlled Controlled Substance Substance and and two two of of
the the six six counts counts of ofPossession Possession of of aa Controlled Controlled Substance Substance for for lack lack of ofvenue venue and and subject subject matter matter
jurisdiction. jurisdiction. See See Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion, Motion, 7/27/23. 7/27/23. More More specifically, specifically, Defendant Defendant argues argues that that
because because these these four four charges charges stemmed stemmed from from conduct conduct occurring occurring in in Allegheny Allegheny County, County, this this Court Court
lacks lacks subject subject matter matter jurisdiction jurisdiction over over the the prosecution prosecution of of said said charges charges and and further, further, that that venue venue isis
improper improper in in Washington Washington County. County. Id. Id.
Interestingly, Interestingly, Defendant, Defendant, again, again, entirely entirely fails fails to to develop, develop, let let alone alone mention, mention, the the instant instant issue issue
in his in his brief. brief. The The Court Court need need only only reiterate that itit directed reiterate that directed Defendant Defendant to to brief brief the the issues issues that that he he
raised raised in in his his Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion. Motion. See See Order Order Directing Directing Briefs Briefs to to be be Filed, Filed, 11/9/23. 11/9/23.
Accordingly, Accordingly, due due to to Defendant’s Defendant's failure failure to to develop develop his his motion motion to to dismiss dismiss for for improper improper venue venue and and
lack lack of of subject subject matter matter jurisdiction jurisdiction and and provide provide any any legal legal arguments arguments thereto, thereto, said said issue issue has has been been
waived. waived.
Regardless, Regardless, had had Defendant Defendant preserved preserved his his Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss for for Improper Improper Venue Venue and and Lack Lack of of
Subject Subject Matter Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction, said said motion motion is is nonetheless nonetheless without without merit. merit. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Rule Rule of of
Criminal Criminal Procedure Procedure 130 130 (Venue; (Venue; Transfer Transfer of of Proceedings) Proceedings) provides, provides, in in pertinent pertinent part: part:
Rule Rule 130. 130. Venue; Venue; Transfer Transfer of of Proceedings Proceedings (A) (A) Venue. Venue. AllAll criminal criminal proceedings proceedings in in summary summary and and court court cases cases shall shall be be brought brought before before the the issuing issuing authority authority for for the the magisterial magisterial district district in in which which the the offense offense isis alleged alleged toto have have occurred occurred or or before before anan issuing issuing authority authority on on temporary temporary assignment assignment to to serve serve such such magisterial magisterial district, district, subject, subject, however, however, to to the the following following exceptions: exceptions: !, . H4p}NI@uryp V.t,1 .Ji.' ;Jmn�v · h . d occur . more than (3) When charges (3)wh .en charges ansing arising{fpii}@$@j@jjjjjal1 episode episode occur in in more l one than one judicial judicial district, district, theicriminal the'criminal proceeding proceeding bn on all all the the charges charges may may be be brought brought before before one one issuing issuing authority authority injagn^i^ri^^fr^ in@gv@it[gris?jj#yithin any any of of the the judicial judicial districts districts in in which which the the charges charges arising arising from from the the same same criminal criminal episode episode occurred. occurred. raw, j « (B) (B) Transfer of Proceedings Proceedings in Court Court Cases Cases. (1) Prior Prior to to the the completion of of the the preliminary hearing: hearing:
(a) (a) When When charges charges arising arising from from aa single single criminal criminal episode, episode, which which occurred occurred in in more more than one one judicial judicial district, district,
(ii) (ii) are are filed filed in in one one judicial judicial district, district, upon upon the the filing filing of of aa written written agreement agreement by by the the attorneys attorneys forfor the the Commonwealth, Commonwealth, the the proceedings proceedings shall shall be be transferred to the magisterial district in the judicial district selected by transferred to the magisterial district in the judicial district selected by the the attorneys attorneys forfor the the Commonwealth. Commonwealth.
Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P. 130. 130.
At At the the hearing hearing on on Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion, Motion, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth introduced introduced aa
“McPhail "McPhail Letter” Letter'' that that was was sent sent from from the the Washington Washington County County Office Office of ofthe the District District Attorney Attorney to to
Rebecca Rebecca Spangler, Spangler, Esquire, Esquire, First First Assistant Assistant District District Attorney Attorney at at the the Allegheny Allegheny County County District District
Attorney’s Attorney's Office. 4As Office." As evidenced evidenced by by said saidletter, letter, on on January January 13, 13, 2021, 2021, the the Washington Washington County County
Office Officeof ofthe theDistrict District Attorney Attorney contacted contactedthe theAllegheny Allegheny County CountyDistrict DistrictAttorney’s Attorney's Office Office to to
request requestthat thatAllegheny Allegheny County Countycede cedejurisdiction jurisdiction over overthe theinstant instantmatter matterand andpennit permitthe the
Washington WashingtonCounty County Office Officeof ofthe theDistrict DistrictAttorney Attorneytotoproceed proceedwith withthe theprosecution prosecutionof ofthe thepresent present
charges, charges,including includingthose thosethat thatare arealleged allegedtotohave haveoccurred occurredininAllegheny AlleghenyCounty, County,pursuant pursuanttotoRule Rule
130. 130.See SeeCommonwealth’s Commonwealth'sExhibit Exhibit 1.1.Per Peran anemail emailfrom fromRebecca RebeccaSpangler, Spangler,Esquire, Esquire,on onJanuary January
15, 15,2021, 2021,the theAllegheny AlleghenyCounty CountyDistrict DistrictAttorney’s Attorney'sOffice Officeinformed informedthe theWashington WashingtonCounty County
Office Officeof ofthe theDistrict DistrictAttorney Attorneythat thatAllegheny AlleghenyCounty Countyconsented consentedtotoceding cedingjurisdiction jurisdictionand and
prosecution prosecutionof ofthe theinstant instantmatter mattertotothe theWashington WashingtonCounty CountyOffice Officeof ofthe theDistrict DistrictAttorney. Attorney.Id. Id.
Accordingly, Accordingly,asasevidenced evidencedby bythe theMcPhail McPhailLetter Lettersent sentby bythe theWashington WashingtonCounty CountyOffice Officeof ofthe the
District DistrictAttorney, Attorney,and andthe theAllegheny AlleghenyCounty CountyDistrict DistrictAttorney’s Attorney'sOffice’s Office'sresponse responsethereto, thereto,the the
Commonwealth, Commonwealth,ininaccordance accordanceand andcompliance compliancewith withRule Rule130, 130,properly properlytransferred transferredthe theinstant instant t }] Vd03NOJLBNIHgVM. SI;n {QI5NJ&; r si "$? ii \i i7
proceedings proceedingstotoWashington WashingtonCoUnty. !J I t
County. 'Si =i i; £G:2 N 92NE a 4The ' The“McPhail Letter” "McPhail Letter"was wasintroduced introducedand andadmitted admittedatatthe thehearing on Defendant’s hi~~ring'''f' Defendant'sOmnibus OmnibusPretrial PretrialMotion Motionasas “Commonwealth’s "Commonwealth'sExhibit Exhibit1.” 1" .
, I V. V. Motion to Reveal Reveal Confidential Confidential Informant Informant Identity
The The fourth issue raised by Defendant Defendant in his Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion is a motion motion to reveal reveal
the identity of the confidential confidential informant informant in in this this matter. matter. See See Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion, Motion, 7/27/23. 7/27/23.
For For the the foregoing foregoing reasons, reasons, Defendant’s Defendant's motion motion is is without without merit. merit.
“Under "Under Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Rule Rule of of Criminal Criminal Procedure Procedure 573, 573, aa trial trial court court has has the the discretion discretion to to
require require the the Commonwealth Commonwealth to to reveal reveal the the names names and and addresses addresses of ofall all eyewitnesses, eyewitnesses, including including
confidential confidential informants, informants, where where aa defendant defendant makes makes aa showing showing of ofmaterial material need need and and
reasonableness])]” reasonableness[.]" Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Marsh, Marsh, 997 997 A.2d A.2d 318, 318, 321 321 (Pa. (Pa. 2010) 2010) (internal (internal citations citations
omitted) omitted) (emphasis (emphasis added). added). Rule Rule 573 573 relevantly relevantly states: states:
Rule Rule 573. 573. Pretrial Pretrial Discovery Discovery and and Inspection Inspection (B) (B) Disclosure Disclosure by by the the Commonwealth. Commonwealth.
(2) (2)Discretionary Discretionary With With the the Court. Court.
(a) (a) In In all all court courtcases, cases, except exceptasas otherwise otherwise provided provided ininRules Rules 230 230 (Disclosure of Testimony Before Investigating Grand Jury) and (Disclosure of Testimony Before Investigating Grand Jury) and 556.10 556.10 (Secrecy; (Secrecy; Disclosure), Disclosure), ififthe the defendant defendantfiles files aamotion motion forfor pretrial discovery, the court may order the Commonwealth to allow pretrial discovery, the court may order the Commonwealth to allow the defendant’s attorney to inspect and copy the defendant's attorney to inspect and copy or photograph any of or photograph any of the thefollowing followingrequested requesteditems, items, upon upon aashowing showingthat thatthey they are are material to the preparation of the defense, and that the request isis material to the preparation of the defense, and that the request reasonable: reasonable: (i) () the thenames names and andaddresses addresses of ofeyewitnesses eyewitnesses Pa.R.Crim.P. Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(B)(2)(a)(i). 573(B)(2)(a)(i).
The TheCommonwealth Commonwealthpossesses possessesaaqualified qualifiedprivilege privilegetotowithhold withholdthe theidentity identityof ofaa
confidential confidentialsource. source.Marsh, Marsh, 997 997A.2d A.2datat321. 321.To Toovercome overcomethis thisqualified qualifiedprivilege privilegeand andobtain obtainthe the
identity identityof ofaaconfidential confidentialinformant, informant,aadefendant defendantmust mustestablish, establish,pursuant pursuanttotoRule Rule573(B)(2)(a)(i), 573(B)(2)(a)(i), . . .· ,that ,the . information • Vd tp?NOIQNIHS#M.. 03 N015NJHS W defense and that the request is that "materialtoto fr~paratioiigfjledefense the information isis“material and that the request is
reasonable.” Id. Only reasonable." Id. Onlyafter afterthte thde^d^n^sho^ ede~Salkho9&((b’aftl^jdentity @i@f #gidentityofofthe theconfidential confidentia informant informantisis ! ·
] ' G31H material to the material to the defense defense is is the the trial trial court court required to exercise required to exercise its discretion to its discretion to determine determine whether whether
the information the should be infonnation should be revealed revealed by by balancing balancing relevant factors, which relevant factors, which are are initially initially weighted weighted
towards the towards the Commonwealth. Commonwealth. Id. Id. at at 321-322. 321-322.
In balancing In balancing the the relevant factors, the relevant factors, trial court the trial court must must consider consider the the following following principles: principles:
A further A further limitation limitation on the applicability on the applicability of the privilege of the privilege arises arises from from the the fundamental fundamental requirements requirements of fairness. Where of fairness. Where the the disclosure disclosure of of an an informant’s informant's identity, or identity, or of of the the contents contents of of his his communication, communication, is is relevant relevant and helpful to and helpful to the the defense defense ofof an an accused, accused, or or is is essential to aa fair essential to fair determination determination of of aa case, case, the the privilege privilege must give way. must give way. In In these these situations[,] situations[,] the the trial trial court court may may require require disclosure, and, disclosure, and, if if the the Government Government withholds withholds thethe information, information, dismiss dismiss thethe action. action. [N]o [N]o fixed fixed rule rule with with respect respect to to disclosure disclosure is is justifiable. justifiable. The The problem problem is is one that one that calls for calls for balancing balancing the the public public interest interest in in protecting protecting the the flow flow of of information information against against the individual’s the individual's right right to to prepare prepare his his defense. defense. Whether Whether aa proper proper balance balance renders renders nondisclosure erroneous nondisclosure erroneous must must depend depend on the particular on the particular circumstances circumstances ofof each each , case, taking into case, taking into consideration consideration the the crime crime charged, the possible charged, the possible defenses, defenses, the the possible significance of possible significance the infonner’s of the testimony, and infonner's testimony, and other other relevant relevant factors. factors. Marsh, Marsh, 997 997 A.2d A.2d at at 322. 322.
Furthermore: Furthermore:
Before the informant’s Before the informant's identity identity may may be be revealed,...the accused must revealed,...the accused must show the show the information is information is material to the material to the defense defense and the request and the request isis reasonable. reasonable. The The defendant defendant need need not not predict predict exactly exactly what what thethe infonnant infonnant will will say, say, but but he he must must demonstrate demonstrate aa reasonable reasonable possibility the informant possibility the informant could give evidence could give evidence that that would would exonerate exonerate him. More him. More than than aa mere mere assertion that disclosure assertion that disclosure of of the the informant’s informant's identity identity must must be helpful be helpful is is necessary. necessary. Only Only after after this this threshold threshold showing that the showing that the information information is is material and material the request and the request reasonable reasonable is is the the trial trial court court called called upon to determine upon to determine whether the whether the information information isis to to be be revealed. revealed. Commonwealth v. Commonwealth v. Ellison, Ellison, 213 213 A.3d312, 317 (Pa. A.3d312, 317 (Pa. Super. Super. 2019) (internal citations 2019) (internal citations omitted). omitted).
Here, Here, Defendant, Defendant, in in his his Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion and and brief, brief, asserts asserts that that disclosure disclosure of of the the
confidential confidential informant’s informant's identity identity is is material to the material to the defense defense of of mistaken mistaken identity. identity. See See Omnibus Omnibus WO0N019HIHSW Va4 03 N0Ip!IHS Pre-Trial Motion, Pre-Trial Motion, 7/27/23; 7/27/23; See s~p~rF p ~f als#ER SiippW of Defendant’s See alscmn&Art Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial
Motion(s), 12/1/23. Motion(s), 12/1/23. Defendant, ii Nd,a#l#?0Ho elaborate Defendant, ^^^^4vlS^^iy£l®ib elaborate further further on on precisely precisely how how such such disclosure disclosure would would assist assist him him in in raising raising the the defense defense of of mistaken mistaken identity. identity. Specifically, Specifically,
Defendant failed Defendant failed to to elicit elicit any any testimony testimony at at the hearing on the hearing on his his Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion as as to to how how
the the identity identity of of the the confidential confidential informant, informant, and and any any evidence evidence that that they they may may provide, provide, would would have have aa
reasonable reasonable possibility possibility to to exonerate exonerate Defendant. Defendant. Rather, Rather, what what Defendant Defendant presented presented to to the the Court Court
amounts amounts to to aa mere mere assertion assertion that that the the disclosure disclosure of ofthe the confidential confidential informant’s informant's identity identity would would be be
helpful. helpful. As As the the Ellison Ellison Court Court stated, stated, such such aa bald bald assertion assertion isis far far from from adequate adequate in in compelling compelling the the
disclosure disclosure of of aa confidential confidential informant’s informant's identity. identity. 213 213 A.3d A.3d at at 317. 317.
Moreover, Moreover, even even had had Defendant Defendant satisfied satisfied the the aforementioned aforementioned threshold threshold inquiry, inquiry, his his motion motion
isis still still without without merit. merit. At At the the hearing hearing on on Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion, Motion, extensive extensive and and
credible credible testimony testimony was was presented presented by by Agent Agent Justin Justin Shaffer, Shaffer, Agent Agent Joseph Joseph Barna, Barna, Detective Detective Steven Steven
Maritz, Maritz, Detective Detective Joseph Joseph Fichter, Fichter, Detective Detective Daniel Daniel Eberman, Eberman, and and Detective Detective Kent Kent Mitchell Mitchell that that
demonstrated demonstrated that that Defendant Defendant was was identified identified by by the the aforementioned aforementioned officers officers at at each each controlled controlled
buy buy that that was was conducted conducted during during the the investigation investigation into into this this matter. matter.
To briefly To briefly summarize, summarize, during during the the controlled controlled buy on March buy on March 27, 27, 20 1 9, Agent 2019, Agent Barna Barna and and
Agent Agent Shaffer Shaffer positively positively identified identified Defendant Defendant at at the the controlled controlled buy buy location. location. Hrg. Hrg. Tr., Tr, 10/13/23 10/13/23 at at
31:1-16; 31:1-16; 61:9-63:25. 61:9-63:25. On On June June 13, 13, 2019, 2019, Defendant Defendant was was again again identified identified during during the the controlled controlled buy buy
conducted that conducted that day, day, this this time time by by Agent Agent Barna and Detective Barna and Detective Maritz. Maritz. Id. Id. at at 35: 16-25; 74: 35:16-25; 17-76:2. 74:17-76:2.
Next, Next, on on July July 17, 17, 2019, 2019, Defendant Defendant was was positively positively identified identified by by Agent Agent Barna, Barna, Agent Agent Shaffer, Shaffer, and and
Detective Detective Maritz Maritz during during the the controlled controlled buy. buy. Id. Id. at at 40:19-41:3; 40:19-41:3; 64:15-66:8; 64:15-66:8; 77:16-79:1. 77: 16-79: 1. Defendant Defendant
was was again again identified identified during during aa controlled controlled buy buy conducted conducted on on August August 31, 2019, 31, 2019, this this time time by by
Detective Detective Fichter, Fichter, Detective Detective Eberman^gi^D^^fj^®^ Ebermarggns!Petptjye}{jghell. Id. Id. at at 95:24-97:7; 95:24-97:7; 141:7-143:7; 141:7-143:7; ;• simho? S1400 Jn .4n iii ls a lt"
151:1-153:2. 151:1-153:2. A A short short time time later, later, on on September September 18, 18, 2019, 2019, Defendant Defendant was was again again identified identified during during ES=Z €s·2 Hd M4 9ZNSCK® 92NP +a2 one one of of the the controlled controlled buys buys by by Detective Detective Fichter Fichter and and Detective. Detective Mitchell. Mitchell. Id. Id. at at 100:17-102:23; 100:17-102.:23;
, a7 -,5 ? .“J 15 -? ' I i ' 153:22-155:12. 153:22-155:12. Lastly, Lastly, on on September September 23, 23, 2019, 2019, Defendant Defendant was was positively positively identified identified during during the the
controlled controlled buy buy that that day day by by Detective Detective Fichter, Fichter, Detective Detective Eberman, Eberman, and and Detective Detective Mitchell. Mitchell. Id. Id. at at
104:4-105:21; 104:4-105:21; 144:3-145:18; 144:3-145:18; 156:12-157:18. 156:12-157:18.
Due Due to to the the numerous numerous positive positive identifications identifications of ofDefendant Defendant made made on on six six separate separate occasions occasions
by by six six different different investigating investigating officers, officers, Defendant’s Defendant's need need for for disclosure disclosure of of the the confidential confidential
informant’s informant's identity identity is is significantly significantly lessened, lessened, as as there there was was minimal minimal risk risk of ofmisidentification misidentification on on
the the part part of of the the officers, officers, and and while while not not legally legally determinative, determinative, said said observations observations heavily heavily weigh weigh in in
favor favor of of maintaining maintaining the the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's privilege privilege in in withholding withholding the the identity identity of ofthe the
confidential confidential informant informant in in this this matter. matter. See See Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Bing, Bing, 713 713 A.2d A.2d 56 56 (Pa. (Pa. 1998) 1998)
(holding (holding that that the the defendant defendant was was not not entitled entitled to to the the disclosure disclosure of of the the confidential confidential informant’s informant's
identity identity where where the the defendant’s defendant's identity identity was was based based on on seven seven separate separate observations observations by by three three
separate separate individuals). individuals).
Accordingly, Accordingly, for for the the aforementioned aforementioned reasons, reasons, Defendant Defendant has has failed failed to to establish establish that that the the
disclosure disclosure of of the the confidential confidential informant’s informant's identity identity is is reasonable reasonable and and material material to to his his defense. defense.
VI. VI. Motion Motion to to Set Set Bail Bail
The The fifth fifth issue issue raised raised by by Defendant Defendant in in his his Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion is is aa Motion Motion to to Set Set
Bail. Bail. By By way way of of background, background, Defendant’s Defendant's bail bail was was denied denied by by Magisterial Magisterial District District Judge Judge Joshua Joshua
Kanalis on Kanalis on April April 14, 14, 2023. 2023. Thereafter, Thereafter, on May 16,2023, on May 16,2023, Defendant Defendant filed filed aa motion motion to to set set bail bail and and
aa hearing hearing was was held held thereon thereon on on June June 20, 20, 2023. 2023. Following Following the the hearing, hearing, this this Court Cami denied denied
Defendant’s Defendant's initial initial motion motion to to set set bail. bail. . WA03 Vd NO)9NINSV# 03 N0J.9NIHSVM exam SI8n jf • iii. . . Now, Now, Defendant Defendant attempts, attempts, once once again, ag@ii, to raise a~niotion to f~is~ motion to to set set bail. bail. The The Court, Court, however, however, is is ';/'gas?@.leeretsy unpersuaded persuaded byby Defendant’s request.^Notably^the rec&Td^ Defendanesre«a devoid devoid ofof any any evidence evidence that that I I- 4jU 16 was was presented presented by by Defendant Defendant at at the the hearing hearing on on his his Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion that that indicates indicates any any
change change in in circumstances circumstances that that occurred occurred following following the the denial denial of ofDefendant’s Defendant's initial initial motion motion to to set set
bail bail that that would would now now entitle entitle Defendant Defendant to to aa bail bail amount. amount. As As such, such, Defendant’s Defendant's second second request request to to
set set bail bail in in this this matter matter isis denied. denied.
VII. VII. Motion Motion to to Compel Compel Discovery Discovery
Finally, Finally, Defendant Defendant raises raises aa Motion Motion to to Compel Compel Discovery. Discovery. Specifically, Specifically, Defendant Defendant requests requests
the the following following discovery discovery from from the the Commonwealth: Commonwealth:
I.I. Allegheny Allegheny County County Evidence Evidence Inventory Inventory and and Control Control Log; Log;
II. II. Photographs Photographs and and serial serial numbers numbers for for the the amount amount of of $2,600.00 $2,600.00 of of Currency Currency
as as itit relates relates to to 19- 19-176(c); 6( c );
III. III. Complete Complete record record of of text text messages messages from from the the confidential confidential informants informants to to the the
following following phone phone numbers: numbers:
1.1. 412-551-7472 412-551-7472
2. 2. 412-657-6457 412-657-6457
IV. Iv. Complete Complete records records of of Facebook Facebook Messenger Messenger between between Confidential Confidential
Informants Informants and and allegedly allegedly the the Defendant Defendant that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth has has in in its its
possession. possession.
See See Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion, Motion, 7/27/23. 7/27/23. In In addition addition to the the aforementioned aforementioned pieces pieces of of discovery, discovery,
Defendant, for Defendant, for the the first first time time in in in his brief, in his brief, requests requests an an additional additional piece piece of of discovery, discovery, namely, namely,
“Detective "Detective Fichter’s Fichter's file file cover cover sheet sheet that that depicts depicts the the dates dates when when law law enforcement enforcement attempted attempted to to
execute execute on on the the arrest arrest warrant warrant at at Defen^jc^^^i^^HS Defend( Wb j&Silk8ill3 [Ee Brief ·±8n10 46 3·7 Brief in in Support Support of of Defendant’s Defendant's
CSSHd £s 92NT w22 SZNVrwoz Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion(s), Motion(s), 12/1/23. 12/1/23. For For the the reasons reasons that that follow, follow, Defendant’s Defendant's Motion Motion to to
Compel Compel Discovery Discovery isis mostly mostly moot, moot, and and otherwise, otherwise, without without merit. merit.
Prior Prior to to the the presentation presentation of of testimony testimony at at the the hearing hearing on on Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial
Motion, Motion, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth informed informed the the Court Court that that itit had had provided provided Defendant Defendant with with two two of ofthe the
four four pieces pieces of of the the requested requested discovery, discovery, specifically, specifically, the the Allegheny Allegheny County County evidence evidence and and
inventory log, inventory log, as as well well as as the the photographs and serial photographs and serial numbers numbers for for the the currency. currency. Hrg. Hrg. Tr., Tr., 10/13/23 10/13/23
at at 7:12-8:12. 7: 12-8: 12. As As such, such, Defendant’s Defendant's request request for for these these two two pieces pieces of of discovery discovery isis moot. moot.
As As to to the the third third and and fourth fourth items, items, the the text text messages messages from from the the confidential confidential informants informants and and
the the Facebook Facebook messages messages between between Defendant Defendant and and the the confidential confidential informants, informants, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth
averred at averred at the the hearing healing that that those those texts texts and messages do and messages do not not exist exist and and therefore, therefore, are are not not in in the the
possession possession of of the the Commonwealth Commonwealth and and cannot cannot be be turned turned over over to to Defendant Defendant for for that that reason. reason. Hrg. Hrg.
Tr., Tr., 10/13/23 10/13/23 at at 8:13-25. 8:13-25. As As such, such, Defendant’s Defendant's request request for for the the text text messages messages and and Facebook Facebook
messages messages from from the the confidential confidential informants informants is is moot moot and and without without merit. merit.
Lastly, Lastly, with with regard regard to to Defendant’s Defendant's newly newly raised raised request request for for Detective Detective Fichter’s Fichter's file file cover, cover,
while while the the issue issue is is waived, waived, having having not not been been raised raised in in Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion, Motion, the the
Commonwealth, Commonwealth, in in its its brief, brief, avers avers that that itit nonetheless nonetheless has has provided provided aa copy copy of of the the cover cover sheet sheet to to
Defendant. Defendant. See See Brief Brief in in Opposition Opposition to to Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion, Motion, 12/1 1/23 at 12/11/23 at 22-23. 22-23.
As As such, such, this this issue issue is is also also moot. moot.
To the To the extent extent that that the the Court Court shall address the shall address the issue issue of of discovery discovery any any further, further, the the Court Court
would would merely merely state state that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth has has aa continuing continuing obligation obligation to to turn turn over over any any
discovery discovery to to Defendant Defendant asas it it comes . VJ 9°jwwhsvm g WO.LSNIHS HM comes imi'tWGoinmbhWealth’s ii6 f8Go'fr~iwie~lth's possession. possession.
€$ ?2 N 92NVF 707
18 ' ORDER
And And now, now, this this 26th 26th day day of of January, January, 2024, upon consideration 2024, upon consideration of of the the Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial
Motion Motion filed filed by by Defendant, Defendant, and and following following aa hearing thereon, it hearing thereon, it is is hereby hereby ORDERED, ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, ADJUDGED, and and DECREED DECREED that that Defendant’s motion is Defendant's motion is DENIED DENIED in its entirety. in its entirety.
BY THE COURT: BY THE COURT:
V, '>
STAPHS W ■ sj.
19 Copies Copies to: to: ADA ADA Rachel Rachel Wheeler; - Wheeler; Defendant; Defendant; Assistant Assistant Public Public Defender Defender Pati.^K Pat, Fitch Fitch - IN THE IN THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF OF WASHINGTON WASHINGTON COUNTY, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA
COMMONWEALTH COMMONWEAL TH OF OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA, )) )) ) vs. vs. )) No. 746-2023 No. 746-2023 ) JASON JASON M. M. WOODALL, WOODALL, )) )) Defendant. Defendant. ))
This matter This matter comes comes before before the the Court Court upon upon Defendant, Defendant, Jason Woodall’s Pro Jason Woodall's Pro Se Se Motion Motion
Pursuant to Rule Pursuant to Rule 600(B), (D)(2) and 600(B), (D)(2) (E). By and (E). By way way of of an an amended amended Bill Bill of of Information Information filed filed on on
December 20, December 20, 2023, 2023, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth charged charged Defendant Defendant with with six six counts counts of of Possession Possession with with
Intent to Intent to Deliver Deliver aa Controlled Controlled Substance, Substance, cocaine, cocaine, 35 35 P.S. P.S. §§ 780-1 13(a)(30), an 780-113(a)(30), an ungraded ungraded Felony; Felony;
and six and six counts counts of of Possession Possession of of aa Controlled Substance, cocaine, Controlled Substance. cocaine. 35 35 P.S. P.S. §$ 780-1 13(a)(16), an 780-113(a)(16), an
ungraded ungraded Misdemeanor. Misdemeanor.
Defendant filed the Defendant filed the instant instant Motion Motion on on February f 23, 2024 23, 2024 and and presented presented the the Motion Motion to to the the
Court on Court on March March 5, 5, 2024. 2024. The The Court scheduled an Court scheduled an evidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing for for March 12, 2024, March 12, 2024, for for
the limited the limited purpose purpose of of determining determining whether whether Defendant Defendant is is entitled entitled to immediate release to immediate release on on
nominal nominal bail bail pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(B) 600(8) and and (D)(2). (D)(2).11 Present Present at at this this hearing hearing was was Assistant Assistant
District Attorney District Attorney Rachel Rachel Wheeler, Wheeler, representing representing the the Commonwealth, Commonwealth, and and Defendant, Defendant, aa Pro-Se Pro-Se
Litigant. Litigant. Assistant Assistant Public Defender Patrick Public Defender Patrick Filch, Fitch, who who was was appointed appointed on on March 5, 2024 March 5, 2024 to to serve serve
1 1The Defendant, through The Defendant, through prior prior counsel, counsel, filed filed an an Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion on July Motion on 2023 and 27, 2023 July 27, and asserted, asserted, pursuant pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600600 that the Commonwealth that the Commonwealth failed failed to to exercise due diligence exercise due bringing Defendant in bringing diligence in Defendant toto trial. trial. See See Omnibus Pre-Trial Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion, Motion, 7/27/23; 7/2 See also See also Brief in Support Brief in Support ofof Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion(s), 12/1/23. Pre-Trial Motion(s), 12/1/23. More specifically, the More specifically, the Defendant Defendant contended contended that that the the extensive extensive period of time period of time that that it it took took to to execute execute the the arrest arrest warrant warrant on Defendant was on Defendant was aa result of the result of the Commonwealth’s failure to Commonwealth'sfailure to act act with the requisite with the Id. Judge diligence. Id. due diligence. requisite due Judge Valarie Va Costanzo, after Costanzo, after aa hearing on the hearing on issue, denied the issue, denied Defendant’s Defendant's motion motion byby way way ofof an Opinion and an Opinion Order dated and Order dated January January 26, 26. 2024. 2024. as as standby standby counsel counsel toto aid aid the the Defendant Defendant ififand and when when he he requests requests help, help, was was also also present. present.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS OF OF LAW LAW
The The right right to to aa speedy, speedy, public public trial trial isis “one "one of orthe the most most basic basic rights rights preserved preserved by by our our
Constitution.” Constitution." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Barbour, Barbour, 189 189 A. 3d 944, A.3d 944, 954 954 (Pa. (Pa. 2018) 2018) (internal (internal citations citations
omitted). omittcd). The The government’s governments exercise exercise of ofits its power power to to detain detain an an individual individual pending pending aa criminal criminal
prosecution prosecution places places aa heavy heavy burden burden upon upon the the accused. accused. Id. Id. The The guarantee guarantee to to aa speedy speedy trial trial “is "is an an
important important safeguard safeguard to to prevent prevent undue undue and and oppressive oppressive incarceration incarceration prior prior to to trial, trial, to to minimize minimize
anxiety anxiety and and concern concern accompanying accompanying public public accusation accusation and and to to limit limit the the possibilities possibilities that that long long delay delay
will will impair impair the the ability ability of of an an accused accused to to defend defend himself.” himself." Id. Id.
Rule Rule 600, 600, which which sets sets forth forth the the speedy speedy trial trial requirements, requirements, provides, provides, in in pertinent pertinent part, part, as as
Rule Ruic 600. 600. Prompt Prompt Trial. Trial.
(B) (B) Pretrial Incarceration. Except Pretrial Incarceration. Except in in eases cases in in which which the the defendant defendant is is not not entitled entitled toto release release on on bail bail as as provided provided by by law, law, nono defendant defendant shall shall bebe held held inin pretrial pretrial incarceration incarceration in in excess excess ofof (1) ( 1) 180 180 days days from from the the date date on on which which the the complaint complaint isis filed; filed; or or (2) 180 days from the date on which the order is filed transferring aa court (2) 180 days from the date on which the order is filed transferring court case case from from the the juvenile juvenile court court to to the the trial trial or or criminal criminal division; division; or or (3) 180 days from the date on which the order is filed terminating aa (3) 180 days from the date on which the order is filed terminating defendant's defendant's participation participation in in the the ARD ARD program program pursuant pursuant to to Rule Rule 3 18; or 318; or ( 4) 120 (4) 120 days days from from the the dale date on which the on which the order order of of the the trial trial court court isis filed filed granting granting aa new new trial trial when when nono appeal appeal hashas been been perfected; perfected; or or (5) (5) 120 days from the date of the written notice from the appellate 120 days from the date or the written notice from the appellate courtcourt to to the the parties parties that that the the record record was was remanded. remanded. (C) (C) Computation of Time. Time. (2) (2) For For purposes purposes of of paragraph paragraph (B),(B), only only periods periods of of delay delay caused caused by by the the defendant defendant shallshall bebe excluded excluded from from the thc computation computation of of the the length length of of time time of of any any pretrial pretrial incarceration. incarceration. AnyAny other other periods periods of of delay delay shall shall be be included included in in the the computation. computation. (D) (D) Remedies. Remedies. (2) Except in (2) Except in cases cases inin which which thethe defendant defendant is is not not entitled entitled toto release release on on bail bail as as provided provided by by law, law, when when aa defendant defendant is is held held in in pretrial pretrial incarceration incarceration beyond beyond the the time time set sct forth forth in in paragraph paragraph (BOt at (B), any time $nfc before trial,trial, the the defendant's defendant's attorney, attorncy, or or the the defendant defendant if if unrepresented, unrepresented, may may file file aa written written motion motion requesting requesting that that the the defendant defendant be be released released immediately immediately on on nominal nominal bail bail subject subject to to any any nonmonetary nonmonetary conditions conditions of ofbail bail imposed imposed by by the the court court as as permitted permitted by by law. law. AA copy copy of ofthe the motion motion shall be served on the attorney for the Commonwealth concurrently with filing. shall be served on the attomey for the Commonwealth concurrently with filing. The Thejudge judge shall shall conduct conduct aa hearing hearing onon the the motion. motion.
Pa. Pa. R. R. Crim. Crim. P. P. 600. 600.
The The record record demonstrates demonstrates that that on on March March 2, 2, 2021, 2021, aa criminal criminal complaint complaint was was filed filed against against
Defendant Defendant in in the the present present case case and and an an arrest arrest warrant warrant was was issued. issued. Defendant Defendant was was subsequently subsequently
arrested arrested on on the the warrant warrant on on April April 14, 14, 2023. 2023. Defendant Defendant has has been been incarcerated incarcerated since since his his arrest. arrest.
Defendant’s Defendant's bail bail was was denied denied by by Magisterial Magisterial District District Judge Judge Joshua Joshua Kanalis Kanalis on on April April 14, 14, 2023. 2023.
Defendant, through Defendant, through prior prior counsel, counsel, filed filed aa Motion Motion to Set Bail to Set Bai I on on May May 16, 16, 2023. 2023. A A hearing hearing to to
address address Defendant’s Defendant's bail bail motion motion was was held held on on June June 20, 20, 2023 2023 before before Judge Judge Valarie Valarie Costanzo. Costanzo.
Judge Judge Costanzo Costanzo denied denied Defendant’s Defendant's Motion Motion to to Set Set Bail Bail by by order order dated dated June June 20, 20, 2023. 2023.22
The The preliminary preliminary hearing hearing was was originally originally scheduled scheduled for for April April 24, 24, 2023, 2023, but but was was continued continued
to to May May 3, 3, 2023 2023 at at Defendant’s Defendant's request. request. See See Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Exhibit Exhibit 3. 3. The The nine nine day day delay delay isis
attributed to attributed to the the Defendant Defendant and and excludable excludable for purposes of for purposes of Rule Rule 600 600 since since the the delay delay was was caused caused
by by Defendant. Defendant. Pa. Pa. R. R. Crim. Crim. P. P. 600(C)(2). 600(C)(2).
Defendant Defendant filed filed an an Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion Motion on on July July 27, 27, 2023. 2023. See See Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's
Exhibit 4. Exhibit 4. A A hearing hearing on on that that Motion was scheduled Motion was scheduled and and held held on on October October 13, 13, 2023. 2023. See See
Commonwealth’s Commonwealth's Exhibit Exhibit 4. 4. At At the the close close of oCthe hearing, hearing, Judge Judge Costanzo Costanzo ordered ordered both both parties parties to to
submit briefs submit briefs thirty thirty days days after after the the filing of the filing of the official official transcript. transcript. The The official official transcript transcript of of the the
Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion Hearing Hearing was was filed filed on on November November 9, 9, 2023. 2023. See See Order Order Directing Directing Briefs Briefs to to
be be Filed, Filed, 11/9/23. Thereafter, 11/9/23. Thcreallcr, Defendant Defendant and and the the Commonwealth Commonwealth timely timely submitted submitted their their briefs. briefs.
2A Second Request A Request to to Set Set Bail Bail was was set forth in in Defendant’s Defendant's July 27, 27, 2023 Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion. Motion. Judge Judge Costanzo denied Costanzo denied Defendant’s Defendant's request request to to set baj| initially;at set baj] initiallyrat the the October I3, 2023 October 13, 2023 hearing haring and and in in the the January January 26, 26, 2024 2024 Opinion and Order. Order:. See Transcript, 'Transcript, 10/13/23 atat 15:19-22. 15:19-22. See See Brief Briefinin Support Support of ofDefendant's Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion(s), Motion(s), 12/1/23; 12/1/23; see see also also Bricl Briefin in
Opposition Opposition to to Defendant's Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion, Motion, 12/1 1/23. Judge 12/11/23. Judge Valerie Valerie Costanzo’s Costanzo's
Opinion Opinion and and Order Order on on this this matter matter was was filed filed on on January January 26, 26, 2024. 2024.
“When "When aa defendant defendant isis deemed deemed unavailable unavailable lor for trial, trial, the the time time isis excludable excludable from from the the Rule Ruic
]600] calculation...” [600] calculation..." Commomvealih Commonwealth v.• Hill, Hill, 558 558 Pa. Pa. 238, 238, 254, 254, 736 736 A.2d A.2d 578, 578, 587 587 (1999). (1999). “[A] "[A]
defendant defendant isis ...... unavailable unavailable for for trial trial ififaa delay delay in in the the commencement commencement of oftrial trial isis caused caused by by the the
filing filing of ofthe the pretrial pretrial motion.” motion." Id. Id.
The The record record shows shows that that in in considering considering Defendant’s Defendant's Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion filed liled on on July July 27, 27, 2023, 2023,
the the court court conducted conducted an an evidentiary evidentiary hearing. hearing. The The Court Court ordered ordered both both parties parties to to submit submit briefs briefs
thirty days thirty days after after the the filing filing of of the official transcript. the official transcript. The The Court Court subsequently subsequently filed filed an an Opinion Opinion and and
Order Order regarding regarding Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion on on January January 26, 26, 2024. 2024. ItIt is is clear clear that, that, due due
to to Defendant Defendant filing filing the the Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion, Motion, the the commencement commencement of ofhis his trial trial was was delayed. delayed.
In In order order to to determine determine whether whether the the delay delay caused caused by by Defendant Defendant filing filing the the Omnibus Omnibus Pre- Pre-
Trial Trial Motion Motion should should be be excluded excluded for for the the Rule Rule 600 600 calculation, calculation, the the Court Court must must consider consider whether whether
the the Commonwealth Commonwealth exercised exercised due due diligence diligence in in opposing opposing the the motion. motion. See See Hill, Hill, 736 736 A.2d A.2d at at 587. 587.
A A review review of of the the record record reveals reveals that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth exercised exercised due due diligence diligence in in opposing opposing
Defendant’s Defendants motion. motion. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth did did not not seek seek to to continue continue the the hearing hearing after after itit was was
scheduled scheduled by by the the Court. Court. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth was was present present and and presented presented several several witnesses witnesses to to
testify testify at at the the October October 13, 13, 2023 2023 hearing. hearing. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth timely timely submitted submitted its its brief brief pursuant pursuant
to to the the Court’s Court's October October 13, 13, 2023 2023 order. order. See 10/13/23 10/13/23 Order; Order; see also also Brief Brief in in Opposition Opposition to to
Defendant's Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion, Motion, 12/1 1/23. 12/11/23.
Therefore, Therefore, the the period period of of time time from from July July 27, 27, 2023 2023 to to January January 26, 26, 2024, 2024, one-hundred one-hundred
eighty-three eighty-three (183) (183) days, days, is is excludable from ;.the excludable from the Rula u $00 Rle calculation. The 600 calculation. The adjusted adjusted mechanical mechanical run date run date pursuant pursuant to to Rule Rule 600(B)(1), 600(B3)(1 ), when when factoring factoring the the delays delays attributed attributed to to Defendant Defendant as as set set
forth above, forth above, is is April April 20, 2024. 20, 2024.
ORDER ORDER
And now, And now, this this 14th 14th day day of of March, March, 2024, 2024, upon upon consideration consideration of of Defendant’s Defendant's Motion Motion
Pursuant Pursuant to to Rule Rule 600(B), 600(B), (D)(2) (D)(2) and (E), and and (E), and following following aa hearing thereon, itit is hearing thereon, is hereby hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and and DECREED DECREED that Defendant’s motion that Defendant's motion is is DENIED. DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
�t / J. JESE PET GE
,- ¢ TO: DA, COPIES TO: DA, DEFENDANT, - PUBLIC DEFENDER DEFENDANT, PUBLIC
IN IN THE THE COURT COURT OF OF COMMON COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL CRIMINAL DIVISION DIVISION
COMMONWEALTH COMMONWEAL TH OF OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA, )) )) )) vs. vs. )) No. 746-2023 No. 746-2023 ) JASON JASON M. M. WOODALL, WOODALL, )) )) Defendant. Defendant. ))
MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM AND AND ORDER ORDER
This This matter matter comes comes before before the the Court Court upon upon Defendant, Jason Woodall’s Defendant, Jason Woodall's Pro Pro Se Se Motion(s)- Motion(s)-
In-Limine In-Limine which which was was filed filed on on March March 7, 7, 2024. 2024. This This Court Court heard heard argument argument on on the the Defendant’s Defendant's
Motion(s)-In-Limine Motion(s)-In-Limine on on March March 12, 12, 2024. 2024.
A A review review of of the the record record demonstrates demonstrates that that the the Defendant, Defendant, through through counsel, counsel, filed filed an an
Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion Motion on on July July 27, 27, 2023, 2023, which which included included aa Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to to
Pa.R.Crim. Pa.R.Crim. Rule Rule 600, 600, Motion Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss Pursuant Pursuant to to 18 18 Pa.C.S.§l 10, Motion Pa.C.S.$110, Motion to to Dismiss Dismiss
Pursuant Pursuant to to 42 42 Pa.C.S.§5552(a), Pa.C.S.§5552(a), Motion Motion to to Dismiss; Dismiss: Improper Improper Venue Venue and and Lack Lack of of Subject Subject Matter Matter
Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction, Motion Motion to to Reveal Reveal Confidential Confidential Informant Informant Identity, Identity, Motion Motion to to Set Set Bail Bail and and Motion Motion to to
Compel Compel Discovery. Discovery.
A A hearing hearing was was held held before before Judge Judge Valarie Valarie Costanzo Costanzo regarding regarding to to Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus
Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion Motion on on October October 13, 13, 2023. 2023. Present Present at at the the hearing hearing were were Assistant Assistant District District Attorney Attorney
Rachel Rachel Wheeler, Wheeler, representing representing the the Commonwealth, Commonwealth, and and Adam Adam Yarussi, Y arussi, Esquire, Esquire, representing representing the the
Defendant. Defendant. AtAt the the close close of of the the hearing, hearing, the the Court Court ordered ordered both both parties parties to to submit submit briefs briefs thirty thirty (30) (30) , . Vd 4.0303 NOJDX'iMS 3015'[Sy;E vnV days days after after the the filing filing of of the the official official trans^riptriiThe^ official transcript of trans@jjt; ff~~fficilanscript of the the Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial
Hearing Hearing was was filed filed on on November November 9, 9, 20^) 201 ^e^d^nt :2efhdlnt all' O Commonwealth timely th@Commonwealth timely submitted submitted
,. their theirbriefs. briefs. Defendant’s Defendant's Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motionwas was denied denied in in its its entirety entirety by by way way of ofan an
Opinion Opinion and and Order Order entered enteredby by Judge Judge Costanzo Costanzo on onJanuary January 26, 26, 2024. 2024.
Defendant, Defendant, in inthe the instant instantmotion, motion, makes makes numerous numerous arguments, arguments, many many of ofwhich which are are not not
appropriate appropriate issues issues to to be be raised raised in in aa motion motion in in limine. limine. Defendant Defendant also also attempts attempts to to reargue reargue issues issues
that that have have been been resolved resolved by by written written opinion opinion and and court court order. order.
A A motion motion in in limine limine isis aa procedure procedure for for obtaining obtaining aa ruling ruling on on the the admissibility admissibility of ofevidence evidence
prior priorto to or or during during trial, trial, but but before before the the evidence evidence has has been been offered. offered. See See Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v. Johnson, Johnson,
399 Pa.Super. 399 Pa.Super. 266 266 (1990). (1990). “The "The purpose purpose of ofaa motion in limine motion in limine isis two two fold: fold: 1) 1) to to provide provide the the trial trial
court court with with aa pre-trial pre-trial opportunity opportunity to to weigh weigh carefully carefully and and consider consider potentially potentially prejudicial prejudicial and and
harmful evidence; harmful evidence; and and 2) 2) to to preclude preclude evidence evidence from ever reaching from ever reaching aajury jury that that may may prove prove to to be be so so
prejudicial prejudicial that that no no instruction instruction could could cure cure the the harm harm to to the the defendant, defendant, thus thus reducing reducing the the possibility possibility
that prejudicial that .prejudicial error error could could occur occur at at trial which would trial which would force force the the trial trial court court to to either either declare declare aa
mistrial mistrial in in the the middle middle of of the the case case or or grant grant aa new new trial trial at at its its conclusion.” conclusion." Commonwealth Commonwealth v.v.
Metzer, Metzer, 634 634 A.2d A.2d 228 228 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 1993). 1993).
Defendant, Defendant, in in his his Motion(s)-In-Limine, Motion(s)-In-Limine, seeks seeks to to have have the the Court Court dismiss dismiss the the “simple "simple
possession” possession" charges charges pursuant pursuant to to 42 42 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. §5552(a). §5552(a). This This matter matter has has already already been been ruled ruled on on by by
the the Court. Court. Defendant, Defendant, through through counsel, counsel, raised raised this this issue issue in in his his Brief Brief In In Support Support of of Defendant’s Defendant's
Omnibus Omnibus Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Motion(s) Motion(s) filed filed on on December December 1, 1, 2023. 2023. Judge Judge Costanzo, Costanzo, in in her her Opinion Opinion and and
Order dated Order dated January January 26, 26, 2024, 2024, ruled ruled that that the Defendant is the Defendant is estopped estopped from from raising raising this this issue issue at at this this
juncture, as juncture, as he he failed failed to to properly properly raise raise the issue in the issue in his his Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Motion Motion filed filed on on July July 27, 27,
2023. 2023.'1
09 IcflOO JO '
1The Commonwealth filed a Motion to Amend the Crim^Ql jgft^atiAiTa^recUiVid leave of Court to do so on ' The Commonwealth filed a Motion to Amend the Crim#jg@! @rd}datlrakkl}a 1eave of Court to do so on December December 15, 15, 2023. 2023. The The order order signed signed by by Judge Judge Costanzo Costanzo was was filed on December filed on December 20, 20, 2023. 2023. Defendant Defendant argues argues he he isis not not aa flight flight risk risk and and should should not not have have been been deemed deemed as as one. one. ItIt
appears appears the the Defendant Defendant disputes disputes the the Court’s Court's prior prior rulings rulings relating relating to to Defendant’s Defendant's motions motions to to set set
bail. bail. By By way way of of background, background, Defendant’s Defendant's bail bail was was denied denied by by Magisterial Magisterial District District Judge Judge Joshua Joshua
Kanalis on Kanalis on April April 14, 14, 2023. 2023. Defendant Defendant filed motion to filed aa motion to set set bail bail and and aa hearing hearing was was held held thereon thereon
on on June June 20, 20, 2023. 2023. Following Following the the hearing, hearing, Judge Judge Costanzo Costanzo denied denied Defendant’s Defendant's initial initial motion motion to to
set bail. set bail. Defendant, Defendant, through through counsel, counsel, filed filed aa Second Request for Second Request for Motion Motion to to Set Set Bail Bail on on July July 27, 27,
2023. 2023. Judge Judge Costanzo, Costanzo, by by way way of Opinion and of Opinion and Order Order dated dated January January 26, 26, 2024, 2024, denied the bail denied the bail
modification modification request, request, after after an an extensive extensive Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Hearing Hearing on on October October 13, 13, 2023. 2023.
Defendant Defendant attempts attempts to to again again raise raise the the issue issue of of subject subject matter matterjurisdiction. jurisdiction. Defendant’s Defendant's
Motion Motion to to Dismiss: Dismiss: Improper Improper Venue Venue and and Lack Lack of of Subject Subject Matter Matter Jurisdiction Jurisdiction was was denied denied by by
Judge Costanzo, Judge Costanzo, after after aa hearing hearing on on October October 13, 13, 2023, by way 2023, by way of of an an Opinion Opinion and and Order Order entered entered on on
January January 26, 26, 2024. 2024.
Defendant Defendant argues argues that that he he has has aa right right to to know know the the identity identity of of the the confidential confidential informant informant in in
this this matter. matter. Defendant’s Defendant's Motion Motion to to Reveal Reveal Confidential Confidential Informant Informant Identity Identity was was denied denied by by Judge Judge
Costanzo, after Costanzo, after aa hearing hearing on on October October 13, 13, 2023, by way 2023, by way of of an an Opinion Opinion and and Order Order entered entered on on
Defendant Defendant argues argues that that he he has has not not received received discovery discovery in in this this matter. matter. Defendant, Defendant, in in the the
instant instant motion, motion, specifically specifically requests requests text text and and Facebook Facebook messages messages between between the the CI CI and and Defendant. Defendant.
This This issue issue was was raised raised in in Defendant’s Defendant's prior prior Motion Motion to to Compel Compel Discovery, Discovery, addressed addressed at at the the
October 13, October 13, 2023 2023 hearing hearing and and ruled ruled on on by Judge Costanzo by Judge Costanzo in in her her Opinion Opinion and and Order Order entered entered on on
Throughout Throughout Defendant’s entire mption, he {rgk~al~ck of Defendant's entire of due due diligence diligence on on part part of of the the 4 7y; , Gil ·' •• .--·- 1@@ officers officers involved involved with with his his case case and and Assistant Assistant District District Attqmey.Rachel Attomey,..Rachel Wheeler Wheeler in in bringing bringing 0:2 H I- i@0? Defendant to Defendant to trial. Defendant’s Motion trial. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Dismiss Pursuant to to Pa.R.Crim. Rule 600, Pa.R.Crim. Rule 600, relating relating to to
the the period of time period of time that that it it took took to to execute the arrest execute the arrest warrant on Defendant, warrant on Defendant, was was denied denied by by Judge Judge
Costanzo Costanzo by by way way of of Opinion Opinion and and Order Order dated dated January January 26, 26, 2024. 2024.22
Defendant Defendant argues argues that that the the chain chain of of custody custody evidence evidence is is deficient and should deficient and should not not be be
admissible. “While admissible. "While the the Commonwealth Commonwealth bears bears the the burden burden of of demonstrating demonstrating some some reasonable reasonable
connection between connection between the the proffered proffered exhibits exhibits and and the the true true evidence, evidence, it it need need not not establish establish the the sanctity sanctity
of its of its exhibits exhibits beyond beyond aa moral moral certainty. certainty. The The Commonwealth Commonwealth need need not produce every not produce every individual individual
who came who came into into contact contact with with an an item of evidence, item of evidence, nor nor must must it it ..eeliminate every every hypothetical hypothetical
possibility of tampering. possibility of tampering. A A complete complete chain of custody chain of custody is is not not required required so so long long as as the the
Commonwealth's evidence, Commonwealth's evidence, direct direct and and circumstantial, circumstantial, establishes establishes aa reasonable reasonable inference inference that that the the
identity and condition identity and condition of of the the exhibits exhibits have remained the have remained the same same from from the the time time they they were first were first
received until received until the the time time of of trial. trial. Any Any gaps in testimony gaps in testimony regarding regarding the the chain chain of of custody custody go go to to the the
weight to weight to be be given given the the testimony, testimony, not not to to its its admissibility.” admissibility." Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Cugnini, Cugnini, 307 307
Pa.Super. 113 Pa.Super. 113 (1982) (1982) (internal (internal citations omitted) (emphasis citations omitted) (emphasis added). added).
Defendant Defendant argues argues that that the Commonwealth’s witnesses, the Commonwealth's witnesses, specifically specifically law law enforcement enforcement
officers involved officers involved in in the the investigation, investigation, are are not not credible credible witnesses witnesses and and evidence, evidence, such such as as the the control control
logs, are logs, are not not authentic. authentic. It It is is well established under well established Pennsylvania law under Pennsylvania law that that “[t]he "[t]he weight weight of of the the
evidence is evidence is exclusively for the exclusively for the finder of fact, finder of fact, who who is is free to believe free to all, none believe all, none or or some some of of the the
evidence evidence and and to to determine determine the the credibility credibility of of witnesses.” witnesses." Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Fuentes, Fuentes, 2022 PA 2022 PA
Super 43, 272 A.3d Super 43,272 A.3d 511,516 511,516 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022), Super. Ct. see also 2022), see also Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Ghrist, Ghrist, 873 873 WDA WDA
2015, 2016 2015, 2016 WL WL 5173526, 5173526, at at 66 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. Ct. Ct. July July 13, 13, 2016). 2016).
Defendant Defendant next next appears to petikldr£for&h@ft H&~las corpus appears to corpus by by challenging challenging the the pretrial ·. . <;n.4 D lki· .si y}; Kl i pretrial
'pendant mlea a 2Defendant filed a Pro motion was motion se Moon Pesta.9A.iK Pro Se Motion Pursuant tclSule 6^13)} (D^^ani^) on February 23, 2024. after aa hearing, denied, after was denied, hearing, by by way way of }7lsi.'la« of Opinion Opinion and and Order Order dated dated March Defendant’s resrsssy 23, 2024. petnadaaes March 14, 14, 2024. 2024. untri q fl @;4 1 U d h .' ..ii • finding that finding that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth has has sufficient sufficient evidence evidence to to establish establish aa prima prima facie facie case. case.
Defendant also argues Defendant also argues that that the the “4 "4 comers” of the comers" of the affidavit affidavit of of probable cause filed probable cause filed with with the the
criminal complaint criminal complaint lacked probable cause lacked probable cause and and is is vague. vague.33 It It is is well well established established under under
Pennsylvania law that Pennsylvania law that the the Commonwealth may present Commonwealth may present additional additional evidence evidence to to establish establish that that the the
defendant has defendant has committed committed the the elements elements of of the the offenses offenses charged. charged. See See Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Dantzler, Dantzler,
135 A.3d 135 A.3d 1109 1109 (Pa.Super. (Pa.Super. 2016); 2016); Commonwealth Commonwealth v. v. Karlson, Karlson, 449 449 Pa. Pa. Super. Super. 378 (1996). At 378 (1996). At the the
court proceeding court proceeding on on March March 12, 12, 2024, 2024, the the Commonwealth Commonwealth submitted submitted the the transcript transcript of of the the October October
13, 2023 13, 2023 Omnibus Omnibus Pretrial Pretrial Hearing Hearing as as additional additional proof proof that that aa prima prima facie facie case case exists. exists. See See Exhibit Exhibit
7, March 7, March 12, 12, 2024 2024 hearing. hearing. The The evidence evidence presented presented at at the the hearing hearing on on October October 13, 13, 2024 2024
establishes aa prima establishes prima facie case against facie case against the Defendant. the Defendant.
Defendant argues Defendant argues that that he was transported he was transported illegally from Mercer illegally from Mercer County County to to Washington Washington
County County for for purposes purposes of of his his preliminary preliminary arraignment. arraignment. Defendant Defendant integrates integrates aa subject subject matter matter
jurisdiction jurisdiction argument argument at at the the same same time. time. As As set set forth forth above, above, Defendant’s Defendant's Motion Motion to to Dismiss: Dismiss:
Improper Improper Venue Venue and and Lack Lack of of Subject Subject Matter Matter Jurisdiction Jurisdiction was was denied denied by by Judge Judge Costanzo Costanzo by by way way
of an of an Opinion Opinion and and Order Order entered entered on on January January 26, 26, 2024. 2024. Furthermore, Furthermore, Defendant’s Defendant's argument argument is is
unclear as the unclear as the Defendant Defendant agreed, agreed, on on the record at the record at the the proceeding proceeding on on March March 12, 12, 2024, 2024, that that aa
detainer had detainer had been been placed placed on on him relating to him relating to the the charges filed in charges filed Washington County. in Washington County. There There is is no no
evidence evidence in in the the record record to to demonstrate demonstrate that that the the Commonwealth Commonwealth utilized utilized improper improper procedures procedures to to
return Defendant return Defendant to to Washington Washington County County for for his his preliminary preliminary arraignment. arraignment.
Vri 03 _ ■ S1W3 JO JJJU 3 Defendant's reliance • Defendant’s reliance on on Commonwealth Commonwealth y,4a Ma/mel,,20 IS Pa^uner.-332, to ? e.29018 y Pa,$pp;32, misplaced. The is misplaced. argument, is his argument, support his to support The Manuel case Manuel case relates relates to to the the constitutionality wra^araSwsnramarrd constitutionality haea# me tietermination of wakrafHd'l''determination of whether whether probable cause probable cause existed to existed to support support the the issuance issuance of of aa search search warrant. warrant. ORDER ORDER
And And now, now, this this 1 1"st day day of of April, 2024, upon April, 2024, upon consideration consideration of Defendant’s Pro of Defendant's Pro Se Se
Motion(s)-In-Limine Motion(s)-In-Limine which which was was filed filed on on March March 7, 2024, and 7, 2024, for the and for the reasons reasons set forth above, set forth it is above, it is
hereby hereby ORDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED ADJUDGED and and DECREED DECREED that that Defendant’s Defendant's Motion(s)-In-Limine Motion(s)-In-Limine is is
DENIED DENIED in in its its entirety. entirety.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Com. v. Woodall, J., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/com-v-woodall-j-pasuperct-2026.