Com. v. Moyer, B.

J-S33042-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
BRAD ALLEN MOYER, :
:
Appellant : No. 1729 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 12, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuykill County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0001340-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JULY 12, 2017
Brad Allen Moyer (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence
imposed on October 12, 2016, after a jury found him guilty of two counts
each of aggravated assault by attempting to cause serious bodily injury,
aggravated assault by attempting to cause serious bodily injury with a
deadly weapon, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person
(REAP).1 We affirm.
The events giving rise to the aforementioned charges began the
evening of May 28, 2015. Appellant was residing with his parents, Wendy
Moyer and Nevin Randy Moyer (Randy). Appellant came home early from
work that evening because he was having “[m]ajor back problems” while
working at his job. N.T., 4/7/2016, at 25. According to Wendy, when
1
The trial court also found Appellant guilty of criminal mischief as a
summary offense.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S33042-17
Appellant came home, he appeared “confused, frustrated, [and] in pain.” Id.
at 26. Additionally, “[h]is balance and all was off.” Id. Wendy “wasn’t
capable of driving” Appellant to the hospital and also could not reach Randy,
so she waited until Randy came home. Id. at 27. Wendy felt that Appellant
“[w]anted [her] to allow him to just stay at the house and die.” Id. at 28.
Randy arrived home around 10:00 p.m. that night, and Wendy told Randy
that Appellant “had consumed a bottle of approximately 250 Tylenol.” Id. at
34. Before calling 911, Randy went outside to write down Appellant’s license
plate number, and while Randy was doing that, Appellant went outside and
shoved Randy from behind. Randy went back into the house, reached for
the phone, and Appellant struck Randy again. When Randy fell, Appellant
continued hitting him. Randy called 911, and Appellant left the home.
Pennsylvania State Police Troopers Robert O’Connor and Matthew
Barrett were dispatched to the Moyer residence and arrived around 11:00
p.m. Upon arrival, they spoke with both Wendy and Randy, who informed
the troopers about the aforementioned domestic incident. They also
indicated that Appellant was suicidal. The troopers then decided to canvass
the area around the home and put a broadcast throughout the county for
Appellant’s vehicle, a white Chevrolet Malibu.
Eventually, when the troopers were driving in the right lane on
Ringtown Road, they observed a car driving at a high rate of speed toward
them. According to Trooper O’Connor, the car’s headlights were hitting him
-2-
J-S33042-17
“square in the eyes” which indicated to him that the oncoming car was
coming directly toward them and “escape route” was necessary to avoid a
collision. Id. at 57. Trooper O’Connor then “cut the wheel hard” and drove
off the right side of the road. Id. The oncoming vehicle, later identified as
Appellant’s vehicle with Appellant driving, collided with the police vehicle
behind the driver’s side door. Trooper O’Connor testified that he “felt like
there was an attempt at [his] life at that time.” Id. at 60.
The troopers exited their vehicle and followed the debris field until
they found Appellant. They attempted to take him into custody. Appellant
was “[n]ot compliant, verbally resistant, cursing at [the troopers], [and]
calling [them] names.” Id. at 64. Eventually, Appellant was handcuffed, and
they waited for backup to arrive. Appellant and the troopers went to the
hospital to assess their injuries. Both troopers suffered abrasions and
bruises due to the crash.
As a result of this series of incidents, Appellant was arrested. A jury
trial was held on April 7, 2016, and Appellant was convicted of the
aforementioned crimes.2 On May 17, 2016, Appellant was sentenced to an
aggregate term of 9 to 22 years of incarceration. This sentence included
consecutive four-to-ten-year sentences for aggravated assault by attempting
to cause serious bodily injury and consecutive six-to-12 month sentences for
REAP. The trial court determined that the two counts each for aggravated
2
The jury was hung on two counts of attempted murder and two counts of
aggravated assault.
-3-
J-S33042-17
assault by attempting to cause serious bodily injury with a deadly weapon
and simple assault merged for the purposes of sentencing.
Appellant filed a post-sentence motion, which was granted in part.
Specifically, the trial court vacated Appellant’s judgment of sentence
because the “sentence for the two aggravated assault charges was improper
pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. [] § 906, which prohibits a criminal defendant from
being convicted of more than one inchoate crime for conduct designed to
culminate in the commission of the same crime.” Trial Court Opinion,
8/4/2016, at 2 (internal quotations omitted).
The statute provides that “[a] person may not be convicted of more
than one of the inchoate crimes of criminal attempt, criminal solicitation or
criminal conspiracy for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in the
commission of the same crime.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 906. Despite the clear
statutory language, the prohibition against multiple convictions has been
interpreted as a prohibition against multiple judgments of sentence. See
Commonwealth v. Kingston, 143 A.3d 917, 922 n.3 (Pa. 2016)
(“Although Section 906 bars ‘multiple convictions,’ the Superior Court has
held, and we have assumed without deciding, that the statute proscribes
multiple judgments of sentence.”).
On August 15, 2016, Appellant was resentenced. The Commonwealth
filed a post-sentence motion based upon the decision of our Supreme Court
in Kingston, filed on August 15, 2016, which interpreted section 906. To
-4-
J-S33042-17
understand the issue in Kingston, the Supreme Court offered the following
helpful illustration. “[S]uppose that Dan, with the requisite criminal intent,
asks Abe to commit a robbery. Abe agrees and takes a substantial step
toward the commission of the robbery. Dan has committed three inchoate
crimes. Yet, pursuant to Section 906, he may be punished for only one.”
143 A.3d at 923. The Supreme Court considered the question of “whether
‘more than one of the inchoate crimes’ refers to more than one substantive
inchoate crime only, or whether it also connotes more than one count of a
particular inchoate crime.” Id. at 924 (citing 18 Pa.C.S. § 906). The
Supreme Court offered the following:
It is not difficult to imagine why the General Assembly would
proscribe multiple convictions for distinct inchoate offenses in
circumstances where a defendant’s conduct was designed to
culminate in the commission of a single underlying crime.
Successive steps in a criminal undertaking often will constitute a
criminal solicitation, a criminal conspiracy, and a criminal
attempt, because all three offenses necessarily overlap. All
conspiracies follow a solicitation of some kind; there can be no
acceptance without an offer. In addition, the difference between
an “overt act” necessary to establish a criminal conspiracy and a
“substantial step” evidencing a criminal attempt is one of degree
only.
Id. at 925. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the language of
Section 906 prohibits more than one conviction for each solicitation,
attempt, and conspiracy, but “does not forbid the imposition of consecutive
sentences for multiple violations of a single inchoate offense” so long as they
culminated in different crimes. Id. at 927.
-5-
J-S33042-17
Accordingly, the trial court concluded that Appellant’s original sentence
was not improper where Appellant was sentenced consecutively for two
different aggravated assaults by attempting to cause serious bodily injury
convictions. Thus, on October 12, 2016, the trial court vacated its August
15, 2016 sentence and reinstated Appellant’s original sentence from May 17,
2016. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, and both Appellant and the
trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
On appeal, Appellant sets forth three issues for our review, which we
have reordered for ease of disposition.
[1]. Whether a defendant can be found guilty of a second
specific intent attempt when the defendant lacked knowledge of
the presence or existence of a second victim at the scene.
[2]. Whether the trial court erred in sentencing [Appellant] on
two counts of aggravated assault - attempted serious bodily
injury in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. [] § 90[6] and the direction of []
Kingston [].
3. Whether the Commonwealth committed prosecutorial
misconduct in its closing which misconduct impacted the jury’s
decision despite cautionary instructions.
Appellant’s Brief at 1 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
As Appellant’s first two issues concern his two convictions and
sentences for aggravated assault by attempting to cause serious bodily
injury, we address them together. Appellant’s argument as to both issues
can be distilled to the following: a defendant may not be convicted and
sentenced for two separate inchoate crimes where there was one act (ie.
-6-
J-S33042-17
driving the vehicle into an oncoming vehicle), even where there are two
separate victims as a result of this act.
Specifically, Appellant suggests that it was improper to conclude that
he “could be found guilty of a separate attempt on an unknown occupant of
an oncoming vehicle in addition to the known driver.” Appellant’s Brief at 8.
In addition, Appellant argues that “[t]he Commonwealth has failed to prove
that [his] intention was anything other than suicide.”3 Id. at 10.
Appellant further maintains that the trial court erred at re-sentencing
in how it applied Kingston. Appellant contends that in this case “there was
a single attempt not multiple violations of a single inchoate offense.”
Appellant’s Brief at 8 (emphasis removed). Appellant again suggests that
because he was unaware “of the number of occupants in the vehicle[,]” a
finding of multiple attempts was in error. Id. Further, Appellant suggests
that “[e]ven though a jury may return a verdict on more than one inchoate
crime, the [t]rial [c]ourt may sentence on only one of those crimes.”
Appellant’s Brief at 6.
To the extent Appellant is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence
to sustain his convictions, we set forth the following.
3
Appellant also argues the trial court erred in instructing the jury as to
these offenses. See Appellant’s Brief at 8 (“The issue is whether the [t]rial
[c]ourt erred in instructing the jury that [Appellant] could be found guilty of
a separate attempt on an unknown occupant of an oncoming vehicle in
addition to the known driver.”). However, because Appellant did not present
a challenge to this jury instruction in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, it is
waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
-7-
J-S33042-17
As a general matter, our standard of review of sufficiency
claims requires that we evaluate the record in the light most
favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit
of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.
Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it
establishes each material element of the crime charged and the
commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a
mathematical certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is
to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak
and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact
can be drawn from the combined circumstances.
The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of
wholly circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, [t]he fact that the
evidence establishing a defendant’s participation in a crime is
circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where the evidence
coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom
overcomes the presumption of innocence. Significantly, we may
not substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder; thus, so
long as the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective
elements of a defendants crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the
appellant's convictions will be upheld.
Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881, 886–87 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(quoting Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719, 722–23 (Pa. Super.
2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The statute governing Appellant’s convictions provides that “[a] person
is guilty of aggravated assault if he … attempts to cause serious bodily injury
to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under
circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”
18 Pa.C.S. § 2702(a)(1).
Where the victim does not suffer serious bodily injury, the
charge of aggravated assault can be supported only if the
-8-
J-S33042-17
evidence supports a finding of an attempt to cause such injury.[4]
A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a
specific crime, he does any act which constitutes a substantial
step toward the commission of that crime. An attempt under
Subsection 2702(a)(1) requires some act, albeit not one causing
serious bodily injury, accompanied by an intent to inflict serious
bodily injury. A person acts intentionally with respect to a
material element of an offense when … it is his conscious object
to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result[.]
As intent is a subjective frame of mind, it is of necessity difficult
of direct proof. The intent to cause serious bodily injury may be
proven by direct or circumstantial evidence.
Commonwealth v. Martuscelli, 54 A.3d 940, 948 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(internal quotations and citations omitted).
The trial court considered these arguments and concluded that
“[w]hen one crashes his vehicle into another vehicle at 90 mph, there is
evidence from which a jury may infer the requisite intent to injure any or all
occupants of the target vehicle, even if the perpetrator cannot actually see
who is present therein.” Trial Court Opinion, 8/4/2016, at 5.
At trial, the Commonwealth presented evidence from accident
reconstruction specialist, Robert W. Herb. Herb testified that the police
vehicle was cruising at 33 miles per hour (mph) and was in the process of
slowing down when the vehicle abruptly accelerated to 100 percent and
veered to the right. N.T., 4/7/2016, at 127. Appellant’s car was going 91
mph when it hit the police vehicle. Id. “[I]n the five seconds leading up to
the impact, [Appellant’s] vehicle increased speed from … 79 to 91 [mph]
4
The Commonwealth does not suggest that the troopers suffered serious
bodily injury.
-9-
J-S33042-17
hour. The accelerator pedal was stepped on at 100 percent capacity for that
time, and there was never any braking involved.” Id. at 128. “[T]he front
left corner of [Appellant’s car] struck the left side of the police car…, which is
right at the back of the driver’s seat.” Id. at 129. “After the impact,
[Appellant’s car] continued [moving] … [a]nd then there was impact with [a]
large tree.” Id.
Despite the fact that Appellant testified that “suicide was the only
thing on [his] mind,” the jury could have inferred based upon the foregoing
accident reconstruction that Appellant was attempting to cause serious
bodily injury to the driver of the vehicle. Id. at 197. See Commonwealth
v. Fierst, 620 A.2d 1196 (Pa. Super. 1993) (upholding aggravated assault
conviction where Fierst drove into the opposing lane of traffic in an apparent
attempt to commit suicide and crashed into the driver-victim, but the driver-
victim did not suffer injury when swerving and crashing to avoid the
collision).
We cannot agree the same is true with respect to an unknown
passenger. Nonetheless, as the Commonwealth suggests, we conclude that
the doctrine of transferred intent applies to the unknown passenger in the
vehicle under these circumstances. See Commonwealth’s Brief at 10 (“As it
was established beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant intended to cause
serious bodily injury to (at a minimum) the driver of the vehicle which he
intentionally drove 90 mph into, this intent was transferred, pursuant to the
- 10 -
J-S33042-17
transferred intent doctrine, to the other Trooper riding as a passenger in the
same vehicle.”).
The doctrine of transferred intent is codified in the following statute:
Divergence between result designed or contemplated and
actual result.--When intentionally or knowingly causing a
particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not
established if the actual result is not within the intent or the
contemplation of the actor unless:
(1) the actual result differs from that designed or
contemplated as the case may be, only in the respect that
a different person or different property is injured or
affected or that the injury or harm designed or
contemplated would have been more serious or more
extensive than that caused; or
(2) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or
harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too
remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a bearing on
the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his offense.
18 Pa.C.S. § 303(b).
This Court examined the doctrine of transferred intent in
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 955 A.2d 441 (Pa. Super. 2008). In that
case, Jackson and others made an attempt to murder Charles Wesley while
Wesley was in the midst of a group of police officers who were investigating
an earlier attempt on Wesley’s life. In so doing, Jackson fired his gun in the
vicinity of seven other people on the scene, and was correspondingly
convicted of seven counts of aggravated assault. On appeal, Jackson
claimed, similar to Appellant in the case sub judice, that the evidence was
insufficient to sustain those convictions:
- 11 -
J-S33042-17
While [Jackson] admits that he intended to shoot Wesley,
[Jackson] contends that these other persons were simply in the
way. [Jackson] argues that the Commonwealth failed to
establish that he had the specific intent to cause serious bodily
injury to any of these persons, and thus, the requisite intent for
his aggravated assault convictions is lacking.
Id. at 445-46. This Court agreed with Jackson’s position that the
Commonwealth did not establish his specific intent to cause serious bodily
injury to the seven people.
[T]he evidence shows that [the seven individuals who served as
the victims for the seven counts of aggravated assault] were
near [Jackson’s] intended victim. The evidence shows that
[Jackson] fired a deadly weapon toward them. There is,
however, no other evidence, in the form of circumstances,
actions or words, occurring before, during, or after the shooting,
that tends to demonstrate that [Jackson] specifically intended to
inflict injury upon these particular persons. Therefore, the only
circumstance in the record from which it may be inferred that
[Jackson] had the intent to cause these persons serious bodily
injury was his firing a deadly weapon in their direction. Based
upon the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the
evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt
that [Jackson] harbored the specific intent to cause serious
bodily injury with a deadly weapon to any of these persons.
Id. at 448. Thus, this Court turned to consider whether the intent element
of the assaults was satisfied under the doctrine of transferred intent.
The Commonwealth argues that under the doctrine,
[Jackson’s] admitted intent to shoot and cause Wesley serious
bodily harm, satisfies the intent element for [Jackson’s]
aggravated assault convictions of these persons. [Jackson]
counters that the doctrine of transferred intent does not apply in
this case because these persons were not actually injured. It is
[Jackson’s] position that the doctrine is not meant to apply and
has not been applied to a charge of aggravated assault, when
criminal liability is premised on the attempt to cause serious
bodily injury to another. [Jackson] further argues that 18
Pa.C.S.[] § 303(b), enacted to reflect existing law, reveals that
- 12 -
J-S33042-17
the doctrine is to be used only where a defendant shoots a gun
at a person, intending to cause serious bodily injury, but hits
another, or where the defendant shoots the intended victim, but
does not cause serious harm.
Id. (internal citation omitted) (citing State v. Brady, 903 A.2d 870 (Md.
2006) (holding that the doctrine of transferred intent is inapplicable to
crimes of attempt because, in such instances, the defendant commits a
complete crime against the intended victim)).
In holding that the doctrine of transferred intent applied in Jackson,
this Court concluded that Jackson’s specific intent to kill Wesley transferred
to the seven bystanders, satisfying the intent elements for Jackson’s
aggravated assaults of those seven people. Given this precedent, we affirm
Appellant’s convictions and sentence as to Trooper Barrett. The jury found
the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that Appellant had the
specific intent to cause serious bodily injury to the driver of the vehicle.
Under Jackson, Appellant’s intent to injure Trooper O’Conner seriously
transferred to Trooper Barrett, even if Appellant did not know of his
existence, satisfying the intent element of the crimes. Based on the
foregoing, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant’s
convictions for aggravated assault by attempting to cause serious bodily
injury as to both victims.
Having concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain both
convictions, we now turn to the issue of whether Appellant could be
sentenced on both convictions. “[A] claim that crimes should have merged
- 13 -
J-S33042-17
for purposes of sentencing challenges the legality of his sentence.”
Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720, 730 (Pa. Super. 2012). In
Commonwealth v. Frisbie, 485 A.2d 1098, 1101 (Pa. 1984), our Supreme
Court held “that the imposition of multiple sentences upon a defendant
whose single unlawful act injures multiple victims is legislatively authorized
and, consequently, does not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth
Amendment.” In Frisbie, the defendant, “while fleeing from police officers
in downtown Philadelphia, drove his car through a crowded intersection and
seriously injured nine pedestrians.” 485 A.2d at 1099. He was charged with
nine counts of REAP, and the trial court sentenced him separately for each
one.
On appeal to this Court, the defendant argued that his one act could
not result in nine separate sentences even where there were nine separate
victims. This Court agreed and held that defendant’s “single action of
propell[ing] his vehicle forward through a crowd of persons causing injury to
numerous persons … [could] support but one sentence.” Id (internal
quotation marks omitted).
However, our Supreme Court disagreed and concluded that “[a]n
offender whose unlawful act harms or is likely to harm many people is more
culpable, and thus deserving of more severe punishment, than an offender
whose unlawful act harms only one person.” Id. at 1101. Thus, the
Supreme Court upheld all nine sentences.
- 14 -
J-S33042-17
Based upon the foregoing, it was proper for the trial court to sentence
Appellant separately for each victim. Thus, Appellant is not entitled to relief.
Moreover, as discussed supra, the Supreme Court in Kingston held that it is
not a violation of Section 906 to sentence an individual for two inchoate
offenses so long as two separate crimes are committed. Here, because we
have held that Appellant has committed two separate crimes against two
separate victims, the trial court’s sentencing on both attempts was proper.
We next consider Appellant’s argument that he was deprived of a fair
trial based upon two statements made in the Commonwealth’s closing
argument. First, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying a
mistrial when the Commonwealth argued that incidents like that of May 28,
2015 had “happened before” and were a “ritual.” N.T., 4/7/2016, at 254.
Appellant’s counsel argued that such a statement was “grounds for a
mistrial.” Id. at 258. On appeal, Appellant suggests that this was an
attempt by the Commonwealth “to establish that [Appellant] was a bad
person.” Appellant’s Brief at 13.
In considering this issue, we are mindful of the following.
The remedy of a mistrial is an extreme remedy required only
when an incident is of such a nature that its unavoidable effect is
to deprive the appellant of a fair and impartial tribunal.
With specific reference to a claim of prosecutorial misconduct in
a closing statement, it is well settled that in reviewing
prosecutorial remarks to determine their prejudicial quality,
comments cannot be viewed in isolation but, rather, must be
considered in the context in which they were made. Our review
of prosecutorial remarks and an allegation of prosecutorial
- 15 -
J-S33042-17
misconduct requires us to evaluate whether a defendant
received a fair trial, not a perfect trial.
Commonwealth v. Judy, 978 A.2d 1015, 1019 (Pa. Super. 2009) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
Here, Trooper Barrett testified that when he arrived at the Moyer
residence, he “observed [it] to have holes all over the walls.” N.T.,
4/7/2016, at 76. The Moyers “explained that [the holes were] a result of
their son’s anger in the past, not only on that day but in the past.” Id.
Counsel for Appellant did not object to this testimony. Moreover, the trial
court sustained Appellant’s objection during the closing argument and
offered the following curative instruction.
Ladies and gentlemen, you should totally disregard any
argument by the Commonwealth about anything that, that is
alleged to have happened or suggested it happened at anytime
other than the night in question. You’re not allowed to consider
anything other than the evidence about what happened that
night.
Id. at 259. “The law presumes that the jury will follow the instructions of
the court.” Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 30 A.3d 1111, 1184 (Pa. 2011).
Thus, because the Commonwealth’s comments were based upon testimony
in the record, and the trial court sustained the objection and offered a
curative instruction, we hold that the trial court did not err by not granting a
mistrial.
Appellant also argues that he is entitled to a mistrial based upon the
Commonwealth’s statement in its closing argument about police officers
- 16 -
J-S33042-17
being more deserving of sympathy as victims because “they put their lives
on the line to protect and serve.” N.T., 4/7/2016, at 265; Appellant’s Brief at
11. Counsel for Appellant objected. The trial court sustained the objection
and offered a curative instruction to the jury.5 On appeal, Appellant argues
that based on this prosecutorial misconduct, a “mistrial is appropriate in this
case.” Appellant’s Brief 13.
However, the record reveals that with respect to this statement,
Appellant did not request specifically a mistrial. “[E]ven where a defendant
objects to specific conduct, the failure to request a remedy such as a mistrial
or curative instruction is sufficient to constitute waiver.” Commonwealth v.
Sandusky, 77 A.3d 663, 670 (Pa. Super. 2013). Thus, where, as here,
Appellant did not request a mistrial, he has waived this issue on appeal. See
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); Commonwealth v. Brown, 134 A.3d 1097, 1107 (Pa.
Super. 2016) (holding that where counsel for defendant objects during
prosecutor’s closing statement, the objection is sustained, and the defendant
does not request a mistrial, then the issue is waived for review). Based
upon the foregoing, Appellant is not entitled to relief with respect to his
issues about the Commonwealth’s closing argument.
5
The trial court provided the following: “Ladies and gentlemen, you have to
decide this case based on the facts presented, not in any way as a
statement about support of police officers in general. The issue is whether
or not the Commonwealth has established the charges that have been
brought against the Defendant in this case.” N.T., 4/7/2016, at 266.
- 17 -
J-S33042-17
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/12/2017
- 18 -