Commonwealth v. Patterson (2014)

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 78 (Pa. 2014).12 The record supports the PCRA court’s finding this claim lacks arguable merit.

“The admission of evidence of prior bad acts is solely within the discretion of the trial court, and the court’s decision will not be disturbed - 24 - J-A17007-16 absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 68 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 1400 (2015) (citation omitted).

Relevant evidence “tends to prove or disprove some material fact, or tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 71 (Pa. 2014).

See Spotz, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Haney, 131 A.3d 24, 30-31 (Pa. 2015) (accepting expert opinion testimony to reasonable degree of medical certainty on manner of death); Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (accepting forensic pathologist opinion testimony to reasonable degree of medical certainty as to manner of death); Commonwealth v. Miller, 987 A.2d 638, 656 (Pa. 2009) (“[T]he substance of the testimony presented by the expert must be reviewed to…

Appx. 91, 97 (3d Cir. 2017.) Under Pennsylvania law, “[t]he admission of evidence of prior bad acts is solely within the discretion of the trial court, and the court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 68 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 1400 (2015) (citation omitted) abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Yale, 249 A.3d 1001 (Pa. 2021).

“In determining whether to admit a photograph or videotape of a . . . victim, a trial court must engage in a two-step analysis.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 67 (Pa. 2014), abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Yale, 249 A.3d 1001 (Pa. 2021) (citing Commonwealth v. Pruitt, 951 A.2d 307, 319 (Pa. 2008)).

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 69 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Lane, 621 A.2d 566, 568 (Pa. 1993) (“It is particularly important that, where the determination of a defendant’s guilt or innocence is dependent upon the credibility of a prosecution witness, an adequate opportunity be afforded to demonstrate through cross-examination that the witness is biased.” (citation omitted)). -6- J-S10009-21 Finally, the scope of cross-examination is wit…

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the jury’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the jury’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, [ 625 Pa. 104 ], 91 A.3d 55, 66 (2014) (citation omitted).

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the jury’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, [ 625 Pa. 104 ], 91 A.3d 55, 66 (2014) (citation omitted).

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 76 (Pa. 2014) (cleaned up).

We keep in mind the principles set forth by our Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Bergen, 142 A.3d 847 (2016): The defense may introduce evidence that "someone else committed a crime that bears a highly detailed similarity to the crime with which a defendant is charged." Commonwealth v. Patterson, 625 Pa. 104, 131 , 91 A.3d 55, 72 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

Additionally, “the defense may introduce evidence that someone else committed a crime that bears a highly detailed similarity to the crime with which a defendant is charged.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 625 Pa. 104, 131 , 91 A.3d 55, 72 (2014), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 1400 , 191 L.Ed.2d 373 (2015).

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). 4 “Whether sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict is a question of law; thus, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

For example, as recently as 2014, this Court explained that it “is well established that evidence which tends to show that the crime with which a defendant is charged was committed by someone else is relevant and admissible.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 72 (Pa. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. McGowan, 635 A.2d 113, 115 (Pa. 1993)).

For example, as recently as 2014, this Court explained that it “is well established that evidence which tends to show that the crime with which a defendant is charged was committed by someone else is relevant and admissible.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 72 (Pa. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. McGowan, 635 A.2d 113, 115 (Pa. 1993)).

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 76 (Pa. 2014) cert. denied sub nom.

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 70 (Pa. 2014).

See Commonwealth v. Patterson, - 17 - J-A26015-17 91 A.3d 55 (Pa. 2014) (“[T]he trial court did not preclude the defense from attempting to refresh the witness's recollection with the videotape; rather, it prohibited the playing of the tape in front of the jury, which is consistent with Rule 803.1.”).

Relevant evidence “tends to prove or disprove some material fact, or tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 71 (Pa. 2014) (citing McGowan, 635 A.2d at 115 ); see also Pa.R.E. 401 (defining relevant evidence)).

Relevant evidence “tends to prove or disprove some material fact, or tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 71 (Pa. 2014), citing McGowan, 635 A.2d at 115 .

“Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Pa.R.E. 401. “[T]he threshold for relevance is low due to the liberal ‘any tendency’ prerequisite.” Brady v. Urbas, 111 A.3d 1155, 1162 (Pa. 2015) (emphasis in original; citing Pa.R.E. 401). - 11 - J-S23023-17 In Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 74 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct…

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 625 Pa. 104, 139 , 91 A.3d 55, 76 (2014), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 1400 , 191 L.Ed.2d 373 (2015) (internal citations omitted).

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 68 (Pa. 2014) (“The admission of evidence of prior bad acts is solely within the discretion of the trial court, and the court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion”), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 1400 (2015).

“A defendant has a fundamental right to present evidence, so long as the evidence is relevant and not subject to exclusion under [the Pennsylvania] Rules of Evidence.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 71 (Pa. 2014). “lt is well established that evidence which tends to show that the crime for which an accused stands trial was committed by someone _]_1_ J-506005-17 else is relevant and admissible." Commonwealth v. Weiss, 81 A.3d 767, 806 (Pa. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth …

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 625 Pa. 104 , 91 A.3d 55, 66 (2014).

APPLICABLE LAW A. STANDARD OF REVIEW When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, the appellate court must look to the following standard of review: "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence [ the appellate court] must consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the [fact finder's] verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v.…

Relevant evidence “tends to prove or disprove some material fact, or tends to make a fact at issue -8- J-S06026-17 more or less probable.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 71 (Pa. 2014) (citing McGowan, 635 A.2d at 115 ).

In this regard, we recently explained that "the defense may introduce evidence that someone e!se committed a crime which bears a highly detailed similarity to the crime with which a defendant is charged." Commonwealth v. Weiss, - Pa. --, 81 A.3d 767, 806-07 (2013) (citation omitted)." Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 71-72 (Pa. 2-14).

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 1400 (2015).

When reviewing a claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court considers "whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the jury's verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v. Pennsylvania 135 S. Ct. 1400 (2015).

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 1400 (U.S. 2015). ____________________________________________ 3 On October 8, 2015, the trial court ordered Gerald to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 1400 (U.S. 2015).

Kemp complied with the court’s directive, and filed a concise statement on April 8, 2016. 8 We note Kemp does not challenge his conviction of aggravated assault- DUI. -5- J-S90009-16 Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 1400 (U.S. 2015).

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1400 (U.S. 2015).

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1400 (U.S. 2015).

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 76 (Pa. 2014).

Similarly, “[t]he admission of evidence of prior bad acts is solely within the discretion of the trial court, and the court’s decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 68 (Pa. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 1400 (2015) (citation omitted).

Patterson, 91 A.3d at 67 ( citation omitted).

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the jury’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v. Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 1400 (2015).

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the jury’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v. Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 1400 , 191 L.

The defense may introduce evidence that “someone else committed a crime that bears a highly detailed similarity to the crime with which a defendant is charged.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 625 Pa. 104, 131 , -6- J-A12038-16 91 A.3d 55, 72 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, -5- J-A03028-16 we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the jury’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v. Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 1400 (2015).

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the [finder of fact’s] verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v. Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 1400 (2015).

Counsel thereafter transmitted his brief to this Court on September 30, 2015. -3- J-A04041-16 “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the jury’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, __ Pa. __, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v. …

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the [fact finder’s] verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v. Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 1400 (2015).

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the [finder of fact] verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v. Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 1400 (2015).

“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the [finder-of-fact’s] verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v. Pennsylvania, 135 S. Ct. 1400 (2015).

Trial, 4/2/14, at 17-19; see Commonwealth v. Patterson, 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (“specific intent to kill may be inferred by the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital organ of the body”).