section 9543(a) evidence claim in Pennsylvania

2026Commonwealth v. Robinson, 185 A.3d 1055, 1059 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (citing Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1270-72 (Pa. 2007)).

2025See Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264 (Pa. 2007) (although PCRA’s subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii) analysis does not require any merits analysis of underlying claim, subsection 9543(a)(2)(vi) after-discovered evidence claim requires petitioner prove evidence would be exculpatory and would have changed outcome of trial).

2020See Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that once jurisdiction is established under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii), a PCRA petitioner may then present the substantive claim of after-discovered- evidence pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi)); see also Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 628-629 (Pa. 2017) (the nature of the after-discovered facts is relevant to our disposition).

2018See Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 629 (Pa. 2017) (explaining that “the newly-discovered facts exception to the time limitations of the PCRA, as set forth in subsection 9545(b)(1)(ii), is distinct from the after-discovered evidence basis for relief delineated in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)[]”). -3- J-S82042-17 Appellant first claims that the PCRA court erred in denying her motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence.

2026Commonwealth v. Robinson, 185 A.3d 1055, 1059 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (citing Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1270-72 (Pa. 2007)).

2026Commonwealth v. Robinson, 185 A.3d 1055, 1059 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc) (citing Commonwealth v. Bennett, 930 A.2d 1264, 1270-72 (Pa. 2007)).

2026Appellant’s Brief at 29; see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 244 A.3d 1281 , 1289 n.20 (Pa. Super. 2021) (“It is only after a petitioner establishes jurisdiction by pleading and proving the newly-discovered facts exception that he or she can then present a substantive after-discovered evidence claim pursuant to section 9543(a)(2)(vi) of the PCRA.” (emphasis in original; one citation omitted)).

2025“It is only after a petitioner establishes jurisdiction by pleading and proving the newly discovered facts exception that he or she can then present a substantive after-discovered evidence claim pursuant to Section 9543(a)(2)(vi) of the PCRA.” Id. (formatting altered). -8- See Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 , 10 n.4 (Pa. 2008) (“[A] criminal defendant currently represented by counsel is not entitled to ‘hybrid representation’—i.e., he cannot litigate certain issues pro se while counsel forwards other claims.”) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Markowitz, 32 A.3d 706 , 713 n.5 (Pa. Supe

2025Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1232 (Pa.Super. 2023).

2024Commonwealth v. Reeves, 296 A.3d 1228, 1232 (Pa.Super. 2023).

2016D'Amato, 856 A.2d at 824 .

2016Commonwealth v. D'Amato, 856 A.2d 806, 824 (Pa. 2004).

2020See Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that once jurisdiction is established under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii), a PCRA petitioner may then present the substantive claim of after-discovered- evidence pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi)); see also Commonwealth v. Burton, 158 A.3d 618, 628-629 (Pa. 2017) (the nature of the after-discovered facts is relevant to our disposition).

2020See Commonwealth v. Brown, 111 A.3d 171, 176 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that once jurisdiction is established under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii), a PCRA petitioner may then present the substantive claim of after-discovered- evidence pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi)) (citing Bennett, 930 A.2d at 1272 ). 6 The July 20, 2018 order dismissing Appellant’s PCRA petition does not mention that the petition was untimely.

2026Tedford, 960 A.2d at 30 n.19.

2025“It is only after a petitioner establishes jurisdiction by pleading and proving the newly discovered facts exception that he or she can then present a substantive after-discovered evidence claim pursuant to Section 9543(a)(2)(vi) of the PCRA.” Id. (formatting altered). -8- See Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 , 10 n.4 (Pa. 2008) (“[A] criminal defendant currently represented by counsel is not entitled to ‘hybrid representation’—i.e., he cannot litigate certain issues pro se while counsel forwards other claims.”) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Markowitz, 32 A.3d 706 , 713 n.5 (Pa. Supe

2025In order to successfully prove an after-discovered evidence claim under Section 9543(a)(2)(vi), the petitioner must show that “(1) the evidence has been discovered after trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not cumulative; (3) it ____________________________________________ 4 In its brief, the Commonwealth did not challenge the PCRA court’s finding that Appellant met the newly-discovered fact exception to the time bar. -7- is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) it would likely compel a different verdi

2019In order to successfully prove an after-discovered evidence claim under Section 9543(a)(2)(vi), the petitioner must show that “(1) the evidence has been discovered after trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) it would likely compel a different verdict.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 146 A.3d 221 , 228 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted).

2026Further, the admissibility of the polygraph test results relates to the merits of a substantive after-discovered evidence claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(vi).14 See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 137 A.3d 605, 608 (Pa. Super. 2016) (setting forth the four ____________________________________________ 12 Rule 104 provides in subsection (a) that a trial court “must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible.

2025“It is only after a petitioner establishes jurisdiction by pleading and proving the newly discovered facts exception that he or she can then present a substantive after-discovered evidence claim pursuant to Section 9543(a)(2)(vi) of the PCRA.” Id. (formatting altered). -8- See Commonwealth v. Tedford, 960 A.2d 1 , 10 n.4 (Pa. 2008) (“[A] criminal defendant currently represented by counsel is not entitled to ‘hybrid representation’—i.e., he cannot litigate certain issues pro se while counsel forwards other claims.”) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Markowitz, 32 A.3d 706 , 713 n.5 (Pa. Supe

2024Id. at 7-9 (citing, inter alia, Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 988 (Pa. 2011) (Baer, J., concurring); Commonwealth v. Lawson, 2543 EDA 2018, 2020 WL 119655 (Pa. Super. filed Jan. 10, 2020) (unpublished mem.)).7 ____________________________________________ four-part test for an after-discovered evidence claim under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi)).

2022See Commonwealth v. Williams, 244 A.3d 1281 , 1289 n.20 (Pa. Super. 2021) (explaining that a claim of newly discovered evidence under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) is a jurisdictional threshold that does not require any merits analysis of an underlying after-discovered evidence claim, and it is only after a petitioner establishes jurisdiction by pleading and proving the newly discovered facts exception that he or she can then present a substantive after-discovered evidence claim pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi)). -8- court’s legal conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 105 A.3d 1257, 126

2018“Our standard of review of a [PCRA] court order granting or denying relief under the PCRA calls upon us to determine ‘whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error.’” Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 192 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Garcia, 23 A.3d 1059, 1061 (Pa. Super. 2011)). 1 While Appellant refers to “newly discovered evidence” she is actually asserting an after-discovered evidence claim pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2).

2018“Our standard of review of a [PCRA] court order granting or denying relief under the PCRA calls upon us to determine ‘whether the determination of the PCRA court is supported by the evidence of record and is free of legal error.’” Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 192 (Pa. Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Garcia, 23 A.3d 1059, 1061 (Pa. Super. 2011)). 1 While Appellant refers to “newly discovered evidence” she is actually asserting an after-discovered evidence claim pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2).

2003This Court has said that an after-discovered evidence claim under section 9543(a)(2)(vi) requires a petitioner to establish that: "(1) the evidence has been discovered after the trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) such evidence is not cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) such evidence would likely compel a different result.” Commonwealth v. Fiore, 780 A.2d 704, 711 (Pa.Super.2001) (citing Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485 , 720 A.2d 79, 94 (1998)).

2003This Court has said that an after-discovered evidence claim under section 9543(a)(2)(vi) requires a petitioner to establish that: "(1) the evidence has been discovered after the trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) such evidence is not cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) such evidence would likely compel a different result.” Commonwealth v. Fiore, 780 A.2d 704, 711 (Pa.Super.2001) (citing Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485 , 720 A.2d 79, 94 (1998)).

2003Accordingly, Rule 720(C) does not support our resolution of such a claim raised for the first time on direct appeal. [4] This Court has said that an after-discovered evidence claim under section 9543(a)(2)(vi) requires a petitioner to establish that: "(1) the evidence has been discovered after the trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) such evidence is not cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) such evidence would likely compel a different result." Commonwealth v. Fiore, 780 A.2d 704, 711 (Pa.Super.2

2003This Court has said that an after-discovered evidence claim under section 9543(a)(2)(vi) requires a petitioner to establish that: "(1) the evidence has been discovered after the trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) such evidence is not cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) such evidence would likely compel a different result.” Commonwealth v. Fiore, 780 A.2d 704, 711 (Pa.Super.2001) (citing Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 553 Pa. 485 , 720 A.2d 79, 94 (1998)).