Commonwealth committed a Brady violation in Pennsylvania

2024See id. - 12 - Appellant contends that “the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation when [it] presented testimony of Detective [Donald] Suchinsky regarding the discovery of a red hoodie sweatshirt and cell phone[]” because Appellant claims that the Commonwealth did not provide Appellant with a copy of the property receipt for these items prior to trial.

2016(See PCRA Petition, 6/21/13, at 3-4); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a)-(b). 4 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 5 Appellant claims that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation when it failed to disclose that one of its witnesses, Philadelphia Police Detective William Jones, was a convicted felon; and it allowed him to perjure himself by testifying in his official capacity.

2023Commonwealth v. Antidormi, A.3d 736, 747 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Haskins, 60 A.3d 538, 545 (Pa. Super. 2012)).

2015Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 747 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Haskins, 60 A.3d 538, 545 (Pa. Super. 2012)).

2021Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848, 853-54 (Pa. 2005) (cleaned up). - 16 - Appellant contends that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by willfully failing to disclose the address of potential witness Gerald Morrison.

2021Our Supreme Court has explained that “there are three necessary components that demonstrate a violation of the Brady strictures: the evidence was favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it impeaches; the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice ensued.” Commonwealth v. Lambert, 884 A.2d 848, 854 (Pa. 2005) (cleaned up).

2018See e.g., Commonwealth v. Johnson, No. 713 CAP, __ A.3d __, 2017 WL 6497094 , at *3-7 (Dec. 19, 2017) (finding that defendant was entitled to a new trial because newly discovered police reports found by defendant's appellate counsel proved that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation in that the Commonwealth failed to disclose police reports that contained impeachment evidence concerning the Commonwealth's star witness); Commonwealth v. Strong, 563 Pa. 455, 470 , 761 A.2d 1167, 1175 (2000) (holding that a Brady violation occurred after defendant's post-conviction relief counsel obtained l

2018See e.g., Commonwealth v. Johnson, No. 713 CAP, __ A.3d __, 2017 WL 6497094 , at *3-7 (Dec. 19, 2017) (finding that defendant was entitled to a new trial because newly discovered police reports found by defendant's appellate counsel proved that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation in that the Commonwealth failed to disclose police reports that contained impeachment evidence concerning the Commonwealth's star witness); Commonwealth v. Strong, 563 Pa. 455, 470 , 761 A.2d 1167, 1175 (2000) (holding that a Brady violation occurred after defendant's post-conviction relief counsel obtained l

2016To establish a Brady violation, appellant must demonstrate: (1) the prosecution concealed evidence; (2) the evidence was either exculpatory or impeachment evidence favorable to him; and (3) he was prejudiced. [ Commonwealth v. ] Chmiel, [ 612 Pa. 333 , 30 A.3d 1111 ] at 1130 [ (2011) ] ( quoting Commonwealth v. Paddy, 609 Pa. 272 , 15 A.3d 431 , 450 (2011) ).

2016To establish a Brady violation, appellant must demonstrate: (1) the prosecution concealed evidence; (2) the evidence was either exculpatory or impeachment evidence favorable to him; and (3) he was prejudiced. [ Commonwealth v. ] Chmiel, [ 612 Pa. 333 , 30 A.3d 1111 ] at 1130 [ (2011) ] ( quoting Commonwealth v. Paddy, 609 Pa. 272 , 15 A.3d 431 , 450 (2011) ).

2026We must “first determine whether [counsel’s] brief meets the procedural requirements of Turner/Finley.” Commonwealth v. Knecht, 219 A.3d 689, 691 (Pa. 2019).

2025See Conforti, 303 A.3d at 725-26.

2025See Dunkins, 229 A.3d at 633 (a defendant is liable for conspiracy where there is an agreement and shared criminal intent and a co-conspirator commits an overt act toward the commission of the crime); Commonwealth v. Henderson, 378 A.3d 393 , 398-99 (Pa. Super. 1977) (affirming a conviction for conspiracy to commit rape where the appellant enticed the victim into his car and supplied marijuana to her, signaled to a co-conspirator that he could begin raping the victim, and then sat passively by while the co-conspirator raped the victim, and made suggestive comments afterward but did not persona

2024“Although a Brady violation may fall within the [PCRA’s] governmental interference exception, the petitioner must plead and prove that the failure to previously raise these claims was the result of interference by government officials, and that the information could not have been obtained earlier with the exercise of due diligence.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 194 A.3d 126, 133 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). - 12 - and Micah Spotwood [sic].” Robinson’s Brief at 64.

2024The heading for Robinson’s fourth issue is that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by not disclosing “Homicide Detective Rossiter ____________________________________________ 10 Under Brady, “[d]ue process is offended when the prosecution withholds evidence favorable to the accused where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Commonwealth v. Natividad, 200 A.3d 11, 25 (Pa. 2019).

2023See Bonnett, supra; Hansley, supra. - 12 - Our review further reveals that Appellant preserved in his Concise Statement only one of the issues he presents in his statement of questions; namely, his Brady claim.5 See n.5, supra. Appellant asserts the PCRA court erred by rejecting his claim that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation.

2023Specifically, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by suppressing or withholding police/incident reports,3 and ____________________________________________ or impeaching, is helpful to the defendant, and (3) the suppression prejudiced the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Carson, 913 A.2d 220, 244 (Pa. 2006). 3 While Appellant speaks generally of police reports being withheld, in his most recent petition, Appellant mostly focuses on a statement given by witness Jacqueline Hayes to the police on October 5, 1998, in which, allegedly, Hayes described the perpetrator of the

2021See Risha, 445 F.3d at 304 After review, we are constrained to conclude that the trial court erred in its conclusion that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation related to disclosing Lindsey’s role as an informant.

2021See Risha, 445 F.3d at 304 After review, we are constrained to conclude that the trial court erred in its conclusion that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation related to disclosing Lindsey’s role as an informant.

2021See Roney, 79 A.3d at 607.

2021See Roney, 79 A.3d at 607 .

2019Id. at 222.

2019Initially, we have explained that Rule 573 “declares a preference for informal discovery, contemplating that the parties will ‘make a good faith effort to resolve all questions of discovery, and to provide information required or requested under these rules as to which there is no dispute.’” Commonwealth v. Maldonodo, 173 A.3d 769, 773 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. 573(A)).

2018Commonwealth v. Tejeda, 834 A.2d 619, 623 (Pa. Super. 2003) (internal citations and footnote omitted). -6- J-S73019-17 Brady Violation The basis for Appellant’s Motion for a Mistrial was an assertion that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation because it withheld impeachment evidence, i.e., evidence that its expert’s report had been criticized by an expert instructor at a training conference.

2018See Commonwealth v. Soboleski, 617 A.2d 1309, 1312 (Pa. Super. 1992), appeal denied, 634 A.2d 224 (Pa. 1993) (“The purpose of the information or citation is to inform the accused of the crimes charged-to give sufficient notice of the charges so as to -7- J-A11037-18 In his third issue, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by not producing “complete[,] front and back, pictures of the package[s]” of spice.

2018See Commonwealth v. Soboleski, 617 A.2d 1309, 1312 (Pa. Super. 1992), appeal denied, 634 A.2d 224 (Pa. 1993) (“The purpose of the information or citation is to inform the accused of the crimes charged-to give sufficient notice of the charges so as to -7- J-A11037-18 In his third issue, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation by not producing “complete[,] front and back, pictures of the package[s]” of spice.

2017This Court reviews the “denial of PCRA relief to determine whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Roane, 142 A.3d 79, 86 (Pa.Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 444 (Pa. 2015)).

2017This Court reviews the “denial of PCRA relief to determine whether the findings of the PCRA court are supported by the record and free of legal error.” Commonwealth v. Roane, 142 A.3d 79, 86 (Pa.Super. 2016) (quoting Commonwealth v. Treiber, 121 A.3d 435, 444 (Pa. 2015)).

2017However, prior arrests do not constitute admissible evidence; “the veracity of a witness may not be impeached by prior arrests which have not led to convictions.” Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547, 604 , 889 A.2d 501, 534 (2005).

2017However, prior arrests do not constitute admissible evidence; “the veracity of a witness may not be impeached by prior arrests which have not led to convictions.” Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 585 Pa. 547, 604 , 889 A.2d 501, 534 (2005).

2015See Parker, supra. In his second issue, Appellant avers that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for extraordinary relief, alleging that the Commonwealth committed a Brady violation when it did not disclose the record of Appellant’s arrest which allegedly contained impeachment information regarding Officer Harris’s testimony, specifically photographs that Officer - 14 - J-A25016-15 Harris allegedly took of Appellant.

2015Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 747 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citing Commonwealth v. Haskins, 60 A.3d 538, 545 (Pa. Super. 2012)).