consciousness of guilt instruction in Pennsylvania

2026It is well established that “[a] theory of error different from that presented to the trial jurist is waived on appeal, even if both theories support the same basic allegation of error which gives rise to the claim for relief." Commonwealth v. Ryan, 909 A.2d 839, 845 (Pa. Super. 2006); see also Commonwealth v. Pi Delta Psi, Inc., 211 A.3d 875, 884 (Pa. Super. 2019) ("a new and different theory of relief may not be successfully advanced for the first time on appeal.").

2026It is well established that “[a] theory of error different from that presented to the trial jurist is waived on appeal, even if both theories support the same basic allegation of error which gives rise to the claim for relief." Commonwealth v. Ryan, 909 A.2d 839, 845 (Pa. Super. 2006); see also Commonwealth v. Pi Delta Psi, Inc., 211 A.3d 875, 884 (Pa. Super. 2019) ("a new and different theory of relief may not be successfully advanced for the first time on appeal.").

2025See Commonwealth v. Ignatavich, 482 A.2d 1044, 1048 (Pa. Super. 1984) (holding that the trial court did not err in issuing a consciousness of guilt instruction “drawn from the fact that [Ignatavich] had fled after stabbing the victim and had concealed himself in the woods for a day before surrendering to police”).

2025Jury Instruction: Consciousness of Guilt In his final issue, Vonville argues that the trial court erred in charging the jury with a consciousness of guilt instruction based on Vonville’s suicide ____________________________________________ 6 To establish third-degree murder, “the Commonwealth need only prove that the defendant killed another person with malice aforethought.” Commonwealth v. Santos, 876 A.2d 360, 363 (Pa. 2005); see also 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c).

2021“Our Supreme Court has noted that [w]hen a person commits a crime, knows that he is wanted therefor, and flees or conceals himself, such conduct is evidence of consciousness of guilt, and may form the basis in connection with other proof from which guilt may be inferred.” Commonwealth v. Barnes, 593 A.2d 868, 869 (Pa. Super. 1991) (citation and quotation marks omitted). - 10 - J-S47038-20 By way of background, the Commonwealth proposed a consciousness of guilt instruction based upon Appellant’s driving onto the yard as an attempt to hide from the troopers.

2018See Commonwealth v. Spotz , 624 Pa. 4 , 33-34, 84 A.3d 294 , 311-312 (2014). 7 Appellant also contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel sought a consciousness-of-guilt instruction and failed to request a cautionary instruction concerning the prison assault of a witness, Jahmil Miller.

2018See Commonwealth v. Spotz , 624 Pa. 4 , 33-34, 84 A.3d 294 , 311-312 (2014). 7 Appellant also contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel sought a consciousness-of-guilt instruction and failed to request a cautionary instruction concerning the prison assault of a witness, Jahmil Miller.

2016See Commonwealth v. Bruce, 717 A.2d 1033, 1037-38 (Pa. Super. 1998) (emphasis added) (“Generally, the trial court can use a flight/concealment jury charge when a person commits a crime, knows that he is a suspect, and conceals himself, because such conduct is evidence of consciousness of guilt, which may form the basis, along with other proof, from which guilt may be inferred.”) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Prosdocimo, 578 A.2d 1273, 1276 (Pa. 1990) (“We will not rigidly inspect a jury charge, finding reversible error for every technical inaccuracy, but rather evaluate whether

2016See Commonwealth v. Brown, 911 A.2d 576, 582-83 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“In examining the - 13 - J-S41009-16 propriety of the instructions a trial court presents to a jury, our scope of review is to determine whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case.”) (citation omitted).

2016See Commonwealth v. Bruce, 717 A.2d 1033, 1037-38 (Pa. Super. 1998) (emphasis added) (“Generally, the trial court can use a flight/concealment jury charge when a person commits a crime, knows that he is a suspect, and conceals himself, because such conduct is evidence of consciousness of guilt, which may form the basis, along with other proof, from which guilt may be inferred.”) (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Prosdocimo, 578 A.2d 1273, 1276 (Pa. 1990) (“We will not rigidly inspect a jury charge, finding reversible error for every technical inaccuracy, but rather evaluate whether

2016In Appellant’s third issue, he argues that the trial court erred by precluding his expert, Dr. Suzanne Mannes, from testifying about “the effects of lighting on the reliability of eyewitness testimony.” Appellant’s Brief at 19.1 “Under our Rules of Evidence, expert testimony is permitted when the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge is ____________________________________________ 1 We note that “[f]or over twenty years, Pennsylvania case law placed a per se ban on expert testimony regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification, holding that such testimony woul