J-S37015-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
EMANUEL RIVERA
Appellant No. 1774 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 31, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0006999-2012,
CP-67-CR-0007000-2012
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 02, 2014
Emanuel Rivera appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed by
the Court of Common Pleas of York County following his convictions for first-
degree murder,1 robbery,2 and conspiracy to commit robbery,3 arising out of
a shooting in York on May 28, 2012, and conspiracy to commit robbery and
conspiracy to commit burglary4 arising out of a shooting in York on May 31,
2012. We affirm based on the thorough opinion authored by the Honorable
Richard K. Renn.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a).
2
18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i).
3
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903(c); 3701(a)(1)(i).
4
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903(c); 3502(a).
J-S37015-14
Evidence presented at trial established that on the evening of May 28,
2010, Rivera and Eric Camacho-Rodriguez approached the victim, Felipe
Bernabe, who was standing near his truck on the 600 block of Girard Avenue
in York. Rivera tried to get Bernabe to hand over his keys, and when
Bernabe refused, Rivera fatally shot him in the back.
A few days later, on May 31, 2010, Camacho-Rodriguez telephoned his
friend Jaycott Rivera (Jaycott) who, unbeknownst to him, had acted as a
confidential informant for the York Police Department in the past. Camacho-
Rodriguez arranged to go to Jaycott’s house with Rivera. While there, Rivera
stated that he pulled the trigger during the Bernabe killing. Camacho-
Rodriguez and Rivera enlisted Jaycott’s help to get money and leave town.
The initial plan was to go to Harrisburg, but Jaycott suggested that they rob
an individual in York known as “Movie Man.”
Rivera, Camacho-Rodriguez, and Jaycott went to “Movie Man’s” house
to reconnoiter the scene of the intended crime. On the way, they stopped in
a park and arranged by telephone for a fourth man to deliver to them a bag
containing ski masks. Once the ski masks were delivered, Camacho-
Rodriguez requested that Jaycott hide the masks in the woods. They then
returned to Jaycott’s house where Jaycott overheard Rivera say they were
going to kill “Movie Man.” At this point, Jaycott had his wife contact the
police, which eventually led to the arrest of Rivera and Camacho-Rodriguez.
A jury found Rivera guilty on June 7, 2013, and on July 31, 2013, the
court imposed a sentence of life in prison, plus four to eight years. On
-2-
J-S37015-14
August 9, 2013, Rivera’s counsel filed post-sentence motions, which the
court denied by order dated August 28, 2013. Counsel filed a timely notice
of appeal on September 27, 2013, and by order filed October 2, 2013, the
trial court directed Rivera to file a statement of errors complained of on
appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Rivera did not file a Rule 1925(b) statement, and on December 4,
2013, the trial court issued a short Rule 1925(a) opinion noting the lack of a
Rule 1925(b) statement. The trial court stated, “a review of the transcript of
the trial, the findings made by the [t]rial [c]ourt during the trial and
sentencing fully supports the [t]rial [c]ourt’s decisions made therein.” Trial
Court Opinion, 12/4/13, at 1-2.
On June 24, 2014, we remanded for the filing of a Rule 1925(b)
statement nunc pro tunc and for the preparation of an opinion by the trial
court.5
____________________________________________
5
We relied on Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c), which provides:
If an appellant in a criminal case was ordered to file a Statement
and failed to do so, such that the appellate court is convinced
that counsel has been per se ineffective, the appellate court shall
remand for the filing of a Statement nunc pro tunc and for the
preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge.
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c).
-3-
J-S37015-14
Rivera filed a Rule 1925(b) statement on July 23, 2014, and on
October 20, 2014, Judge Renn, to whom the case had been reassigned, filed
an opinion.
On appeal, Rivera challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his conviction for first-degree murder and the weight of the evidence to
support his other convictions.
Where an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this
Court “must determine whether the evidence and all reasonable inferences
deducible therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict-
winner . . . are sufficient to establish all elements of the crime charged
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Rakowski, 987 A.2d
1215, 1217 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Parker, 957
A.2d 311, 317 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted)). “The trier of fact
while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the
evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.”
Commonwealth v. Abed, 989 A.2d 23, 26 (Pa. Super. 2010).
With respect to the elements of first-degree murder, our Supreme
Court has stated:
To sustain a conviction for first-degree murder, the
Commonwealth must prove that the defendant acted with the
specific intent to kill, that a human being was unlawfully killed,
that the accused did the killing and that the killing was done with
deliberation. It is the specific intent to kill which distinguishes
murder in the first degree from lesser grades of murder. This
Court has held repeatedly that the use of a deadly weapon on a
vital part of a human body is sufficient to establish the specific
intent to kill.
-4-
J-S37015-14
Commonwealth v. Simpson, 754 A.2d 1264, 1269 (Pa. 2000) (citations
and quotations omitted).
In his Rule 1925(a) opinion, Judge Renn thoroughly reviewed Rivera’s
sufficiency of the evidence claim with respect to first-degree murder, and
concluded that the Commonwealth’s evidence established Rivera’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we rely on Judge Renn’s opinion
and affirm the conviction on that basis.
Rivera next challenges the weight of the evidence to support his
conviction for robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary.
Our Supreme Court has set forth the following standard of review for
claims that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence:
The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact
who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to
determine the credibility of the witness. An appellate court
cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact.
Thus, we may only reverse the lower court’s verdict if it is so
contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.
Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim
below, an appellate court’s role is not to consider the underlying
question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial
court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim.
Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (Pa 2003) (citations
omitted).
In his Rule 1925(a) opinion, Judge Renn methodically reviewed the
evidence presented by the Commonwealth, and determined that Rivera’s
convictions for robbery and conspiracy did not shock the court’s conscience.
-5-
J-S37015-14
We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, which reviewed
Rivera’s weight of the evidence claims thoroughly and dispassionately.
After careful review of the parties’ briefs, the record and the relevant
law, we agree with Judge Renn’s analysis and affirm based on his well-
reasoned opinion. We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Renn’s
decision in the event of further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/2/2014
-6-
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
2014 OCT 30 pn 3: 49
I'JI):') ,) ',-. , ..
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA~16i}iWaK2£QJJNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania CP-67-CR-0006999-20 12
[:~-67~CR,0007000:20 12
vs,
Super, Ct. No, 1774 MDA 2013 'r
Emanuel Rivera !
I
OPINION PURSUANT TO RULE 1925(a) OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES
OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
On June 7,2013, the Appellant, Emanuel Rivera, was found guilty of the
following: in case 6999-2012, Count 1 murder in the first degree, I Count 2 robbery, 2
and Count 3 criminal conspiracy to commit robberl; in case 7000-2012, Count 2
criminal conspiracy to commit robbery,4 and Count 3 criminal conspiracy to commit
burglary,S The Appellant was sentenced on July 31, 2013, On August 9, 2013, the
Appellant filed a Post-Sentence Motion, which was denied on August 28, 2013, The
Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court on September 27,
2013, The Appellant was directed to file a Concise Statement of the Matters
Complained on October 2, 20 I3, The Appellant failed to file his 1925(b) Statement,
so, on December 4, 2013, this Court submitted its 1925(a) Opinion noting the absence
of a concise statement and urging the appellate court to affillli, 6
I 18 Pa, C,S,A, § 2502(a),
'18 Pa. C,S.A. § 3701(a)(I)(i).
, 18 Pa, C,S,A, §§ 903(a)(I), 3701(a)(1)(ii),
4 18 Pa, C,S,A, §§ 903(a)(I), 3701(a)(I)(iii),
, 18 Pa, C,S.A. §§ 903(a)(1), 3502(a), ,
6 We should note that this case was originally in fl'ont of another judge on this Court, but was subsequently
reassigned to the undersigned judge on July 24, 2014.
I
I
I
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
The Superior Court, per Rule I 925(c)(3), remanded the case "for a filing ofa
Statement nunc pro tunc and for the preparation and filing of an opinion by the
judge." Pa. R.A.P. 1925(c). The Superior Court gave the Appellant 30 days to file
his I 925(b) statement nunc pro tunc. The Trial Court was given 60 days to prepare its
I925(a) Opinion. Because the original judge was unavailable, the case was
reassigned to the undersigned judge on July 24,2014. Due to miscommunication, this
Court was unaware of the transfer until October of 20 14 ..
On appeal, the Appellant argues that (1) the Trial Court improperly found there
was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of first degree murder; and (2) the
verdict on the remaining counts was against the weight of the evidence. The
testimony from the Appellant's trial can be found in the original record at Notes of
Testimony 6/3-6/7/2013. The testimony from the Appellant's sentencing can be
found in the original record at Notes of Testimony 7/3112013. Pursuant to Rule
1925(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, the following is our
opinion addressing the Appellant's issues on appeal.
Factual and Procedural History:
The factual history of these cases is somewhat confusing because they involve
two separate occasions and two defendants. The Appellant's co-defendant, Eric
Camacho-Rodriguez, cases CP-67-CR-6998-2012 and CP-67-CR-7001-2012, filed a
separate appeal and the status of his cases are not relevant to the Appellant's current
appeal.
On the night of May 28, 2012, at around 10:23 P.M., Officer Buchkoski of the
York City Police Department was dispatched to the 600 block of Girard Avenue for a
call of shots fired. (N.T. 6/3-6/7/2013 at 200). Upon an'ival, Officer Buchkoski
observed a man lying in the middle of the street. (ld. at 201). As Officer Buchkoski
2
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
approached, he saw two people standing near the victim. (rd.). The victim was
shirtless and laying on his back. (rd.). Officer Buchkoski testified that he noticed a
large lump on the victim's right side as well as some blood around his back. (rd. at
201-02). Realizing that the victim was still alive, the officer asked the victim if he
was able to identify his shooter. (rd. at 202). The victim attempted to speak, but he
was unable to. (rd.). The victim was transported to the hospital, but before being
taken by ambulance, Officer Buchkoski removed the victim's wallet in an effort to
determine his identity. (rd.). On cross-examination, Officer Buchkoski testified that
it did not appeal' that anyone gone through the victim's pockets or taken anything
from the victim's wallet. (rd. at 204).
The victim, Felipe Bernabe-Martinez, died from his il\iuries, so officers began
treating the case as a homicide. (N.T. 6/3-6/7/2013 at 220). Detective Jeremy Mayer
was dispatched to the scene and was tasked with supervising the crime scene
technicians. (rd.). Various pieces of evidence were collected, including swabs from
the victim's truck and from the pool of blood in the street. (rd. at 224-25). Those
swabs were sent to the Pennsylvania State Police lab for further testing. (rd. at 226).
Detective Mayer also testified that a day or so later, at the victim's autopsy, a bullet,
as well as bullet fragments, were recovered from the body. (Id. at 233, 238).
Detective Andy Baez was dispatched to the scene in order to conduct
interviews and follow up on any leads. (N.T. 6/3-6/7/2013 at 487). Detective Baez
interviewed Linda Perez, Karen Ferguson, and Nick Drayden. (rd. at 487-88).
Linda Perez lived across the street from Girard Avenue, and was sitting on her
porch with Nick Drayden on the night of the murder. (N.T. 6/3-6/7/2013 at 161-62).
Ms. Perez testified that about three minutes after seeing a gray colored cal' driving
down Girard Avenue, she observed two males walking in the park. (rd. at 162).
Because of the lights in the park she was able to see what the two men were wearing,
3
i
I
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
but was unable to see their faces. (Id.). Along with noticing what the two men were
wearing, she was able to hear some of their conversation. (Id. at 163). Ms. Perez
testified that she heard the two men talking in Spanish, so she assumed they were
Hispanic. (Id. at 163-64). She identified the two men as wearing "white beaters
[sic.]," which she further explained as white tank tops. (Id. at 163). One of the men
also had longer hail' that was pulled back in what Ms. Perez explained as a bushy
ponytail. (Id. at 163-64).
In the meantime, Ms. Perez noticed the victim had arrived at his home, and had
just parked his truck. (N.T. 6/3-61712013 at 165). Ms. Perez watched the two men
walk towards the victim who was now standing outside of his truck, next to the
attached trailer. (Id.). From Ms. Perez's viewpoint, it looked as though the three men
were just talking at first. (Id. at 166). But seconds later, Ms. Perez testified that she
saw the two men start fighting with the victim, pushing him up against the metal
trailer attached to his truck. (l!l). Ms. Perez turned to get the attention of her friend,
Nick Drayden, and in that split second she heard a gunshot. (Id.). Upon hearing the
gunshot, Ms. Perez ducked, waited for a couple seconds, and then got up to see what
happened. (Id.). She saw the two men running away, but she did not see the victim.
(Id.). Feeling that something bad had happened, she ran down the street and saw the
victim lying in the middle of the street. (Id. at 166-67).
Ms. Perez immediately called 911. (N.T. 63-61712013 at 167). She attempted
to talk to the victim, but he was unable to speak. (l!l). She tried to look for any bullet
holes, but all she noticed was a large bubble starting to form on the victim's right side.
(Id.). When the police arrived, she infOlmed them of what she had witnessed. (Id. at
167-68). On cross-examination, Ms. Perez was asked ifshe could give any further
details regarding the description of the two men she saw walking in the park that
night. (N.T. 6/3-61712013 at 169). She indicated that they were both of regular build,
4
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
but one was skinnier than the other. (Id.). Ms. Perez was not asked, nor did she offer
an estimation of the age of the two males.
Officers also interviewed Nick Drayden, who was sitting on the porch with
Linda Perez. (N.T. 6/3-6/7/2013 at 177-78). He testified that he noticed two kids
walking though the park on the night of the murder. (Id. at 179). He specifically
remembered seeing them because he thought to himself that it was late for kids to be
out in the park. (Id.). Mr. Drayden estimated the ages of the two males to be around
16 01' 17 years old, and he clarified that when he said "kids" he meant someone who
was younger than him. (Id.). He testified that one of the 'males had a t-shirt wrapped
around his head "like a turban or wrap." (Id. at 180). Both of the males were weat'ing
"wife beaters" and jeans. (rd. at 180). Mr. Drayden stated that one of them was
shorter than the other, and that both were "lighter than me [Mr. Drayden1" in skin
tone. 7
Mr. Drayden continued by indicating that he saw the two males walk towards
the victim, who was just getting out of his work truck. (N.T. 6/3-6/7/2013 at 183-84).
He stated that he heard and saw a commotion between the three individuals. (Id. at
184). Mr. Drayden testified that he did not see any weapons, but that he heard a
gunshot. (rd. at 188). After the gunshot, Mr. Drayden saw the two males run away,
and he and Linda Perez went to see what happened. (Id. at 189). Like Ms. Perez, Mr.
Drayden indicated that the victim was lying in the middle of the street. (Id.). He
noticed the gunshot wound to the victim's back, and testified that the victim attempted
to speak, but was unable to. (Id.).
On cross-examination, Mr. Drayden testified that when the two males
approached the victim, it looked like they were going to rob the victim. (N.T. 6/3-
1 Nick Draydcn is Aftican-Americall,
5
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
6/7/2013 at 191). He based his opinion on the fact that one of the males was standing
behind the victim, while the other was in front of the victim. (Id.). However, in his
first statement to police, Mr. Drayden stated that it looked like the victim knew the
two males because of the way the three interacted. (Id. at 192). Mr. Drayden was
also pressed on his prior statement to police where he said that he saw the gun. (Id. at
193). MI'. Drayden admitted he said that, but stated what he meant was that he saw
the fire from the gunshot, not the gun itself. (Id.).
The last eyewitness interviewed was Karen Ferguson. She was the victim's
next door neighbor at the time of the murder. (N.T. 6/3-6712013 at 206, 208). She
had known the victim ever since he moved into the neighborhood approximately 5
years earlier. (Id. at 208). Ms. Ferguson testified that the victim owned his own lawn
care blisiness, so he drove a truck. (14). She stated that every morning the victim
would park his trucks the same way - pulling in the driveway and pulling back out
into his space. (Id. at 209).
On the night of May 28, 2012, Ms. Ferguson was visiting with her sister and
her sister's grandchildren in Girard Park. (N.T. 6/3-6/7/2013 at 207). While at the
park, she noticed a man sitting on the park bench by himself. (Id. at 209-10). She
testified that the person sitting on the bench was lighter skinned and had what she
described as an afro puff. (ld. at 211). He was wearing what she described as a white
t-shirt and jeans. (Id.). Ms. Ferguson saw the individual get up, leave the park, and
head west on East South Street. (Id.). Shortly after, Ms. Ferguson left and went
home. (Id. at 212).
Ms. Ferguson testified that she was running a bath when her husband yelled for
her to come downstairs. (N.T. 6/9-6/7/2013 at 212). At first she ignored his request,
but he again yelled, this time adding that someone was lying in the middle of the
street. (Id.). Ms. Ferguson went outside and peeked over her porch railing. (Id.).
6
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
She also saw the victim's oldest daughter outside on their porch. (Id.). She asked the
victim's daughter who it was laying in the street, and the daughter replied she did not
know. (Id.). As the two got closer, they realized it was Felipe Bernabe-Martinez.
(Id. at 212-13).
Still having no solid suspects, York City Police sent the various pieces of
evidence collected at the crime scene to Katherine Cross, an expert in forensic
biology. (N.T. 6/3-6/7/2013 at 444). On August 8, 2012, Ms. Cross received six
items from the York City police: (1) a swab from the tail~ate of the victim's truck; (2)
fingernails from the victim's right hand; (3) fingernails from the victim's left hand;
(4) hairs pulled from the victim's head; (5) a reference DNA sample from the
Appellant; and (5) a reference DNA sample from the co-defendant Mr. Camacho-
Rodriguez. (Id. at 446). A little over a year later, she received another sample from
the barrel and inside bore of a rifle. (MJ.
After explaining what DNA is and the process of DNA extraction, Ms. Cross
told the jury her findings. (N.T. 6/3-6/712013 at 446-57). The first sample, the swab
taken from the tailgate of the victim's truck, was tested for the presence of DNA, but
none was found. (Id. at 453). The second sample, the fingernails from the victfm's
right hand, was tested for DNA and Ms. Cross found the victim's own DNA. (Id. at
453-54). Ms. Cross also compared the DNA found under the victim's right fingernails
to the reference samples from the Appellant and his co-defendant. (Id. at 454-55).
She was able to exclude both men. (Id. at 455). The third sample, fingernails from
the victim's left hand, also tested positive for the presence of DNA. (rd.). The DNA
found was consistent with the victim's DNA, and Ms. Cross was able to exclude the
Appellant and his co-defendant. (Id.). The fourth, fifth, and sixth samples were just
submitted to provide Ms. Cross with reference samples. (Id. at 455-56).
7
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
The last item was the swab from the rifle. (N.T. 6/3-6/7/2013 at 456). Ms.
Cross tested the swab for the presence of DNA, and she was able to find a partial
DNA match. (Id. at 456-57). It was a partial profile because she was only able to
extract five of the sixteen areas that are looked at when examining DNA. (Id. at 457).
Looking at the five areas from the rifle, Ms. Cross compared those same five areas to
the reference sample of the victim. (Id.). Four of the five areas matched. (Id.).
While Ms. Cross could not state with 100% certainty that the DNA found on the rifle
was that of the victim, she did testify thatthe DNA was consistent with that of the
victim. (Id.). She was able to definitively state that the DNA found could not come
from eitherthe Appellant or his co-defendant. (Id.). To put this in perspective, Ms.
Cross explained that in comparing the partial DNA profile from the rifle to U.S.
Caucasians, you would expect to see another consistent match in everyone in over
341,000; for U.S. African-Americans everyone in over 193,000; for U.S. Hispanics
everyone in over 97,000; and for U.S. Native Americans everyone in over 20,000.
(Id. at 459).
On cross-examination, Ms. Cross explained that the partial DNA profile from
the rifle contained only five of the sixteen areas that are present in a full profile. (N.T.
6/3-617/2013 at 461). She testified that if any of the missing eleven areas did not
match the victim, she would have to exclude the victim as being the source of that
DNA. (Id. at 462).
Trooper Todd Neumyer, an expert in firearms and tool marks, was given three
items to analyze. (N.T. 6/3-617/2013 at 393,395). The first item was an envelope
that contained one copper coated lead bullet and three mutilated bullet fragments. (Id.
at 395). The second item was a box containing multiple items, including a Mossberg
Bolt Action Rifle and bullets from two test fires. (Id. at 395-96). Trooper Neumyer
noted that the rifle had been altered. (Id. at 396). Specifically, the barrel had been
8
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
shortened and the trigger guard had been removed. (Id.). The last item submitted to
Trooper Neumyer was a sealed envelope containing a Winchester brand cartridge
case. (Id.).
Trooper Neumyer conducted numerous tests on the rifle to ensure that it was
capable of firing and to see if the rifle could be discharged any other way than pulling
the trigger. (N.T. 6/3-6/7/2013 at 405-07). He testified that the rifle was capable of
firing and that the only way the rifle could be discharged was to apply 3.6 pounds of
pressure to the trigger. (Id.). However, because the trigger guard had been removed,
Trooper Neumyer did explain that this exposes the trigger to impact or movement that
could result in an unintentional discharge. (Id. at 407).
With respect to the bullet fragments, Trooper Neumyer testified that aside from
concluding they were copper coated and made of lead, they were of no evidentiary
value because they contained no markings. (N.T. 6/3-61712013 at 408). Next,
Trooper Neumyer analyzed the bullet. (Id. at 408-09). He determined that it was a
.22 caliber bullet made of lead and coated in a thin layer of copper. (Id. at 409).
Trooper Neumyer explained that each firearm has unique markings in the barrel and
as the bullet travels through the barrel, those markings wiIJ be impressed upon the
discharged bullet. (Id.). In this case, the bullet recovered from the victim's autopsy
did not have many unique characteristics because of the path it traveled. (rd. at 410).
Thus, Trooper Neumyer could not definitively state that the Mossberg rifle recovered
was the only rifle that fired this bullet. (hl). However, he was able to determine that
the bullet was fired from the same make and model of the rifle recovered. (Id. at 4 I 1-
12). The same analysis and determination was made with respect to the Winchester
cartridge case. (Id. at 415-16).
On cross-examination, defense counsel for both the Appellant and co-
defendant reiterated that Trooper Neumyer could not definitively state that the bullet
9
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
and cartridge case came from the rifle recovered, (N,T, 6/3-6/7/2013 at 417-16),
Defense counsel also asked Trooper Neumyer about the lack of a trigger guard and
the possible implications that could have on discharge, (Id, at 417), The trooper
testified that anything, including a piece of clothing that applied 3,6 pounds of
pressure to the trigger could cause the dfle to discharge, (Id, at 417 -18),
The Mossberg dfle discussed above was not found at the scene of the
homicide, The rifle was obtained during a separate, but related crime that took place
on May 31,2012,8 The events of that day are as follows:
Pennsylvania State Trooper Christophel' Keppel, a member of the Vice and
Narcotics Unit, received a phone call from one of his confidential informants, Jaycott
Rivera, (N,T, 6/3-6/7/2013 at 349-51), Trooper Keppel first met Jaycott during a raid
of his family home in 2010, (Id, at 351), In that raid, Jaycott's mother,father, and
wife were arrested on federal drug charges, (Id,), There was no evidence indicating
Jaycott had any involvement with the drug ring, so he was not charged, (Id,), In an
effort to help out his family members, Jaycott agreed to become a confidential
informant. (Id, at 352-53),
On May 31, 2012, around lunchtime, Trooper Keppel testified that he received
a phone call from a member of Jaycott's family, (N,T, 6/3-6/7/2013 at 353), Based
on the nature of the information, Trooper Keppel immediately called Detective Jeff
Spence with the York City Police Department. (Id, at 354), From that point forward,
Trooper Keppel acted as the liaison between Jaycott and the York City Police, (Id, at
354-55),
Jaycott Rivera testified to explain the events leading up to him contacting
Trooper Keppel. After verifying that he was a confidential informant and that his
8The following recitation offacts all relate to case 7000·2012, Because both the homicide and the conspiracy
cases were so closely related, the District Attorney felt it was necessary to 'try the cases together,
10
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
motivation was to help out his family, Jaycott indicated that he knew both the
Appellant and the co-defendant from a small social group, (N,T, 6/3-6/7/2013 at 240-
42), On the morning of May 31,2012, Jaycott was home with his wife when he
received a phone call from the co-defendant. (rd, at 244-45), During that phone cal1,
the co-defendant told Jaycott that they needed to go on a mission, but that he could
not talk about it over the phone, (rd, at 245), Approximately twenty to thirty minutes
later, the co-defendant, along with the Appel1ant, arrived at Jaycott's house, (Id, at
246),
According to Jaycott, the co-defendant and the Appel1ant asked if he had heard
about the murder on Memorial Day, (N,T, 6/3-6/7/2013 at 247), Jaycott said he had
not heard about it, and it was at that point that the co-defendant, while laughing,
pointed to the Appel1ant and stated that he (the Appel1ant) pul1ed the trigger, (Id,),
The Appellant further stated that he wanted the victim's vehicle, and when the victim
refused to give up his keys, the Appellant shot him, (!QJ, The two men told Jaycott
that they needed to go on a mission because they needed money to get out of town,
(Id, at 248), The initial plan was to go to Harrisburg, but.Jaycot testified that he did
not feel safe traveling with the two men, so he suggested they rob an individual
nicknamed the Movie Man in York, Q4, at 248-49), The men agreed to stay in York,
(Id, at 249), Jaycott testified that he picked the Movie Man because he knew that he
was not going to be home that day, (rd,),
After deciding to stay in York and that the target would be the Movie Man,
Jaycott, along with the Appel1ant and co-defendant went to the Movie Man's house to
"check it out." (N,T, 6/3-6/7/2013 at 250-51), Before getting to the house, the three
decided to stop in the park to further discuss their plan, (Id, at 251), After discussing
the plan and casing the Movie Man's house, the three returned to the park, Q4, at
252), Jaycott testified that a man named Wesley brought'them ski masks for the
11
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
"invasion" and that at the co-defendant's request Jaycott hid the masks in the woods.
ad.). After hiding the masks, the three men went back to Jaycott's house and hung
out on his front porch. (Id. at 254). When Jaycott went inside to use the bathroom, he
overheard the Appellant and co-defendant talking. Mat 254-55). According to
Jaycott, he heard the Appellant say "we're going to kill this black bitch," referring to
the Movie Man. (rd. at 255-56).
Upon hearing that statement, Jaycott asked his wife to call Trooper Keppel and
tell him about the murder that happened on May 28 th and ,the plan to rob the Movie
Man later that day.9 (N.T. 6/3-6/7/2013 at 256). Jaycott did speak to Trooper Keppel
himself, but only briefly. (rd. at 257). When Jaycott went back outside, the co-
defendant stated that there were a lot of cops passing by and that he wanted to do the
robbery now, rather than later that evening. (rd.). The three men decided to head
back to the park to collect their thoughts and finalize the robbery plan. (rd. at 257-
58). Before leaving, Jaycott told his wife to keep calling Trooper Keppel to inform
him of their location and plan. (Id. at 258). On the way to the park, the co-defendant
indicated that he was waiting for a book bag. (rd. at 258-59). Jaycott testified that he
knew a rifle was in the bag and that it was the same rifle used in the murder on May
28 th • (rd. at 259). They went to the park, Jaycott got the ski masks out of the woods,
and the three of them began finalizing their plans. (rd. at 260).
Under the guise of calling about his son, Jaycott had been calling his wife
updating her on the plan to rob the Movie Man, so she could in tum update Trooper
Keppel. (N.T. 6/3-6/7/2013 at 261). Jaycott testified that the ultimate plan was to go
into the Movie Man's house, tie him up, and take anything that looked like it was
valuable. (rd. at 262).
'Throughout his testimony, Jaycol! Rivera refers to Trooper Chris Keppel as "Detective Chris," For the
purposes of this opinion, we will use Trooper Keppel's formal titie,
12
Circulated 11/07/2014 02:44 PM
On cross-examination, defense counsel focused on Jaycott's prior inconsistent
statements. Jaycott testified that he remembered speaking to police on May 3 lSI and
June 81h, and he also remembered testifying at a preliminary hearing on September
2 lSI. (N.T. 6/3-617120 I3 at 266-67). In his previous statements, Jaycott told police
that he contacted Trooper Keppel before the Appellant and co-defendant arrived at his
house. (Id. at 267 -68). Defense counsel for the Appellant pressed Jaycott on the
details of his story; specifically, a prior statement that did not mention Harrisburg, a
prior statement that mentioned a drug kingpin in Harrisburg, and whether there were
other individuals involved in the plan.