J-A05004-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
AMIR JAMAL
Appellant No. 2401 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 31, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010549-2011
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and ALLEN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 09, 2015
Appellant, Amir Jamal, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial
convictions for three (3) counts each of criminal attempt and aggravated
assault, and one (1) count each of first degree murder, carrying a firearm
without a license, carrying a firearm on public streets in Philadelphia, and
possessing instruments of crime.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
Appellant raises four issues for our review:
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 2702, 2502(a), 6106, 6108, 907, respectively.
J-A05004-15
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
IN ADMITTING AN ANONYMOUS 911 CALL IDENTIFYING
APPELLANT AS THE SHOOTER WHERE THE FACTS
SUGGEST THAT THE CALLER’S PURPOSE WAS TO
IMPLICATE APPELLANT, RATHER THAN TO RESPOND TO
AN ONGOING EMERGENCY, AND THAT THE CALLER DID
NOT PERSONALLY WITNESS THE SHOOTING?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
IN ALLOWING WITNESS LAMAR MORRIS TO PROVIDE
EVIDENCE ABOUT HIS STEP-BROTHER’S MENTAL HEALTH,
WHICH WAS BOTH IRRELEVANT AND LAY OPINION
TESTIMONY WITHOUT STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND
OBSERVATIONS UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN
ADMITTING TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR
SECURING ARREST AND SEARCH WARRANTS WHICH
REPEATEDLY REFERRED TO THE OFFICER SWEARING AND
SECURING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND PROSECUTOR’S
APPROVAL OF THE FACTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF
PROBABLE CAUSE, THUS IMPROPERLY BOLSTERING THE
PROSECUTION’S CASE?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR AND ABUSE ITS DISCRETION
BY ADMITTING TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT ABOUT
COMMONWEALTH WITNESS DERRICK PHILLIPS BEING
INTIMIDATED WHERE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT
APPELLANT WAS CONNECTED TO ANY INTIMIDATION?
(Appellants’ Brief at 1-2).
“Admission of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court
and will be reversed only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused
its discretion.” Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 570 Pa. 117, 135, 808
A.2d 893, 904 (2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 919, 123 S.Ct. 2284, 156
L.Ed.2d 137 (2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. Stallworth, 566 Pa. 349,
363, 781 A.2d 110, 117 (2001)).
-2-
J-A05004-15
Admissibility depends on relevance and probative value.
Evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a
material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue
more or less probable or supports a reasonable inference
or presumption regarding a material fact.
Drumheller, supra at 135, 808 A.2d at 904 (quoting Stallworth, supra at
363, 781 A.2d at 117-18).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Steven R.
Geroff, we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, dated May 23, 2014, at 7-19) (finding:
1) court properly admitted recording of telephone call to 911 operator;
unidentified caller’s statements were non-testimonial and did not violate
Confrontation Clause of Pennsylvania or United States Constitutions; caller
telephoned 911 twelve minutes after shooting; call came from payphone
approximately four blocks away from crime scene; shooting left several
people injured and caused mass exodus from crowded public park; 911 call
occurred during heat of moment and while shooter remained uncaptured;
caller made statements to obtain police assistance; 2) court properly
admitted Mr. Morris’ testimony that his step-brother, David Nole, has mental
problems; Mr. Morris was eyewitness to shooting; Mr. Morris’ first statement
to police described shooter as light-skinned; Mr. Morris’ second statement to
police identified Appellant as shooter; Mr. Morris also identified Appellant as
-3-
J-A05004-15
shooter at trial; on cross-examination, defense counsel forced Mr. Morris to
concede Appellant is not light-skinned; Mr. Morris explained Mr. Nole told
him shooter was light-skinned, but Mr. Nole had mental problems and was
easily confused; Mr. Morris’ testimony about Mr. Nole was not elicited for
opinion itself, but to provide reason why Mr. Morris would discount Mr.
Nole’s statements; moreover, Mr. Morris was competent to provide opinion
about Mr. Nole; even if court improperly admitted Mr. Morris’ testimony, any
error was harmless; 3) court properly admitted Detective Jenkins’ testimony
detailing process for obtaining arrest and search warrants; Superior Court
rejected similar arguments in Commonwealth v. Stokes, 38 A.3d 846
(Pa.Super. 2011), holding police testimony regarding district attorney’s
approval of criminal charges did not result in impermissible bolstering; 4)
court did not err in admitting Detective Jenkins’ testimony regarding
Commonwealth witness’ interaction with gallery members outside
courtroom; Detective Jenkins testified that unidentified gallery members
approached Mr. Phillips while he was sequestered; Detective Jenkins did not
hear conversation between Mr. Phillips and gallery members, but detective
added that Mr. Phillips was reluctant to testify; during closing argument,
prosecutor speculated gallery members told Mr. Phillips not to identify
Appellant as shooter; testimony and closing argument did not result in unfair
trial; Detective Jenkins did not testify that gallery members threatened Mr.
Phillips, and jury could not conclude gallery members spoke to Mr. Phillips on
-4-
J-A05004-15
Appellant’s behalf; regarding closing argument, prosecutor’s remark
amounted to comment on potential for false testimony due to pressure
within community; prosecutor’s remark did not have unavoidable effect of
prejudicing jury). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court
opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/9/2015
-5-